***************************************************************** This article is part of a book I have written entitled MORE THAN A REASONABLE DOUBT. If you would like a copy of the book on disk, please send $3.50 (money orders only) to Michael T. Griffith, PSC 45, Box 1295, APO AE 09468. I can send the book in WordPerfect 6.0 or ASCII format. The price includes the disk (2DD) and P&H. Please allow two to three weeks for delivery. ***************************************************************** NEW CASE II: A Critique of Gerald Posner's Book, CASE CLOSED by Michael T. Griffith 1994 -------------- Media Reaction -------------- Last year most of the American news media hailed the release of Gerald Posner's book, CASE CLOSED: LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK (New York: Random House, 1993). One prominent magazine described it as "a brilliant new book" that "proves who killed Kennedy." Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by the facts. Posner does discredit some peripheral conspiracy arguments. But, when it comes to the central issues of the case--such as the direction and number of the shots, the magic bullet, the medical evidence, Oswald's role, etc.--Posner stumbles badly, at times offering theories and interpretations that are genuinely far-fetched. Also, Posner advances many claims that have already been refuted. CASE CLOSED is essentially another untenable defense of the Warren Commission's dubious single-assassin theory. --------------- Smearing Oswald --------------- Throughout his book Posner engages in an unfair, distorted attack on Lee Harvey Oswald. Posner's survey of Oswald's childhood and teen years is especially distasteful (5-19). Posner relies heavily on the negative statements that were made about Oswald to the Warren Commission (WC), but he says nothing about the emotion-charged, hate-filled atmosphere in which those comments were made. Nor does Posner present to his readers any of the positive statements that were made about Oswald. No, Oswald wasn't an angel, but he certainly wasn't the demented ogre Posner paints him to be either (Marrs 90-99; Smith 185-192). Buell Wesley Frazier, who regularly drove Oswald to work, told interviewers for the Arts & Entertainment (A&E) Network's 1992 documentary, THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, that the Oswald he knew was a good man, adding, "I don't think [he] had it in him to be a person capable of . . . murderding the President. . . ." As part of his effort to portray Oswald as a glory-seeking, lackluster, Marxist Marine, Posner uses the unflattering testimony of Kerry Thornley, who says he was a friend of Oswald's in the Marine Corps (22, 30-31, 33). In fact, Posner derives the title for his second chapter, "The Best Religion Is Communism," from a statement that Thornley alleges Oswald made to him while they were in the Marines together (30). The reader might be interested to know this is the same Kerry Thornley who claims he was a Nazi breeding experiment and that a bugging device was planted on him at birth so that Nazi cultists could monitor him as he grew up (Vankin 3-21). Thornley believes Oswald was a Nazi breeding experiment too (Vankin 18-19). Noticeably absent from Posner's book is any discussion of a plausible motive for Oswald. Posner frequently quotes Marina Oswald, yet he neglects to tell his readers that Marina has always said her husband thought very highly of President Kennedy. In addition, although Posner relies heavily on Marina's clearly coerced WC testimony, he waits until page 345 to inform his audience, in a footnote, that Marina now believes her husband was "completely innocent." Posner tries hard to prove that Oswald had no U.S. intelligence connections (20-196). By ignoring a good deal of evidence, and by failing to adequately address the implications of certain unusual incidents in Oswald's life, Posner almost seems to prove his point. However, those familiar with the subject will find Posner's arguments unconvincing and noticeably incomplete. Former Senator Richard Schweiker has declared, "I personally believe that he [Oswald] had a special relationship with one of the intelligence agencies, which one I'm not certain. But all the fingerprints I found during my eighteen months on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence point to Oswald as being a product of, and interacting with, the intelligence community" (Summers 266). In addition, three former U.S. intelligence agents maintain that Oswald was working for at least one U.S. intelligence agency. After he was arrested on the day of the assassination, Oswald tried to call a man named "Hurt" in Raleigh, North Carolina, at two different numbers listed for that name. Oswald had no known contacts or friends in North Carolina. Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti points out that Oswald's call was made to a number in the same general area as a base where, according to Marchetti, Naval Intelligence once planned infiltration missions into the Soviet Union (Summers 146). One of the two Hurts in Raleigh at that time was a John D. Hurt, who had worked in military intelligence during World War II. Oswald was unable to contact Mr. Hurt because two Secret Service agents instructed the switchboard operator at the Dallas police station to unplug the connection before the call could go through (Summers 146). Marchetti believes Oswald worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and that it was the ONI which sent him to Russia as a phony defector. -------------------- Oswald's Whereabouts -------------------- Posner follows the WC in placing Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building from 11:55 A.M. until he supposedly fired the shots at 12:30 P.M. Therefore, according to Posner, Oswald had thirty-five minutes to build the sniper's nest. However, Posner's only in-building witness to put Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting is Charles Givens, who said he saw Oswald there after everyone else had left (226-228). (Posner's only out-of-building witness to put Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired is Howard Brennan, whose implausible testimony will be discussed below.) It is common knowledge among assassination researchers that when Givens was initially questioned, he mentioned nothing about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else had left. In fact, Givens, who had a police record involving narcotics, originally told the authorities he saw Oswald reading a newspaper on the FIRST FLOOR at 11:50 (Summers 75). Also, Book Depository employee Bonnie Ray Williams told the WC that he ate lunch on the sixth floor from around noon until 12:15, perhaps even until 12:20, AND THAT HE SAW NO ONE ELSE ON THE FLOOR. This was, at most, just fifteen minutes before the President's motorcade passed in front of the Depository. Even if Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15, Oswald still would not have had enough time to construct the sniper's nest. Furthermore, Depository employee Carolyn Arnold told a journalist in 1978 that she saw Oswald eating lunch in the second-floor lunchroom at around 12:15 (Summers 77). In response to this evidence, Posner observes that Williams "told the FBI he left [the sixth floor] by 12:05 and went to the fifth floor" (228)--end of discussion. As for Mrs. Arnold's testimony, Posner dismisses it because in her first of two 1963 FBI depositions she said she wasn't sure if she had seen Oswald, and in the second statement she said she had not seen him at all (227)--again, end of discussion. Or is it? This brings us to a crucial flaw in Posner's arguments. Posner attempts to discredit several witnesses whose testimony contradicts the lone-gunman scenario by citing differences between their FBI or Dallas police depositions and their statements to the WC, or between accounts they provided in later years and their earlier testimony. Yet, as Posner must know, numerous witnesses subsequently insisted that federal agents or the Dallas police, or both, altered or even fabricated their statements. Assassination-related documents disclosed by Freedom of Information Act suits have revealed undeniable instances of evidence tampering by the FBI. Several witnesses complained that they were pressured to change their testimony by federal agents or by the Dallas police. Posner quotes from books which thoroughly document these facts, but he does not bring this information to the attention of his readers. For the most part, Posner summarily dismisses the recollections of witnesses with evidence of conspiracy if they did not speak up immediately or shortly after the shooting. But nearly all researchers would agree that this is not a sound criterion for rejecting testimony relating to the assassination. Many witnesses who had information favoring Oswald or contradicting the single-assassin story were afraid to go public with what they knew because of the charged anti-Oswald atmosphere at the time. Some conspiracy witnesses weren't aware of the significance of what they had seen until after the WC published its report, and, faced with the near-universal acceptance the report initially enjoyed, they chose to remain silent for fear of being ridiculed. In addition, several witnesses later said they were hesitant to come forward because they knew that other witnesses had died under strange circumstances or had been murdered. Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams and Carolyn Arnold. