With the appointing of the Warren
Commission a week after President Kennedy's assassination, President Johnson
hoped to dispell "damaging rumors" with an exhaustive investigation into all
aspects of the case. On-going legal investigations in Texas were terminated and
all physical evidence shifted from the hands of the Dallas Police Department to
the FBI. With the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald dead, there would be no
legal trial, only a public one. Defendant's rights would be fair game in this
environment of politics. Juriprudence would be just a word , not an issue under
the public microscope.
Chief Justice Earl Warren at first
declined President Johnson's offer to chair the commission, citing the impartial
role of his office. It may have also have been Warren's conviction that the
legal protocol should be maintained: the assassination in Texas came under the
jurisdiction of the state of Texas. It was not a federal crime.
After a meeting in the White House
with LBJ, however, Warren emerged with "tears in his eyes" and a different
conviction. This was supposedly the result of a country-and-duty pep talk from
the president. It also may have been the result of LBJ's implicit reminder to
Warren of his place in the governmental web of deceit!
President Johnson
would have been following the law had he allowed
an autopsy to be performed on JFK's body before it left the state of Texas.
Dallas County Medical Examiner Earl Rose literally had a physical and mental
tug-of-war with the presidential party over this issue in the corridors of
Parkland Hospital as the casket was being wheeled out. . William Manchester
describes this scene in "Death of A President":
Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman: My
friend, this is the body of the President of the United States, and we are going
to take it back to Washington.
Rose: No. That's not the way things
are . . . When there's a homicide, we must have an autopsy.
Kellerman: He is the president. He is
going with us.
Rose: The body stays.
Kellerman: My friend, my name is Roy
Kellerman. I am Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail of the Secret
Service. We are taking the President back to the capital.
Rose: You're not taking the body
anywhere. There's a law here. We're going to enforce
it.
After this exchange, Rose continued
his argument with presidential physician Admiral George Burkley . Seeing he was
getting nowhere with Rose, Burkley remarked, "My friend, this, part of the law can be waived.(italics mine) You will have to show me a lot more authority than you
have now."
Eventually, Rose got local Justice
of the Peace Theron Ward to the hospital who backed up his position: the body
must remain for an autopsy. In Manchester's account, members of the presidential
party become increasingly agaitated by Rose's stand until finally a boiling
point is reached and the casket literally shoved past Texas authorities in the
corridor and out the door to a waiting hearse. Texas law, called-for under the
circumstances, is hurtled over.
Manchester paints Rose in a
not-too-complimentary light in his version of the hallway tug-of-war scene. Rose
is a man doing his job, but he is being needlessly strict under the
circumstances. Certainly, it was a rare situation: a murdered president's body
and a chain-of-evidence confrontation. Only three other US Presidents had been
assassinated under varying circumstances, so legal precedence was not
traditionally solid as to who had rights to the body. There was the Texas law,
however, and the presidential party violated it when they commandeered the
casket, leaving with a vital piece of evidence.
Were there orders to take the body
out of Texas or was it a spur-of-the-moment emotional response? Certainly, the
Secret Service agents were aware of the law concerning assassination(not being
under federal jurisdiction at that time). The emotions of the day made it easier
for the casket to be whisked away from Texas authorities. Anti-Texas feelings
were rampant on November 22, 1963 and much of what happened that day was
filtered through this emotion.
Lyndon Johnson had stated that he
wouldn't leave Texas without First Lady Jackie Kennedy, and conveniently, Jackie
Kennedy had stated that she wouldn't leave without her husband's body. The
tug-of-war scene at Parkland was fueled by this sentimental
chain.
The decision to take the body,
emotions or not, wouldn't be left to the Secret Service. Leaving Kennedy's body
at Parkland would have posed no physical threat to LBJ, who was sitting in Air
Force One waiting for the casket and for Judge Sarah Hughes to arrive and swear
him in as the new President. In fact, if it was thought that there was a
possible conspiracy that also threatened LBJ, the Secret Service certainly would
have wanted the new President airborne for Washington as soon as possible, not a
sitting duck at Love Field.
This possibility had to be considered by procedure alone. On the way from
Parkland to Love Field a Secret Service agent had kept LBJ hidden from view,
practically sitting on him! Was this real fear or just an act? The prospect of
JFK's body remaining in Texas hands had to carry other-than-physical threats to
LBJ!
