More Light on the Kennedy Assassination
V. Berezhkov
Book
Reviews
Joachim Joesten, Die Wahrheit über den Kennedy-Mord.
Wie und warum der Warren-Report lügt.
Schweizer Verlagshaus AG, Zürich, 1966
New Times No. 43, 26 October 1966, pp. 28–32.
With the publication of the Warren Commission’s report on the
assassination of President Kennedy the official investigation was terminated and
the case pronounced closed. Yet the circumstances of the crime continue to
agitate the minds of many Americans. The report has not satisfied American and
world opinion. A Washington Post poll this month revealed that three out
of five distrust the Commission’s findings. Book after book has been appearing
in the United States and in other countries casting grave doubt on them,
demonstrating them to be biased and unsound. Their authors seek, as it were, to
continue the investigation.
In recent months Harold Weisberg in “Whitewash” and Edward Jay
Epstein in “Inquest,” to name only two, have virtually disproved the
official theory that Oswald was the assassin. Now a second book on the subject
by the American publicist Joachim Joesten, “The Truth About the Kennedy
Assassination,” has come out in Switzerland. His first, “Oswald: Assassin or
Fall Guy,” appeared in New York in 1964 (see New Times, No. 38, 1964).
After its publication the clouds gathered so think over Joesten that he thought
it the better part of discretion to remove to Switzerland. But even there he was
under the watchful eye of those who want to keep the facts about the Kennedy
assassination secret. This summer Joesten was suddenly arrested in Zurich and
put in a mental hospital. He got himself out of it with great difficulty. He
later declared at a press conference that the Swiss authorities had acted on the
insistence of the American secret service and that his materials and notes on
the assassination had been stolen from him.
Joesten gave his new book the subtitle “How and Why the Warren Report
Lies.” He shows this on the basis of his close and painstaking study of the 26
bulky tomes of the report and its appended documents, only in rare instances
drawing on evidence other than that contained in it.
President Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone and on his
own initiative¾that
is the official theory upheld by the Commission. Though Joesten does not name
the real killers, he implants in the reader’s mind grave doubts of the
validity of the conclusion. Many things point to the existence of a secret plot
and carefully prepared plan to assassinate the President. Chief Justice Earl
Warren on one occasion told newsmen that for security reasons some of the facts
about President Kennedy’s assassination might not be made public for 75 years.
Joesten chose the statement as the epigraph of his new book.
Much of the author’s attention is centred on Lee Harvey Oswald who was
promptly declared the assassin and who was himself killed at a police station by
Jack Ruby two days later. He follows Oswald’s movements closely, giving the
details of his trip to the Soviet Union, his marriage in Minsk, the
circumstances of the Oswald family’s return to the United States, and then
going on to the anti-Soviet fabrications cited in the Warren Report, patently
meant to deflect public attention from the essential issue. But it is not these
chapters that are of real interest. The important thing is the conclusion the
author draws. Official propaganda painted Oswald as a man who, carried away by
Marxism, decided to settle in the Soviet Union and then became disillusioned.
Joesten shows that in reality Oswald was a secret agent of the U.S. intelligence
service. Since he was soon seen through in the Soviet Union and could not carry
out his assignment, the American authorities hastened to return him to the
United States. The CIA made one more attempt to utilize him, this time for
subversive activity against revolutionary Cuba. It was for that Oswald traveled
to Mexico where he vainly sought to obtain a Cuban visa. Failing of this, he
returned to the United States and
found himself in the position of a discredited agent.
This, writes Joesten, was just at the time when Dallas ultra-Rightist
elements were plotting an attempt on President Kennedy’s life. For them Oswald
was a find: his questionable past offered the opportunity , in their opinion,,
to make a lone-demented-killer solution credible to the public.