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (Lane 1992:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (Lane 1992:103). Posner notes that Williams testified that books were stacked so high by the southeast corner window (the alleged sniper's nest) that he couldn't see anything (228). However, Posner omits the fact that Williams was only a few feet from the window (Lane 1992:103). In any event, the sniper's nest could not have been completed by noon, which is when Williams arrived on the sixth floor (Zirbel 179). Williams might have seen some books stacked near the southeast window, but not a single Depository employee noticed a huge SHIELD of book BOXES stacked around the window prior to the shooting; nor did a single witness report seeing anyone stacking boxes near the window that morning. So, if we are to believe Posner, either Williams somehow didn't hear Oswald frantically working to finish the sniper's nest or Oswald remained perfectly still and quiet for at least ten to fifteen precious minutes as he waited for Williams to leave the floor. Additionally, photographs taken of the sixth-floor window less than two minutes after the shooting show the boxes being REARRANGED. This fact was acknowledged by the photographic experts retained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes because he was seen on the SECOND floor by the building manager and a police officer ninety seconds after the shots were fired (Marrs 53). So who was moving the boxes around immediately after the shooting? Posner doesn't answer this question--he ignores the box-moving entirely. As for Carolyn Arnold's testimony, I quote Anthony Summers, who interviewed her in 1978: [quote] When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came BEFORE I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment . . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. (77, original emphasis) [end of quote] Four other women worked with Mrs. Arnold and watched the motorcade with her that day. "They," claims Posner, "support her original statements and not the story she told fifteen years later" (227). Yet Posner only provides testimony from two of the four women, continuing, "Virgie Rachley and Betty Dragoo accompanied her when she left the second floor" and they "did not see Oswald" (227). But they did not go into the lunchroom with Mrs. Arnold when she stopped off to get a glass of water. Also, conspiracists take issue with Posner's interpretation of the four women's testimony and maintain that it does not necessarily clash with Mrs. Arnold's later statements. When Oswald was being held at the Dallas police station, he told reporters, "I didn't shoot anybody." The news tapes of Oswald's denial were examined by a researcher using the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), which is a lie-detecting device that measures stress by voice stress analysis. The PSE has been shown to be reliable in several tests. It is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies, and it is accepted as evidence in more than a dozen states. The PSE tests done on Oswald's denial show that he was telling the truth (Groden and Livingstone 349; on the PSE test itself, see Scheim 206 n). ------------------------------ Oswald and the Brown Paper Bag ------------------------------ According to the WC, Oswald was seen carrying a "long and bulky package" into the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. The Commission said this package contained the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The WC claimed this bag was the same one that was reportedly found in the sniper's nest. The Commission further asserted that federal authorities found cloth fibers on the bag which matched those of a blanket said to have been used to wrap the Mannlicher-Carcano. Posner repeats these claims (224 n). Two people saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, Jack Dougherty and Buell Wesley Frazier. Dougherty said Oswald's hands were empty when he saw Oswald enter the building. Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to work that morning, said Oswald came into the TSBD carrying a brown paper bag under his arm. The WC, of course, accepted Frazier's story--more or less. The Commission had some problems with Frazier's account, problems which still present themselves to lone-gunman theorists. The thorniest of these problems is that Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag refutes the idea that it contained a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. Frazier said Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his armpit. However, from the cup of Oswald's hand, a disassembled Carcano would have extended past his shoulders, and probably close to his ear (Lane 1992:144-145). Frazier insisted he recalled quite specifically how Oswald carried the bag. Frazier added that Oswald was carrying the bag in such a way that it would have been difficult to see it from the front. This could explain why Jack Dougherty did not see anything in Oswald's hands. Nevertheless, the WC said Frazier was mistaken about the way Oswald carried the paper bag. Why? Because Oswald could not have held a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano in the manner Frazier described. Another problem the WC had with Frazier's testimony was that he said the paper bag was at least eight inches shorter than a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. Frazier told the WC that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was two feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store" (Lane 1992:144). Posner says the bag was 38 inches long (225 n). On December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents maintained that the distance between that spot and the door was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who