After the body was aboard Air Force
One, retrieval of it by Texas authorities would have caused a major scene and
would have been another black eye for the state. The emotions of the day
certainly played against the hands of Texas. The law of proper investigation was
on its side, but only the law of power came into play. From the very beginning,
any objective investigation into JFK's murder was subverted by this
chain-of-evidence breach. Any fair legal trial would be seriously handicapped if
not outright thrown out by this. Was a trial even in the planning? It couldn't
have been.
Any good lawyer could have shown a
jury that Kennedy's wounds didn't correspond to a shooter from the sixth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository. This would have cleared Oswald, or at least
he would have had to have been put somewhere else doing the shooting. He was
quite alone in the lunchroom when all the shooting was taking place, so this
would have been a possibility, as long as Kennedy was hit from behind. It was
established that Oswald was in the
TSBD.
When it became necessary for the
grassy knoll shooters to "finish the job", it also became necessary for
evidence(wound) alterations. Someone missed that head shot from the sixth floor
perch that would have made stealing JFK's body from proper investigating
authorities unnecessary. Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy in front from
behind!
With the body in the hands of the
"government", a more "objective" autopsy could now be performed at Naval
Academy's Bethesda Naval Hospital. The autopists were naval officers
inexperienced in autopsies, let alone on the body of a murdered president. They
were surrounded in the crowded autopsy room by various officers of superior
rank, who interfered with and directed much of their actions. The autopsy was
not an objective one in this sense, but a directed and token one. The can of
worms that was opened by the Bethesda autopsy has been attested to by a deluge
of critical analysis and doubt these past 35 years!
On November 22, 1963, our
traditional "protectors", knowlingly or not, and riding a wave of national
hysteria and emotion, were part of a massive subversion of law while the "bad
guys" were somewhere deep in the heart of Texas.
To the Laundromat
Laundering money involves running it
through legitimate business fronts. In the same fashion, laundering of evidence
involves running it through respectable and "legitimate" fronts or public
figures. What better way to accomplish this in the JFK assassination
investigation than by appointing a "blue ribbon" panel of renowned statesmen
high on the reverance charts of the establishment?
President Johnson might have been
better off not to have composed the Warren Commission like he did. The
establishment flavor of the appointed group has only added to the suspicion of
high-level conspiracy all these years. He would have been wiser to have
appointed lesser-known but established experts in criminal investigation with
strong and trusted ties to a cover-up. This would have dampened the argument of
a puppet-string panel.
The FBI should have served this
purpose after the ball was put in their court, so to speak, when FBI agents
acquired the physical evidence of the case the very night of the assassination. The Warren Commission would take the heat off
of the FBI. The CIA would also be an agency of cooperation in the investigation.
This was a lot of investigative ammunition, so to speak, for one lone-nut
killer! Even Congress wanted to get into the act, but LBJ dissuaded this
movement: too many loose cannons and dangerously close to the
people!
Apparently, no single agency wanted
to shoulder the burden: deceit of such magnitude would be a heavy load indeed!
Now the ball could be thrown back and forth and kept away from the public. Also,
by concentrating the official investigation in Washington, it would be easier to
control press leaks to the major media outlets. It was a control, not an investigative,
setup.
With the appointing of the Warren
Commission the case of JFK's murder moved from the legal realm to the public
relations realm. Each
member of the Commission had reached his esteemed position through years of
public relations. No politician can survive without a complex base of knowledge
in dealing with the public . It goes with the territory. President Johnson was a
master of public relations with his long tenure as Senate Majority Leader. His
main credo, learned from the legendary Senate Majority Leader Sam Rayburn, was :
" To get along, you go along." In the dizzying heights of Washington power, the
truths of JFK's murder would have to be more than compromised: they would have
to be buried.
On the very day of Oswald's murder
in the Dallas PD basement by Jack Ruby, a memo to White House Press Secretary
Bill Moyers from Deputy Attorney General Nicolas Katzenbach already existed
concerning the necessity of convincing the public that Oswald had acted
alone!
"The public must be satisfied that
Oswald was the lone assassin; that he did not have confederates that are still
at large; and that the evidence is such that he would have been convicted at
trial."
