-Caveat Lector-
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/russell/Sixteen_questions_
Russell.html
16 Questions on the
Assassination
By Bertrand
Russell
The Minority of One, 6 September 1964, pp. 6-8.
The official version of the assassination of President Kennedy has
been
so riddled with contradictions that it is been abandoned and
rewritten no less
than three times. Blatant fabrications have received very
widespread coverage by
the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone
unpublished.
Photographs, evidence and affidavits have been doctored out of
recognition. Some
of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey
Oswald have been
completely blacked out. Meanwhile, the F.B.I., the police and the
Secret Service
have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence
to give.
Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary
circumstances.
It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the Warren
Commission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before the
publication of the Warren Commission’s report, leaks to the press have made
much of its contents predictable. Because of the high office of its members and
the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission has been
widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce the truth. An
impartial examination of the composition and conduct of the Commission suggests
quite otherwise.
The Warren Commission has been utterly unrepresentative of the American
people. It consisted of two Democrats, Senator Russell of Georgia and
Congressman Boggs of Louisiana, both of whose racist views have brought shame on
the United States; two Republicans, Senator Cooper of Kentucky and Congressman
Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the latter of whom is a leader of his local
Goldwater movement and an associate of the F.B.I.; Allen Dulles, former director
of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Mr. McCloy, who has been referred to as
the spokesman for the business community. Leadership of the filibuster in the
Senate against the Civil Rights Bill prevented Senator Russell from attending hearings
during the p
eriod. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court, Earl Warren, who rightly commands respect, was finally persuaded, much
against his will, to preside over the Commission, and it was his involvement
above all else that helped lend the Commission an aura of legality and
authority. Yet many of its members were also members of those very groups which
have done so much to distort and suppress the facts about the assassination.
Because of their connection with the Government, not one member would have been
permitted under U.S. law to serve on a jury had Oswald faced trial. It is small
wonder that the Chief Justice himself remarked that the release of some of the
Commission’s information “might not be in your lifetime” Here, then, is my
first question: Why were all the members
of the Warren Commission closely connected with the U.S. Government?
If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct confirmed
one’s worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that
cross-examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointed
the President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of the
supporters of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. To my
knowledge, he did not attend hearings, but satisfied himself with representation
by observers.
In the name of national security, the Commission’s hearings were held
in secret, thereby continuing the policy which has marked the entire course of
the case. This prompts my second question: If,
as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national
security? Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed
in France during the Dreyfus case: If the
Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in
the strictest secrecy?
************
At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it would
conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do on November 22,
1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What did Oswald do in the U.S.
Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How did Ruby kill Oswald? (5) What is
Ruby’s background? (6) What efforts were taken to protect the President on
November 22? This raises my fourth question: Why did the Warren Commission not
establish a panel to
deal with the question of who
killed President Kennedy?
All the evidence given to the Commission has been classified “Top
Secret,” including even a request that hearings be held in public. Despite
this the Commission itself leaked much of the evidence to the press, though only
if the evidence tended to prove
Oswald the lone assassin. Thus, Chief Justice Warren held a press conference
after Oswald’s wife, Marina, had testified. He said, that she believed her
husband was the assassin. Before Oswald’s brother Robert testified, he gained
the Commission’s agreement not to comment on what he said. After he had
testified for two days, the newspapers were full of stories that “a member of
the Commission” had told the press that Robert Oswald had just testified that
he believed that his brother was an agent of the Soviet Union. Robert Oswald was
outraged by this, and he said that he could not remain silent while lies were
told about his testimony. He had never said this and he had never believed it.
All that he had told the Commission was that he believed his brother was
innocent and was in no way involved in the assassination.
The methods adopted by the Commission have indeed been deplorable, but it
is important to challenge the entire role of the Warren Commission. It stated
that it would not conduct its own investigation, but rely instead on the
existing governmental agencies—the F.B.I., the Secret Service and the Dallas
police. Confidence in the Warren Commission thus presupposes confidence in these
three institutions. Why have so many
liberals abandoned their own responsibility to a Commission whose circumstances
they refuse to examine?