saw the bag, also said it was 27 inches long. But Oswald's measurements indicate the bag would have needed to be LESS THAN 24 inches long in order for him to have carried it in the manner described by Frazier (Lane 1992:144). Furthermore, a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano is 35 inches long. Thus, according to both Frazier and his sister, not only was the bag too long for Oswald to have carried it in the manner Frazier himself described, but the bag was AT LEAST eight inches SHORTER than a disassembled Carcano rifle. In response to this dilemma, the Commission said that both Frazier and his sister were mistaken about the length of the bag. Posner pounces on Frazier's admission that he wasn't absolutely certain about the length of the bag, but he ignores the fact that Frazier had no doubt about how Oswald carried it. Posner would have us believe that Frazier and his sister were off by at least nine inches in their descriptions of the bag's length. In fact, according to Posner, Frazier erred by a whopping 14 inches when he estimated the bag's length, an extremely doubtful proposition. Federal authorities said they found cloth fibers on the bag that matched those of a blanket which was allegedly used to wrap the Mannlicher-Carcano. But a Dallas police photograph of assassination evidence "shows the bag touching the blanket, thus producing the incriminating fiber evidence" (Marrs 448). Also, the FBI found no traces of paper bag particles on the alleged murder weapon (Marrs 448). The WC claimed that Oswald made the brown paper bag from wrapping paper available to him at the Book Depository. However, an FBI report written shortly after the assassination said that the paper from the Depository "was examined by the FBI laboratory and found NOT to be identical with the paper gun case. . . ." (Marrs 449, emphasis added). The FBI later changed this report to read, "This paper was examined . . . and found to have the same observable characteristics" as Oswald's paper bag. When asked to explain the contradiction, the FBI said the initial report was "inaccurate" and was "mistakenly passed along to the Warren Commission." As Texas journalist Jim Marrs observes, "this incident raises the question of how many other assassination documents stated one thing and were subsequently 'revised.' And if there do exist 'revised' documents in federal files, how would anyone know unless the originals accidentally slip out, as in this case?" (Marrs 449). ------------------------------------------- The Dallas Doctors and the Medical Evidence ------------------------------------------- Posner interviewed eight of the Dallas doctors who saw JFK's body at Parkland Memorial Hospital, and all but one of them agreed with the autopsy findings (286-316). The seven doctors who reportedly told Posner they accepted the autopsy results were Pepper Jenkins, Malcolm Perry, Charles Carrico, Adolph Giesecke, William Midgett, Paul Peters, and Ronald Jones. According to Posner, these doctors now say the head wound was on the right side of the head and that the throat wound was an exit wound, which is what the autopsy report claims. Posner denies there was a large defect in the back of Kennedy's skull, for this would indicate a shot from the front. According to Posner, the fatal head shot came from behind and exploded out of the "right side" of Kennedy's head (307-316). There is massive eyewitness testimony against this view and for the fact that the fatal head shot came from the front and exited the right rear portion of the President's skull. Virtually all lone-gunman theorists deny there was a large defect in the rear of JFK's head, but the wound was closely observed by numerous witnesses, including Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel. Harrison Livingstone has superbly documented this eyewitness evidence in his book HIGH TREASON 2. The doctor who told Posner he did not accept the autopsy results was Dr. Robert McClelland. Posner mentions the fact that another one of the Dallas doctors, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, recently wrote a book rejecting the autopsy findings. Posner engages in a scurrilous attack on Dr. Crenshaw, questioning his sanity and veracity. As part of his attack, Posner quotes some disparaging comments about Crenshaw made by an ANONYMOUS "close Crenshaw friend" (313-314). Posner does not inform his readers that Dr. Crenshaw, a man of impeccable reputation, is Clinical Professor of Surgery at UT Southwestern Medical School and is on the staff of John Peter Smith Hospital and St. Joseph Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. In addition, Dr. Crenshaw has been honored with inclusion in several medical and professional societies and has published extensively. Dr. Crenshaw was present during the efforts to save JFK's life. He noted "much of what was going on, and his recollections are extensive" (Livingstone 110). Dr. Crenshaw says the large defect was in the back of the President's head, and he is certain the wound could only have been caused by a shot from the front. After the President had been