With this attitude present in the
upper echelons of American justice, the case against Lee Harvey Oswald was
closed before it was opened! His public trial, the Warren Commission, had only
prosecuting attorneys: the defense "lawyers" and jury have been officially
gagged and bound to this day. Thirty-four years after the JFK murder, the case
has never really officially been opened, just taken to the
laundromat.
Money & Principle
Who are the "defense lawyers" for
Oswald? Ironically, the alleged assassin and perpetrator of what many consider
the crime of the century never had legal representation before being gunned down
by Ruby on national television. Walter E Craig, President of the American Bar
Association, was requested to "advise the Commission whether in his opinion the
proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice." It must be
noted that Craig was not a choice of the Oswalds. The WC Report only states that
Marina Oswald "agreed" to this arrangement.
Marguerite Oswald, Lee's mother,
reached an arrangement with New York attorney Mark Lane whereby he would
represent her interests before the Warren Commission. Unfortunately, anyone like
Lane who took an objective, inquiring position into the proceedings themselves
became the victims of harassment and investigation. The Commission was looking
for case closers, not door openers.
Publically, however, critics of the
Warren Commision and any other pro-lone-nut theorist have been his defenders all
these years. Varying degerees of guilt and innocence have been attached to his
alleged actions by these defenders.
Cases like the JFK assassination are
not really history, but on-going
history. As long as there remain stones to be overturned, it remains such. It is
not the critics who have opened up the "can of worms" mentioned above, but the
due process of democracy. Warren Commission and official-line skeptics have had
to go against a constant wave of mass media derision and condemnation all these
years.
The truth of the JFK murder is too
expensive an issue for the major media networks to handle. To obscure this fact
they hide behind their official espousal of the lone-nut theory and throw the
democracratic process of free research back into the face of the people. Media
neutrality in this case would be equivalent to victory for the critics after all
these years of official guardianship. It would be a sign of giving in, and this
would be the same at this point as recognizing that, yes, the critics have been
right all these years and the major mass media has knowingly aided in the
subversion of truth. Once they give in to some of the truth, what's to stop a
progression to the whole truth? Anything short of lone-nut is
surrender.
What keeps the fires burning in the
search for truth and why is this still an important issue? There are several
views surrounding this controversy that I would like to comment on
.
It has been said that money motive
is a major driving force behind most if not all of the material critical of the
official line. Money motive is a driving behind just about everything in a
capitalistic society. I am sure critical literature has reaped nice rewards for
many of the researchers.
Regardless of what happened after
JFK's murder, however, the act was so historically cataclysmic that many books
would have followed. If the conspiring individuals had been exposed and somehow
prosecuted, for example, I am quite sure that even more literature would have surfaced all these years. What is
more important here, anyway, the amount of money being made on assassination
books or the content in them? If a book(or movie, newsletter,etc.) adds to the
knowledge base of our past in a factual manner, then it is providing a very
valuable service.
Look at the tremendous amount of
material that has been written about Hitler and WWII. This historical event,
like the JFK assassination, still fascinates many people. In a democracy, it is
the people's right(and duty) to know the truth about their national history. As
time goes on, our history sometimes changes as knew facts emergeabout the past.
These are growing pains in any democratic society. It is like an individual who
must face up to truths in his past in order to move on with a clean slate, so to
speak. It is confession and absolution, as well as trial and
error.
The Viet Nam "war" is a good example
of this. Read Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK: The CIA, Viet Nam And The Plot To
Assassinate John F. Kennedy." In it, Prouty, a member of important standing in
US military circles since WW II, outlines the CIA's use of psi-war and
non-conventional war tactics to foment civil strife and war. One can look at the
Viet Nam conflict as a battle against Communism(simplified American history), a
civil war amongst the Viet Namese population that we got involved in(a little
more compromise with reality here), or a struggle that was instigated at the
behest of certain CIA operatives.
This latter historical view falls
into the same non-conformist group as the view among most researchers that
Kennedy's murder was orchestrated by members of the CIA: the so-called
"conspiracy" angle. Prouty's strategic position in the on-going history of the
past 50 years makes him a potentially very valuable pawn indeed for any powerful
group who might need a "witness" to their historical revisions. Prouty has
remained steadfast in his stance, however, not as much anti-official as
pro-facts.