Riddles of the
Warren Report
In some measure this was realized when the crime was committed, but as
time passed it became harder to maintain the official version. This is in effect
borne out by the Report itself. It contains no facts proving Oswald’s guilt,
gives no explanation of his possible motives. The theory that he sought the fame
of a Herostratus is beneath criticism, for them why did he vehemently deny his
guilt when questioned at the police station? Nor does the Report offer any
rational motive for Ruby’s killing of Oswald. The plea that he did not like
the expression on Oswald’s face or that he wanted to spare Jacqueline Kennedy
the unpleasantness of a public trial of Oswald cannot be taken seriously. All of
this remains a profound mystery if one closes one’s eyes to the fact that
there were no few people in the United States who did indeed hate Kennedy and
were capable of taking extreme measures to get rid of him. Joesten writes:
“The world did not know—it still does not, for the Warren Commission concealed this bitter truth from it—that Kennedy had envenomed enemies in his own camp. First among there were:
“The billionaire oil tycoons of Texas, all the Hunts, Murchisons, etc., whose tax privileges he was planning to cut;
The retired generals whose military wings he had cut and many of whom live in or around Dallas:
“The ultra-Right secret John Birch Society, whose fanatical blindness goes so far that it has even accused the conservative Presidents Truman and Eisenhower of being docile tools of world communism;
“The fanatical racists of the South, banded together in the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations;
“Influential elements in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the most powerful secret service in the world, who hated Kennedy (pp. 20, 21).
Of interest in this connection is the opinion of Harriet van Horne, a
well-known American journalist. Joesten cites her as writing in the New York World Telegram and Sun (September 29, 1964) that the
criticism she had to make of the Warren Report was that it ignored the
absolutist climate of Dallas as a contributing or catalyzing factor in the
Kennedy assassination. Dallas, she continued, was a city where the rich did
indeed inherit the earth. And they ruled it with guns, money, and the whip of
hate. One Texan told her that after Kennedy’s death one could often hear it
said in Dallas that they should have invited him sooner. Yet the Report was
disappointingly silent on the guilt of Dallas.
The Warren Commission called more than 550 witnesses, but the record
shows that it accepted as reliable only evidence supporting the official theory.
On one pretext or another it dismissed or discounted evidence conflicting with
it.
Oswald’s Double
At times when from official data Oswald is known to have been elsewhere,
certain witnesses saw in the environs of Dallas a man who called himself Oswald.
This person—everything points to his having been another CIA agent—told
things about himself that cast a shadow on the name of Oswald even before the
assassination.
The mysterious double appears repeatedly in the Commission’s documents.
He was seen most often early in November 1963, that is, on the eve of the
assassination, at a rifle range near Irving (a Dallas suburb). He was an
amazingly good marksman and loudly boasted of his ability. To all who had the
curiosity to ask him he gave his name as Oswald. Yet it is known that the real
Oswald was a poor shot: his service record in the marines confirms this. Why the
second Oswald? Joesten writes:
“1. There was in the Dallas area a man who looked very much like Lee Oswald.
“2. This man was an excellent sniper. He missed no opportunity to demonstrate his marksmanship to onlookers.
“3. He owned a foreign rifle similar to Oswald’s (a Mauser or Carcano), with a Japanese gunsight.
“4. He practised shooting in two rifle ranges in the neighbourhood of Irving, where Oswald lived.
Was all this sheer chance? Was there design behind it? (p. 233).
It requires no great acumen to perceive that the double was needed in
order to make it appear later that Oswald was a good shot. Joesten probably
comes very near the truth when he suggests that the double was one Larry Crafard,
who worked for Ruby. Crafard was the same age as Oswald and resembled him
strongly. And Crafard vanished from Dallas the day after the assassination. For
some time all trace of him was lost but the Warren Commission located and
questioned him. The Commission confirms Crafard’s striking resemblance to
Oswald but leaves it at that.
Kind Mrs. Paine
No less suspicion attaches to the manner in which Oswald came to be
employed in the Dallas School Book Depository. The Commission deliberately
by-passed this question, although it should have gone into it since the official
version has it that it was from a sixth-floor window that the fatal shots were
fired.
The stage here was taken by a certain Mrs. Paine who, judging by
everything, is also associated with the secret service. At a time when Oswald,
having no steady job, was in financial straits Mrs. Paine invited Marina Oswald
and her two children to live with her. On Saturdays Lee Oswald joined his
family. Mrs. Paine did Oswald a big service—got him a job at the Book
Depository. When he went for his interview she gave him a map of the city on
which he marked in red pencil the best way of getting to the Depository.
After the assassination this map, found in Oswald’s room, served as a
major piece of evidence against him. Later—and the Warren Commission admits
this—the true origin and purpose of the map was established. It stands to
reason that an unemployed vagabond like Oswald could not have known more than a
month in advance of either the President’s impending visit to Dallas or the
route to be taken by his motorcade. But, asks Joesten, was it by chance that
Mrs. Paine furnished the prosecution beforehand with one more piece of evidence
against him?