pronounced dead, Dr. Crenshaw stood right behind Aubrey Rike as Rike helped to put Kennedy's body in the coffin. He remembers Rike commenting that he could feel the edges of bone around the hole in the back of the President's head (Livingstone 112). Rike has confirmed this in numerous interviews (e.g., Livingstone 118). Apparently Posner couldn't find an anonymous "close friend" of Dr. McClelland's to assail his sanity and character, so he questions the doctor's judgment and memory. Three of the other Dallas doctors, along with Dr. Michael Baden, a long-time defender of the single-assassin theory, are enlisted to assist in the attack (312-313). However, Dr. McClelland, a deeply religious man, has been consistent in his descriptions of JFK's head wound. He told the WC that the large defect was in the back of the head, and, unlike some of the other Dallas doctors, he has never had a convenient change of memory. Moreover, it is strange that when Dr. McClelland testified before the WC, not one of the other Parkland doctors questioned or contradicted his testimony in any way. In fact, ALL of the Dallas doctors who testified before the Commission on the subject placed the head wound in the right rear part of the skull, just as Dr. McClelland did (Lifton 308-337). Dr. Peters' change of memory seems to be especially pronounced. According to Posner, Dr. Peters now accepts the WC's placement of the head wound. However, when asked about the wound for the A&E Network's THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, he said it was "in the right occipital-parietal area," i.e. the right rear part of the head. As Dr. Peters gave this description of the defect, he repeatedly illustrated his explanation by placing his right hand on the right rear part of the his head, exactly where Crenshaw and McClelland locate the wound. Posner is confident the alleged JFK autopsy photos and x-rays are authentic. He points out that they were authenticated by two HSCA panels (301-302). However, those panels based their "authentication" on a few narrow criteria, and they did not explain the many obvious indications of fakery in the autopsy materials (Livingstone 313-356). Posner attempts to explain only one of the several indications of forgery: The disparity between the pictures of the face and the skull x-rays. In the autopsy pictures Kennedy's face is intact and undamaged, whereas in the anterior-posterior and lateral skull x-rays the upper right half of his face is shown to be blown out. "But," claims Posner, "the X rays do not show any such damage," and he cites Dr. Baden to support his claim (303 n). IN POINT OF FACT, THE X-RAYS CLEARLY SHOW PRECISELY SUCH DAMAGE. In 1979, Dr. Donald Siple, the chief radiologist at Maryland General Hospital, observed that the x-rays showed the upper right side of JFK's face to be missing (Livingstone 177). Dr. Phillip Williams, a neurosurgeon, likewise noted, at a filmed 1991 conference which included former Parkland medical personnel, that the x-rays depicted a large facial wound (Livingstone 301-302). Again, no such wound appears in any of the alleged autopsy photographs. In addition, on September 28, 1993, I met with Mrs. Christina Hill, a radiologic technologist, and asked her to comment on the accuracy of the medical drawings in Livingstone's HIGH TREASON 2, which depict the damage to JFK's face as shown in the anterior-posterior and lateral skull x-rays. Livingstone's drawings show the right forehead missing, as well as other damage. After carefully examining the drawings and the x-rays, Mrs. Hill said the drawings were accurate. I then showed her the autopsy photos in which Kennedy's face appears intact and asked her to comment on them in relation to the x-rays. She said the pictures were incompatible with the x-rays because the x-rays showed the upper right side of the face to be virtually blown away. I asked her if she was sure about the damage shown in the x-rays. She replied that she was certain and proceeded to outline the damage shown in the x-rays, explaining at the same time how Livingstone's drawings accurately depicted that damage. I then asked her if there was any way Kennedy's face could have remained intact if it suffered the kind of damage portrayed in the x-rays. She responded, "There might be occasions when the face will maintain its appearance even though some of the bone underneath it is damaged or fragmented, but I don't believe this could be the case with the amount of missing bone depicted in these x-rays. The upper right side of the face should be gone, or at least markedly deformed." Some of the other indications of fraud in the autopsy x-rays and photographs are as follows: * The x-rays were authenticated partly on the basis of a right frontal sinus, but in the lateral and anterior-posterior skull x-rays THERE IS NO RIGHT FRONTAL SINUS (Livingstone 112-113, 354-355). * In the color versions of the right-profile and top-of-the- head pictures, there are three large bloody red stripes hanging down on top of Kennedy's hair, giving the appearance of a severe wound at the top of the head. However, in the black