PSC482G, Spring 2000
Answers to Assignment 20
Reactions to Warren Report 2—Curtis Crawford
(N.B. This assignment is for your guidance only. It need not be turned in.)
Read: “20 Questions for the Warren Commission,” (Curtis Crawford, Radio Lecture, WBAI-FM, 29 September 1964)
Answer these questions (briefly):
Mr. Crawford uses this lecture to set out in detail a series of carefully considered early reactions to the Warren Report. He uses the format of eight assertions that the Warren Commission had to prove and 20 questions related to them. At the end of the lecture, he offers his “box scores” on how well the Commission proved the assertions and answered the questions. Read this article carefully and see how much you agree with his scores. We will discuss them in class.
The
assertions and Crawford’s answers:
A. That three shots were fired. The Commission is frankly
uncertain. They should be, for the evidence is actually uncertain.
B. That all these shots came from the southeast corner of
the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Considerable evidence for,
but important contradictions in the evidence. Ballistic evidence shows no
contradictions for the two bullets that were found.
C. That the shots were fired by a 6.50 millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial #C2766. Strong evidence for, but not conclusive.
The two bullets that were found undoubtedly came from Oswald’s MC rifle.
D. That this rifle was at the alleged scene of the crime at
12:30 p.m. Good evidence for, but previous evidence against partly unexplained. Seymour
Weitzman made a simple error of identification that was soon corrected.
E. That
Oswald was there at the same time. Some evidence for, previous evidence against
rebutted. Agreed.
F. That the Carcano C2766 belonged to Oswald. Overwhelming
evidence for, one probably minor point unexplained. Agreed.
G. That Oswald had a rifle with him that morning on his way
to work. Preponderance of evidence for. Agreed.
H. That
Oswald was capable of the marksmanship involved. No evidence for, good evidence
against. Disagree. If first shot missed, there was plenty of time. Actual
shooting was poor.
QUESTION 1: How many bullets were actually found? Where
were they found? How did they get there? Two or three bullets were found,
probably two. One almost whole bullet was found in Governor Connally’s
stretcher (not President Kennedy’s). Two fairly small fragments were found in
the limousine, which could have come from one bullet or two; the Commission
supposes one. The bullet in Connally’s stretcher dropped from his thigh; the
fragments on the floor were splinters from the bullet which crashed through the
President’s skull. Agreed.
QUESTION 2: What do the films show concerning the
trajectory of the severed portion of the President’s skull? What do the films
show concerning the position of the Governor when he was hit? Seems to be no
answer to the first part. On the second part, the Commission was unable to
decide on the basis of the films when or in what position the Governor was
struck. Disagree about first part—Z film frame 313 shows two large fragments of skull
flying forward and up. On second part, SBT requires Connally to have been struck
at same time as Kennedy., i.e., around Z 210.
QUESTION 3: According to the text of the autopsy, what was
the course of the bullets which struck the President? Bullet 1 hit the President
5½ inches below the tip of the right mastoid process, 5½ inches in from the
right shoulder joint. The autopsy says the bullet then went through the upper
part of the back, through the neck, and exited at about the Adam’s apple.
Bullet 2 entered the rear of the skull, near the base on the right. Most of its
explosive force was spent in the skull, blowing part of the skull upward and
out. The report is quite specific about the course of both bullets, and would be
terribly strong evidence that the bullets came from behind. Agreed.
QUESTION 4: Was the Nov. 22 autopsy evidence incorporated
in the Dec. 9 FBI report? If not, why not? The Warren Report as released does
not answer this question. Not the business of the WCR to explain the FBI’s
report.
QUESTION 5: How many bullets were identifiable by
ballistics tests? If any were not, what is the evidence that they were fired by
the Carcano C2766? Two bullets were identifiable by ballistics tests as having
been fired by the C2766 to the exclusion of all other weapons; the evidence that
a third bullet was fired by the same rifle rests on the existence of the three
spent cartridges, all from the C2766. This evidence would be conclusive if we
could assume: (a) that only three shots were fired, and (b) that no other
plausible explanation exists for the third empty shell. Agreed.
QUESTION
6: How is it that Officer Weitzman described as a German Mauser 7.65 a rifle
clearly labeled Made Italy Cal. 6.5? The Commission agrees that Weitzman thought
it was a Mauser. But Weitzman never actually picked it up. He and Deputy Boone
found the rifle, and reported its location to Lt. Day, who photographed it in
the position it was lying. Then Capt. Fritz picked it up, and ejected a live
shell. Officer Weitzman never got a good look at the top of the rifle, where the
origin and caliber are printed. This seems to be a plausible answer. But it raises further
questions. Did Boone, Day and Fritz agree with Weitzman that the rifle was a
Mauser? If not, how was it that news reports that first day, and even some the
second day, referred to the rifle as a Mauser? First part: agreed. Second
part: who cares as long as it was relatively promptly understood to have been an
MC?
QUESTION 7 to the Commission was: Does Klein’s Sporting
Goods’ copy of the bill of sale show the same serial number and specifications
as the Commission’s Carcano? Answer: the bill of sale does show the same
serial number, but lists no specifications. There is no evidence in the Report
that the Commission noticed the discrepancy between the rifle as ordered and the
rifle as shipped. Agreed, but so what?