Why Kennedy went to Dallas
Joesten presents interesting data about how the question of going to
Dallas arose. The original plan of the President’s tour did not include
Dallas. Later, as the Dallas Morning News
reported on November 23, 1963, leaders of the Democratic Party urged the
President to drive through Fort Worth and Dallas so as to give a greater number
of voters the chance to see him (p. 212). Kennedy consented.
“Unfortunately,” writes Joesten, “the Warren Commission did not enquire
what ‘leaders of the Democratic Party’ persuaded President Kennedy to ride
in a slow-moving motorcade through the inner streets of Fort Worth and Dallas.
Future historians unquestionably will” (p. 213).
Two different routes were planned from the airfield to the suburban
exhibition hall where the President was to speak at a luncheon. The first ran
along the edge of Dallas. The second, which was the route finally chosen, ran
through its central streets. But there was a last-minute change in this route
that even Governor Connally, as was later established, knew nothing about though
he rode with Kennedy.
This was the ill-starred detour which, the Warren Report explains, was
made in order to comply with the traffic rules in the chosen area. Because of
this detour the motorcade had to slow down to 15–20 kilometres an hour and
pass by the Book Depository. Had the car followed a direct route they could have
driven at a speed of 50–60 kilometres, which would have made it much harder
for even a crack sniper to hit his target. As things were, the President’s car
came to be at an equally close distance from the Depository and from the
overpass ahead, behind which the conspirators could easily have hidden. Kennedy
thus came under crossfire.
Joesten draws the conclusion that the attack on Kennedy was thoroughly
planned out beforehand: the ambush was laid in accordance with the strategy and
tactic of guerilla warfare, in which “the high-ranking military specialists
party to the conspiracy were peculiarly experienced” (p. 221).
How many snipers?
One more mystery in the case is the murder of police officer Tippit. The
Nashes,. a New York couple, who went to Dallas after the Warren Report was made
public, discovered, as they reported in the press, that the Commission had not
taken the trouble to question witnesses of this killing. It never summoned Frank
Wright, who had been sitting at the time art the window of his apartment
opposite the spot where Tippit was shot. Wrights name and address were entered
in the register of the funeral parlour which sent a car for Tippit’s body. He
told the Nashes that on hearing the shot he had run out to see Tippit lying in a
pool of blood and his slayer standing over him. The slayer had bent over Tippit
to see if he was dead, ran to a gray Plymouth car, got behind the wheel and
driven away. Who shot Tippit? Not Oswald, for according to the Warren Report he
had no car and didn’t even drive.
True, the gun with which Tippit was shot was later found in Oswald’s
possession. Couldn’t it have been planted on him? asks Joesten.
And, he goes on to say, may not Tippit have been implicated in
Kennedy’s assassination? The Warren Report contains the evidence of a witness
who saw in the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository a man with a gun whose
description does not match Oswald’s. Several witnesses testified that
following the shots a man came running out of the Depository and got into a
slow-moving car which immediately spurted forward and vanished. That man was not
Oswald.
On the day of the assassination a large group of workers were reflooring
the room from which the shots were fired. They left the room at noon but one of
them, a young Negro named Williams, stayed behind. He sat down at the window to
have his lunch and wait for the Presidential motorcade. The remains of the lunch
and an empty Coca-Cola bottle, which long figured as material evidence against
Oswald, were really left by Williams. At 12:20 Williams went down to the fifth
floor to join his workmates. All this is confirmed in the Commission’s
documents.
This means that after Williams’ departure Oswald had only tem minutes
in which to barricade himself with packing cases, assemble his rifle which he is
supposed to have brought disassembled in a brown paper bag, regulate the
gunsight and take up his position. As tests ordered by the Warren Commission
showed, the biggest experts could not assemble the rifle in under six minutes.
At best, therefore, Oswald was left with only four minutes in which to drag over
the cases, regulate the sight and make ready to shoot.
There is the additional question of how Oswald could have built his
barricade of pretty heavy packing cases by himself. Obviously, the wall of boxes
forming a nest for the sniper at the window could only have been arranged
beforehand. There had been people working in the room. Maybe one of them had
helped to arrange the nest? The Warren Commission did not inquire into this.
Four versions
The various versions of the number of shots fired and the number of
bullets which struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally make a strange
story.