It is known that the strictest and most elaborate security precautions
ever taken for a President of the United States were ordered for November 22 in
Dallas. The city had a reputation for violence and was the home of some of the
most extreme right-wing fanatics in America. Mr. and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson had
been assailed there in 1960 when he was a candidate for the Vice-Presidency.
Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked when he spoke in the city only a
month before Kennedy’s visit. On the morning of November 22, the Dallas Morning News
carried a full
-page advertisement associating the
President with Communism. The city was covered with posters showing the
President’s picture and headed “Wanted for Treason.” The Dallas list of
subversives comprised 23 names, of which Oswald’s was the first. All of them
were followed that day, except Oswald. Why
did the authorities follow many persons as potential assassins and fail to
observe Oswald’s entry into the book depository building while allegedly
carrying a rifle over three feet long?
The President’s route for his drive through Dallas was widely known and
was printed in the Dallas Morning News
on November 22. At the last minute the Secret Service changed a small part of
their plans so that the President left Main Street and turned into Houston and Elm
Streets. This al
teration took the President past the book depository
building from which it is alleged that Oswald shot him. How Oswald is supposed
to have known of this change has never been explained. Why
was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past
Oswald’s place of work?
After the assassination and Oswald’s arrest, judgment was pronounced
swiftly: Oswald was the assassin, and he had acted alone. No attempt was made to
arrest others, no road blocks were set up round the area, and every piece of
evidence which tended to incriminate Oswald was announced to the press by the
Dallas District Attorney, Mr. Wade. In such a way millions of people were
prejudiced against Oswald before there was any opportunity for him to be brought
to trial. The first theory announced by the authorities was that the President’s car
was in Houston
Street, approaching the book depository
building, when Oswald opened fire. When available photographs and eyewitnesses
had shown this to be quite untrue, the theory was abandoned and a new one
formulated which placed the vehicle in its correct position. Meanwhile, however,
D.A. Wade had announced that three days after Oswald’s room in Dallas had been
searched, a map had been found there on which the book depository building had
been circled and dotted lines drawn from the building to a vehicle on Houston
Street, showing the alleged bullet trajectory had been planned in advance. After
the first theory was proved false, the Associated Press put out the following story on
November 27:
“Dallas authorities announced today that there never was
a map.”
The second theory correctly placed the President’s car on Elm Street,
50 to 75 yards past the book depository, but had to contend with the difficulty
that the President was shot from the front, in the throat. How did Oswald manage
to shoot the President in the front from behind? The F.B.I. held a series of
background briefing sessions for Life
magazine, which in its issue of December 6 explained that the President had
turned completely round just at the time he was shot. This too, was soon shown
to be entirely false. It was denied by several witnesses and films, and the
previous issue of Life itself had
shown the President looking forward as he was hit. Theory number two was
abandoned.
In order to retain the basis of all official thinking, that Oswald was
the lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with the
medical evidence altered to fit it. For the first month no Secret Service agent
had ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedy’s life in
the Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with the
doctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrance wound in
the President’s throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet had not ranged
down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could have been so mistaken,
Dr. McClelland advanced two reasons: they had not seen the autopsy report—and
they had not known that Oswald was behind the President! The autopsy report,
they had been told by the Secret Service, showed that Kennedy had been shot from
behind. The agents, however, had refused to show the report to the doctors, who were
entirely depen
dent on the word of the Secret Service for this suggestion.
The doctors made it clear that they were not permitted to discuss the case. The
third theory, with the medical evidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case
against Oswald at this moment. Why has the
medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?