and white reprints of these photos the stripes are WHITE OR LIGHT GRAY. This is a photographic impossibility. Red turns to black, not to white or light gray. Someone colored in the stripes. * In the stare-of-death picture labeled F1 from the James K. Fox set, the President's head casts a shadow on the towel beneath the right ear, but the shadow should not be there because the light from the camera's flash would have eliminated it. * The autopsy photos were supposedly taken at the morgue of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, but medical technicians who worked there--and who also assisted with the autopsy--have stated that the background in those pictures is not that of the Bethesda morgue. Among other things, the technicians note that the instrument tray shown in the F7 top-of-the-head photo is not the kind of tray that was used at the Bethesda morgue. Additionally, the left-profile picture shows a black phone on the wall beside the table, but the autopsy technicians say there was no phone at that position at the morgue. -------------------------- The Famous Backyard Photos -------------------------- Posner insists that the famous backyard photographs, which show Oswald holding the alleged murder weapon and some radical newspapers, have been positively authenticated (107-109). However, the backyard photos were exposed as fakes in 1992 when a manipulated backyard print was released from Dallas police files (Lane 1992:xxii-xxiii). The print shows the white silhouette of a human figure where Oswald is supposed to be. The discovery of the doctored print confirms the testimony of Robert Hester, a Dallas photographer who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on November 22, 1963. Hester saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard pictures on November 22, which was the day BEFORE the police said they "found" the photos. Moreover, one of the backyard photos Hester processed showed no figure in the picture, just like the doctored print released by Dallas authorities last year (Marrs 452). ------------------------------------------------- A Discredited Witness and a Suspicious Palm Print ------------------------------------------------- Amazingly, Posner wholeheartedly accepts the testimony of Howard Brennan, who said he saw Oswald firing from the sixth-floor window (247-250). However, it has been well known for years that Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial (Lane 1992:83-94; Marrs 25-27; Summers 78-79). For starters, Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows Brennan was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot rang out. Brennan was leaning against the concrete retaining wall across the street from the Depository, but in recreating the scene for the WC, he sat in the wrong place. Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the WC rejected. In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification (249)! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name (Lane 1992:92)--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station. Only after a month's worth of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely. There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window (Posner 248). Brennan added that Oswald REMAINED at the window for at least a few seconds after that (Posner 248). Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision" (Posner 248). "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. How could Brennan's account be true when Oswald was seen on the SECOND FLOOR only ninety seconds after the shooting? Oswald would have had to wipe off the rifle, squeeze out from the sniper's nest, run to the other side of the floor, hide the weapon, and then run down four flights of stairs, all in well under ninety seconds. When the Warren Commission staged a reenactment of Oswald's alleged dash, the police officer playing Oswald could only meet the ninety-second time limit by NOT wiping off the rifle. If Oswald stayed at the window for several seconds, or more, after firing, in order to gloat over his feat, how could he have appeared on the second floor ninety seconds after the shooting? Furthermore, there is very good evidence that Oswald bought a Coke from a soda machine moments before he was seen on the second floor (Marrs 51-52; Lifton 351). In the WC's reenactment, the Coke-buying was ignored. Brennan's account is simply not credible. Posner accepts the timeworn assertion that Oswald's right palm print was found on the barrel of the Italian-made Mannlicher- Carcano rifle, the alleged murder weapon. To put it charitably, there were many "irregularities" surrounding the palm print. For example, the print had no chain of evidence, and, amazingly, the police officer who said he found the print, Lt. J. C. Day, failed to photograph it (Lane 1992:153-158). When an FBI fingerprint expert examined the Carcano on November 23, he found no prints on it, even though Lt. Day said the print was still "visible" when he gave the rifle to the FBI. Although Lt. Day said he found the palm print on Friday, November 22, newsmen who were in touch