Read:
Jim Marrs’s Crossfire: Part III, Aftermath, relevant portions of pp. 313–434.

Answer these questions (briefly):
1. Overall, what kinds of evidence does Marrs stress in "Aftermath"? What kinds of opportunities does this approach offer him?

2. Contrast Marrs’s account of the Tippit shooting with the Warren Commission’s. How would you rate Marrs’s points?

3. Briefly list some of the "strange points" about Oswald’s arrest that were noted by Marrs. Does he present strong evidence for any of them?

4. Can you begin to see a pattern in Marrs’s raising doubts concerning official evidence? Try to summarize the logic behind a typical "doubting criticism" and see where it gets you. Does the doubter or the doubtee have the burden of proof?

5. Comment on Marrs’s discussion of Darrell Tomlinson and the stretcher bullet (pages 363–365), particularly on the conclusion: "It appears more than likely that the stretcher holding the bullet did not belong to Connally."

6. On page 365 and on into page 367, Marrs discusses the possibility that CE 399 was planted on the stretcher. Evaluate his argument. What conclusion does he reach?

7. What is the significance of the position of Kennedy’s back wound discussed on pages 370–371? How do you rate Marrs’s arguments?

8. On page 372, Marrs discusses the controversy about the size and placement of the president’s large head wound. He lists three possibilities why the accounts from the two hospitals differed. Can you think of a fourth possibility? (Hint: It has to do with the reason we have medical examiners in the first place.)

9. Marrs devotes a long section to the question of whether Oswald and Ruby had been acquainted. What does he conclude? What can you conclude from his evidence?

10. On page 421 Marrs states; "But how could Ruby have known the transfer plans in such detail as to be in the right place at the right time?" and then considers various sources for tipping Ruby off. Evaluate the logic of this whole section.

Back to list of assignments