***************
Although Oswald is alleged to have shot the President from behind, there
are many witnesses who are confident that the shots came from the front. Among
them are two reporters from the Forth Worth Star
Telegram, four from the Dallas Morning
News, and two people who were standing in front of the book depository
building itself, the director of the book depository and the vice-president of
the firm. It appears that only two people immediately entered the building: the
director, Mr. Roy S. Truly, and a Dallas police officer, Seymour Weitzman. Both
thought that the shots had come from in front of the President’s vehicle. On
first running in that direction, Weitzman was informed by “someone” that he thought
the shots had c
ome from the building, so he rushed back there. Truly
entered with him in order to assist with his knowledge of the building. Mr.
Jesse Curry, the Chief of Police in Dallas, has stated that he was immediately
convinced that the shots came from the building. If anyone else believes this,
he has been reluctant to say so to date. It is also known that the first
bulletin to go out on Dallas police radios stated that “the shots came from a
triple overpass in front of the presidential automobile.” In addition, there
is the consideration that after the first shot the vehicle was brought almost to
a halt by the trained Secret Service driver, an unlikely response if the shots
had indeed come from behind. Certainly Mr. Roy Kellerman, who was in charge of
the Secret Service operation in Dallas that day, and travelled in the
presidential car, looked to the front as the shots were fired. The Secret
Service has had all the evidence removed from the car, so it is no longer possible to
examine it. W
hat is the
evidence to substantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?
Photographs taken at the scene of the crime could be most helpful. One
young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were
fired took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting, and
was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book depository
building. Two F.B.I. agents immediately took the film which she took. Why
has the F.B.I. refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of
evidence in the whole case?
In this connection it is noteworthy also that it is impossible to obtain
the originals of photographs bearing upon the case. When Time
magazine published a photograph of Oswald’s arrest—the only one ever
seen—the entire background was blacked out for reasons which have never been
explained. It is difficult to recall an occasion for so much falsification of
photographs as has happened in the Oswald case.
The affidavit by Police Office Weitzman, who entered the book depository
building, stated that he found the alleged murder rifle on the sixth floor. (It
was first announced that the rifle had been found on the fifth floor, but this
was soon altered.) It was a German 7.65 mm. Mauser. Late the following day, the
F.B.I. issued its first proclamation. Oswald had purchased in March 1963 an
Italian 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. D.A. Wade immediately altered the
nationality and size of the weapon to conform to the F.B.I. statement.
Several photographs have been published of the alleged murder weapon. On
February 21, Life magazine carried on
its cover a picture of “Lee Oswald with the weapons he used to kill President
Kennedy and Officer Tippitt [sic].” On page 80, Life
explained that the photograph was taken during March or April of 1963. According
to the F.B.I., Oswald purchased his pistol in September 1963. The
New York Times carried a picture of the alleged murder weapon being taken by
police into the Dallas police station. The rifle is quite different. Experts
have stated that no rifle resembling the one in the Life
picture has even been manufactured. The
New York Times also carried the same photograph as Life,
but left out the telescopic sights. On March 2, Newsweek used the same photograph but
painted in an
entirely new
rifle. Then on April 13 the Latin American edition of Life carried the same picture on
its cover as
the U.S. edition had
on February 21, but in the same issue on page 18 it had the same picture with
the rifle altered. How is it that millions
of people have been misled by complete forgeries in the press?
The authorities interrogated Oswald for nearly 48 hours without allowing
him to contact a lawyer, despite his repeated requests to do so. The director of
the F.B.I. in Dallas was a man with considerable experience. American Civil
Liberties Union lawyers were in Dallas requesting to see Oswald and were not
allowed to do so. By interrogating Oswald for 48 hours without access to
lawyers, the F.B.I. created conditions which made a trial of Oswald more
difficult. A confession or evidence obtained from a man held 48 hours in custody
is likely to be inadmissible in a U.S. court of law. The F.B.I. director
conducted his interrogation in a manner which made the use of material secured
in such a fashion worthless to him. This raises the question of whether he
expected the trial to take place.