The first version, circulated from November 22 to 26, was that the first
bullet hit the President in the throat and lodged in his right lung, the second
wounded Governor Connally, and the third struck the President below the nape of
his neck and was the one to cause death.
This version was discarded because it was believed that all three bullets
had been fired by Oswald at a receding car. Since in that case the first bullet
could not have entered the throat, a second explanation was suggested: that
Kennedy had turned his head sharply and the bullet, aimed at his back, had
struck his throat instead. In all the rest the second version, maintained form
November 26 to December 18, coincided with the first.
From a reconstruction of the events on the spot it emerged that however
Kennedy may have turned his head the bullet could not have hit him in the
throat. It was therefore announced that the first bullet had entered his back
and gone clear through his neck.
This third version did not last long either. In May 1964 it was replaced
by version No. 4 which is presented as the correct one in the Warren Report. To
explain away the fact that one of the bullets landed on the pavement without
hitting anyone, which, if no more than three shots were fired, left only two for
Kennedy and Connally, it was decided that the first bullet struck the President
in the back, emerged from his neck and then wounded Governor Connally.
Joesten casts grave doubt on this version. In the first place it is
highly improbable that one bullet, zigzagging in the most amazing fashion, could
pass through two human bodies and even injure the second in two places, the hand
and leg. Secondly, the version conflicts withy the original statements of the
surgeons who operated on Kennedy in Dallas in an attempt to save his life. They
unanimously affirmed—and this was published in the newspapers at the
time—that the throat wound was not an exit but an entry wound, and that the
bullet had not gone clear through the President’s body but had lodged in the
lung. If that is so, someone shot at the President from the front as well, and
there were not three shots but more, as many witnesses have testified.
An autopsy performed on the spot would have cleared this question up. But
contrary to the laws of the United States and of all other civilized countries
and over the protests of experts in forensic medicine, Kennedy’s body was
flown to Washington and the autopsy was tardily performed in a naval hospital.
Being bound by military discipline, the navy doctors gave no information to the
press.
In these circumstances the official report of the autopsy appears to have
been adapted to the official version of the assassination.: it also mentions a
bullet which entered the President’s back. How, it may them be asked, could
the doctors and nurses in the Dallas hospital have failed to see a wound in his
back? They saw only two wounds, in the throat and the nape of the neck. And
although Kennedy was stripped to the waist, no one noticed a bullet hole either
in his jacket, his shirt or his undervest.
Joesten cites Dr. Robert Shaw, under whose direction the Dallas operation
was performed, as saying that the first bullet hit the President in the trachea
and from there traveled to the right lung. That bullet, Dr. Shaw, said, was
extracted during the autopsy. Consequently, it could not have wounded Governor
Connally, which means there were at least four shots, not three. It is
significant that Governor Connally insisted all along that he was hit by the
second bullet, after he saw President Kennedy clap his hands to his throat.
Thirteen Murders
The Warren Report ignores all these discrepancies, evades
all these enigmas and merely repeats the lone-killer theory put forward in the
first days. Not everyone believed that theory. There were some in the United
States who wanted to get to the truth of the crime. This turned out to be a
dangerous undertaking.
Joesten focuses attention on a series of articles unknown to the broad
public. These articles, published in the Midlothian
Mirror (Midlothian is near Dallas), name journalists and other persons who
were killed because they “knew too much.”
One of the journalists, Bill Hunter, was shot by a policeman who claimed
he had dropped his revolver and accidentally pulled the trigger while picking it
up. The policeman got off scot-free. Another journalist, Jim Koethe, was killed
in his home. As he was coming out of his bathroom he was felled by a blow on the
throat and died on the spot. His murderer was never found. A man associated with
the Ruby case died suddenly in a hotel room. It was given out that he died of
heart failure. Dorothy Kilgallen, a New York journalist who had succeeded in
interviewing Ruby, died in mysterious circumstances before she could publish her
story in full. In all, the Midlothian
Mirror reports, thirteen persons have died because they came too close to
the carefully guarded secret of the men who plotted the Kennedy assassination.
Only recently the death verdict on Ruby, who had so adroitly removed a
dangerous witness, was set aside. His case will be heard again and it is
believed that this time he will get off with a two- or three-year sentence. Why
this tender care for Oswald’s slayer? That is one more suspicious aspect of
the Kennedy assassination, one more unsolved mystery.
Back to New Times
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to WC Period