QUESTION 8: Does the Report examine and explain the
differences between published versions of the snapshot showing Oswald with a
rifle and a pistol? The Report alludes to differences, but does not provide
details. It explains the unspecified differences as touching up to make the
picture clearer. No information as to what was touched up; no criticism of such
tampering with important evidence. Agreed, but no evidence that the
retouching was anything but benign.
QUESTION 9: Did the Warren Commission conduct precise
experiments duplicating the circumstances of the assassination to determine
whether a moderately skilled rifleman is capable of the speed and accuracy
required if all the shots came from the Depository? They conducted experiments;
but the experiments did not duplicate the circumstances of the assassination.
Instead of mediocre riflemen, apparently experts were used. Instead of moving
targets, stationary targets were used. Agreed.
QUESTION 10: How rigorously were witnesses before the
Commission cross-examined? Does the Report point up impartially contradictions
in the testimony of witnesses? The answer to the first part of the question must
await the supplementary volumes with their transcripts of the examination of
witnesses. Concerning the second part, the Report often calls attention to
contradictory statements, in testimony favorable to its thesis as well as in
testimony opposed. First part: disagree. No cross-examination of witnesses
other than to clarify answers. Second part: agreed.
QUESTION 11: How radically did the other three men in the
line-up differ in appearance from Oswald? Does the Commission consider that the
number and resemblance of the men in the line-up were sufficient adequately to
test witness reliability? The Report provides no detailed descriptions and no
photographs of the other men in the line-up. It states in a brief paragraph that
the line-up was consistent with Dallas police practice which, in this respect,
it does not criticize. I find the Report’s answer to both parts of QUESTION 11
cryptic and unsatisfactory. Agreed. Howard Brennan notes in his book that his
line-up was fudged, and he was asked leading questions about who was Oswald.
QUESTION 12: Why was Brewer’s testimony not sworn until
two weeks after the assassination? The Report does not ask or answer this
question. Agreed, but doesn’t seem like a big deal.
QUESTION 13: Was the passport granted within 24 hours? The
Report says, Yes, along with those of 24 other persons whose applications were
sent from New Orleans at the same time. The “24 others” seems to me good
evidence against official intervention to speed Oswald’s passport. Agreed.
QUESTION 14: In Nov. 1959 when Oswald defected to the
Soviet Union, was he acquainted with secret radio frequencies, authentication
codes, and radar capabilities, through his work as a Marine technician? If so,
was the possibility of espionage thoroughly investigated when he returned to the
United States? The Commission accepts the contention that Oswald, as a Marine,
knew secret data, but is unclear about its importance. The Commission implies
that no investigation took place as to whether Oswald might have given
information to the Soviet government, and gives no explanation why the
possibility of espionage was treated so lightly. I suggest this answer is most
inadequate. Disagree somewhat. First, Oswald had no access to classified data
during the last months of his time in the Marines. Second, his clearance was
only “confidential,” the lowest possible level. This is the level that every
cadet entering the service academies gets automatically.
QUESTION 15: What does Oswald’s FBI dossier show as the
FBI evaluation of him immediately previous to the assassination? Why was he not
under surveillance during the President’s visit? The Report answers this
question in detail, which we haven’t time to analyse in this broadcast. In
general, I find the answer quite reasonable. Agreed.
QUESTION 16: Why was not the assassination area completely
sealed off, requiring those who attempted to leave to account for themselves?
The Commission answers that the Depository was sealed off, but too late to stop
the assassin. The Report does not discuss whether a larger area should have been
sealed off. Agreed. Don’t forget the initial confusion about the source of
the shots. Most people looked toward the fence and the railroad yards first.
QUESTION
17: Does the Commission examine whether civil rights were denied, (a) to Oswald,
by public accusation and denial of counsel, and (b) to Oswald’s wife, by
prolonged official custody and interrogation? The Commission answers that the right to a fair trail was
violated by public discussion of the evidence. It denies any official attempt to
hinder Oswald from obtaining a lawyer, and cites some official assistance. It
states that the visiting ACLU lawyers were told that Oswald had been informed of
his rights and was being allowed to seek a lawyer. Concerning Secret Service
custody of Oswald’s wife, the only answer I have been able to find consists of
two sentences in Appendix XII which deny any coercion without presenting grounds
for the denial. Agreed.
QUESTION
18: At what point did the United States government decide that the evidence
conclusively demonstrated Oswald’s sole guilt? The Report does not raise or
answer this question. Agreed.
QUESTION 19: Up until that time, was the Justice Department
conducting an extensive manhunt on the possibility that the assassin or
assassins were still at large? The government investigated extensively the
possibility that Oswald had received instructions, assistance, or payment, but
apparently never proceeded on the assumption that the assassin or an assassin
might still be at large. Agreed.
QUESTION 20: If such a manhunt was underway at any time
after the arrest of Oswald, why was the assistance of the communication media
and of the general public not requested? The Report does not raise or answer
this question. I suspect that they found Oswald too quickly to feel that they
needed outside
help.
Crawford's
box score on the 20 questions is as follows:
Seven test questions answered well—1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15.
Seven test questions answered inadequately—8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19.
Six test questions were not answered at all—2, 4, 12, 16, 18, 20.
I agree with all but parts of three of these questions.