Another falsehood concerning the shooting was a story circulated by the
Associated Press on November 23 from Los Angeles. This reported Oswald’s
former superior officer in the Marine Corps as saying that Oswald was a crack
shot and a hot-head. The story was published widely. Three hours later AP sent
out a correction deleting the entire story from Los Angeles. The officer had
checked his records and it had turned out that he was talking about another man.
He had never known Oswald. To my knowledge the correction has yet to be
published by a single major publication.
The Dallas police took a paraffin test on Oswald’s face and hands to
try to establish that he had fired a weapon on November 22. The Chief of the
Dallas Police, Jesse Curry, announced on November 23 that the result of the test
“proves Oswald is the assassin.” The Director of the F.B.I. in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area in charge of the investigation stated: “I have seen the
paraffin test. The paraffin test proves that Oswald had nitrates and gunpowder
on his hands and face. It proves he fired a rifle on November 22.” Not only does this
unreliable te
st not prove any such thing, it was later discovered that
the test on Oswald’s face was in fact negative, suggesting that it was
unlikely he fired a rifle that day. Why
was the result of the paraffin test altered before being announced by the
authorities?
************
Oswald, it will be recalled, was originally arrested and charged with the
murder of Patrolman Tippitt [sic]. Tippitt was killed at 1:06 p.m. on November
22 by a man who first engaged him in conversation, then caused him to get out of
the stationary police car in which he was sitting and shot him with a pistol
Miss Helen L. Markham, who states that she is the sole eye-witness to this
crime, gave the Dallas police a description of the assailant. After signing her
affidavit, she was instructed by the F.B.I., the Secret Service and many police
officers that she was not permitted to discuss the case with anyone. The
affidavit’s only description of the killer was that he was a “young white
man.” Miss Markham later revealed that the killer had run right up to her and
past her, brandishing the pistol, and she repeated the description of the
murderer which she had given to the police. He was, she said, “short, a little
heavy, and had somewhat bushy hair.” (The police description of Oswald was
that he was of average height, or a little taller, was slim and had receding
fair hair.) Miss Markham’s affidavit is the entire case against Oswald for the
murder of Patrolman Tippitt, yet District Attorney Wade asserted: “We have
more evidence to prove Oswald killed Tippit than we have to show he killed the
President.” The case against Oswald for the murder of Tippitt, he continued,
was an absolutely strong case. Why was the
only description of Tippitt’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from
the affidavit of the sole eye-witness?
Oswald’s description was broadcast by the Dallas police only 12 minutes
after the President was shot. This raises one of the most extraordinary
questions ever posed in a murder case: Why
was Oswald’s description in connection with the murder of Patrolman Tippitt
broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43 p.m. on November 22, when Tippitt
was not shot until 1:06 p.m.?
According to Mr. Bob Considine, writing in the New York Journal
American, there had been another person who had heard the shots that were
fired at Tippitt. Warren Reynolds had heard shooting in the street from a nearby
room and had rushed to the window to see the murderer run off. Reynolds himself
was later shot through the head by a rifleman. A man was arrested for this crime
but produced an alibi. His girl-friend, Betty Mooney McDonald, told the police
she had been with him at the time Reynolds was shot, according to Mr. Considine.
The Dallas police immediately dropped the charges, even before Reynolds had time
to recover consciousness, and attempt to identify his assailant. The man at once
disappeared, and t
wo days later the police arrested Betty Mooney McDonald on a
minor charge and it was announced that she had hanged herself in the police
cell. She had been a striptease artist in Jack Ruby’s nightclub, according to
Mr. Considine.