This is just one instance where the
principle of truth far outweighs any monetary considerations. The JFK murder
topic is a hot one and money has been made on both sides of the fence. If the
critic's detractors want to look at a real money motive scenario, they should
take a serious look at how much money the Viet Nam "war" poured into the pockets
of the military-industrial complex!
"Waking Up On Christmas
Morning . . ."
Another anti-critics line is the
"subversive" one: critics are nothing more than malcontents who want to stir up
trouble for the government. There is an element of truth in this, ironically.
The foundations of our nation are based on our past experiences. I remember
Robert Groden saying in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" that "You
can't build on lies" in reference to the official history of the JFK
assassination.
He was probably thinking of the
future generations who might read in their history books about a malcontented
young man named Lee Harvey Oswald who, on one Friday in the year 1963, took a
rifle to work, smuggled it inside the building, and by fortune alone had a great
6th floor view of a presidential motorcade passing by from which to shoot
President John F Kennedy. Two days later Oswald was shot by a Jack Ruby, who was
extracting vengeance: simplified history and easy to remember. Does anyone want
to trade places with Oswald in the history books, however? I hope
not!
A lot of people just don't like the
thought of their children being lied to and the perpetuation of the lone-nut
myth is just that! Do we know what our children are being taught in the
classrooms today with regards to this important event? Or will our kids have to
grow to a more discriminating age before they can sift through the information
themselves? The protectors of the lone-nut line can live with this, as long as
the critical, search-for-truth element in the population remains a sort of
subculture in the eyes of the mass media.
There is subversion in seeking the
truth when a society is based on lies and distortions. No history is perfect,
but there is nothing wrong attempting perfection. The fragments of non-truth and
distortion in our history must be replaced by verified information. Our history
must be "defragmented", to use a computer term, so it will be more wholesome and
supportive our country's direction. "Subversion" doesn't have to be an
all-or-nothing act in any society. A society doesn't have to be completely torn
down to be improved. The better the foundations, however, the better on which to
build.
Idealogical and monetary factors
aside, Kennedy assassination research also stems from the lure of making history
and personal accountability. As mentioned above, the assassination episode is
on-going as long as stones remain to be turned. Any new lead or piece of
information carries with it history-making possibilities. Making history and
becoming famous is an allurement to most people. By the same token, the prospect
of infamy is an inducement to covering up truths.
A lot of people just want justice
done. Despite what has come out in a deragatory manner about JFK since his
death, the special memories of Kennedy's administration and those times is
deeply implanted in many people's minds. Regardless of your political leanings,
one must admit that John F. Kennedy was a sensational political figure, albeit a
controversial one, who captured the admiration and atention of people at home
and abroad. His place in history, coming as it did in the crucial period when
the world had almost gained full rcovery from the devastation of WW II, is very
remarkable.
By smearing Kennedy post-humously,
some JFK detractors probably hope to dampen this feeling of due process in
identifying and prosecuting any remaining conspirators, or at least getting the
real truth out. The more despised a figure they can cut for JFK, the more people
will come to the "he had it coming" or "he deserved it" attitude.
Sadly, this misses an important
issue in all of this: in our supposedly democratic nation we have peaceful tools
to remove a public official from office. If we cherish and appreciate our
freedoms in this respect, how can we espouse and subscribe to assassination(both
character and physical) as a tool for change? This is the main issue, not JFK's
personality. People have a right to challenge Kennedy's actions, but they also
have a moral obligation to keep the record straight.
The influence of the media is such
today that anything it espouses can make or breaka person in the public's eye.
One only has to remember the firestorms it has fanned in recent years- the
Rodney King riots, the Anita Hill questioning, the OJ Simpson trial, to name a
few- to realize the powerful position of anyone who can control the content of
our mass media! The very direction of our nation can be in the hands of a
powerful few.
This power has been utilized for 35
years to keep the wraps on the JFK assassination, but as Bob Dylan says in one
of his early songs, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind
blows." The more obvious the truths, the more power of suppression needed to
quell them.
The events in Dallas on November 22,
1963 were so implanted on a generation's experience as to be of mythic
proportions. Anything that adds to or challenges the official history of this
day carries magical qualities. Remember the feeling we had when we were very
young and anticipating Christmas morning, waking up and discovering where Santa
had left the gifts? It has taken a long time for this country to wake up. We
seem to be locked in the bedroom while the gifts are somewhere else in the house