Another witness to receive extraordinary treatment in the Oswald case was
his wife, Marina. She was taken to the jail while her husband was still alive
and shown a rifle by Chief of Police Jesse Curry. Asked if it were Oswald’s,
she replied that she believed Oswald had a rifle but that it didn’t look like
that. She and her mother-in-law were in great danger following the assassination
because of the threat of public revenge on them. At this time they were unable
to obtain a single police officer to protect them. Immediately after Oswald was
killed, however, the Secret service illegally held both women against their
will. After three days they were separated and Marina has never again been
accessible to the public. Held in custody for nine weeks and questioned almost
daily by the F.B.I. and Secret Service, she finally testified to the Warren
Commission and, according to Earl Warren, said that she believed her husband was
the assassin. The Chief Justice added that the next day they intended to show
Mrs. Oswald the murder weapon and the Commission was fairly confident that she
would identify it as her husband’s. The following day it was announced that
this had indeed happened. Mrs. Oswald, we are informed, is still in the custody
of the Secret Service. To isolate a witness for nine weeks and to subject her to
repeated questioning by the Secret Service in this manner is reminiscent of
police behavior in other countries, where it is called brainwashing. The only
witness produced to show that Oswald carried a rifle before the assassination
stated that he saw a brown paper parcel about two feet long in the back seat of
Oswald’s car. The rifle which the police “produced” was almost 3½ feet long. How was
it possible fo
r Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s
evidence would be exactly the reverse of what she had previously testified?
After Ruby had killed Oswald, D.A. Wade made a statement about Oswald’s movements
following the
assassination. He explained that Oswald had taken a bus,
but he described the point at which Oswald had entered the vehicle as seven
blocks away from the point located by the bus driver in his affidavit. Oswald,
Wade continued, then took a taxi driven by a Daryll Click, who had signed an
affidavit. An inquiry at the City Transportation Company revealed that no such
taxi driver had ever existed in Dallas. Presented with this evidence, Wade
altered the driver’s name to William Whaley. The driver’s log book showed
that a man answering Oswald’s description had been picked up at 12:30. The
President was shot at 12:31. D.A. Wade made no mention of this. Wade has been
D.A. in Dallas for 14 years and before that was an F.B.I. agent. How
does a District Attorney of Wade’s great experience account for all the
extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony which he has announced during
the Oswald case?
These are only a few of the questions raised by the official versions of
the assassination and by the way in which the entire case against Oswald has
been conducted. Sixteen questions are no substitute for a full examination of
all the factors in this case, but I hope that they indicate the importance of
such an investigation. I am indebted to Mr. Mark Lane, the New York criminal
lawyer who was appointed counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the
information in this article. Mr. Lane’s enquiries, which are continuing, deserve
widespread support
. A Citizen’s Committee of Inquiry has been
established in New York, at Room 422, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York. N.Y.
(telephone YU9-6850) for such a purpose, and comparable committees are being set
up in Europe.
In Britain, I invited people eminent in the intellectual life of the
country to join a “Who Killed Kennedy Committee,” which at the moment of
writing consists of the following people: Mr. John Arden, playwright; Mrs.
Carolyn Wedgwood Benn, from Cincinnati, wife of Anthony Wedgwood Benn, M.P.;
Lord Boyd-Orr, former director-general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural
Organization and a Nobel Peace Prize winner; Mr. John Calder, publisher; Professor
William Empsom,
Professor of English Literature at Sheffield
University; Mr. Victor Golancz, publisher; Mr. Michael Foot, Member of
Parliament; Mr. Kingsley Martin, former editor of the New
Statesman; Sir Compton Mackenzie, writer; Mr. J.B. Priestley, playwright and
author; Sir Herbert Read, art critic; Mr. Tony Richardson, film director; Dr.
Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark; Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius
Professor of Modern History at Oxford University; Mr. Kenneth Tynan, Literary
Manager of the National Theatre; and myself.
We view the problem with the utmost seriousness. U.S. Embassies have long
ago reported to Washington world-wide disbelief in the official charges against
Oswald, but this has scarcely been reflected by the American press. No U.S.
television program or mass circulation newspaper has challenged the permanent
basis of all the allegations—that Oswald was the assassin, and that he acted
alone. It is a task which is left to the American people.
Back to Bertrand Russell
Back to
Critics
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions by the Left
Back
to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to WC Period
Back to History
Back to JFK Home Page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