with Dallas police detectives reported that evening, from the police station, that Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 354 n). In addition, on November 23, the Dallas police department's chief of homicide, Captain Will Fritz, also said Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the alleged murder weapon (Lifton 354 n). In point of fact, nobody seemed to know anything about an Oswald print on the rifle until after some FBI agents paid a visit to the morgue where Oswald's body was being kept (Lifton 354-355 n; Marrs 443-445). The "discovery" of the palm print was so suspicious that even the WC privately doubted its authenticity (Marrs 443-445). ------------------------- The Alleged Murder Weapon ------------------------- Posner says the Italian rifle's telescopic sight would have made the President's car seem a mere twenty-five yards away (474). However, as Posner should know, the FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested (Lane 1992:126-127). Additionally, weapons experts who examined the Carcano found that the scope was fitted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed (Oglesby 89; Marrs 441). In responding to this fact, Posner says, "There is no such thing as a left-handed scope. . . ." (271 n). But the experts did not say the scope was a "left-handed scope"; they said the scope had been aligned for a left-handed SHOOTER. During the A&E Network's THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, Monty Lutz, a former member of the HSCA's firearms panel, testified that to his knowledge no one had ever duplicated Oswald's alleged marksmanship. Additionally, Lutz admitted that the rifle test he had conducted did not constitute a genuine reenactment of the assassination. ------------------------------------- The Dallas Police Dictabelt Recording ------------------------------------- Posner attacks the relevancy of the Dallas police dictabelt recording, which was made from a patrolman's microphone in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting (238-242). Posner's criticisms, however, are uninformed. Acoustical experts retained by the HSCA concluded the tape had the sounds of at least FOUR gunshots on it, and that one of the shots came from in front of the presidential limousine (Marrs 530-537). But Posner summarily dismisses their careful research and instead relies on the tenuous findings of "a special panel of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]." Not only did the NAS panel members fail to examine several items of evidence that supported the HSCA's findings, but they conducted their work in secret and would not make their raw materials available so other experts could try to duplicate their work. In addition, the NAS scholars found it necessary to manipulate the times of the transmissions on the tape, in one case by almost a minute, in order to "reject" the HSCA's conclusions. Moreover, the NAS panel members ignored the voiced time announcements on the tape and relied on an erroneous transcript of the transmissions prepared by the Dallas police department (Marsh). The HSCA identified the microphone of police officer H. B. McClain as the mike that recorded the sounds on the tape, but McClain later insisted that his cycle was in the wrong location to have done this. Posner sees McClain's denial as evidence against the dictabelt recording. The NAS panel likewise appealed to McClain's denial. McClain said he couldn't have recorded the sounds on the tape because he accompanied the President's limousine to Parkland Hospital. However, researchers pointed out that a UPI photograph showed McClain was still in Dealey Plaza after the limousine had departed for the hospital (Marrs 533; Scheim 35). Posner adds that McClain recalled using his siren en route to the hospital. "Yet," says Posner, "on the dictabelt recording there are no sirens" (240). Aside from the fact that McClain didn't go to the hospital when he claimed he did, one of the HSCA's acoustical experts observed that the sound of the sirens would not have been audible over the noise of the motorcycle's engine anyway (Scheim 35). I find it somewhat difficult to understand how Posner could repeat these standard, timeworn arguments against the HSCA's acoustical evidence when he cites books that answer every one of those arguments. For example, Posner frequently mentions and criticizes Jim Marrs' CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY and David Scheim's THE MAFIA KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY. Both of these books contain thorough responses to the attacks against the dictabelt recording. Yet, Posner does not even acknowledge this, much less inform his readers of the evidence these books present for the dictabelt's relevance and authenticity. The tape is a crucial piece of evidence because it proves that more than three shots were fired and that at least one of the shots came from the front. I should add that the acoustical evidence is NOT dependent on the assumption that the open microphone was Officer McClain's. Christopher Scally makes a plausible case that Officer Bobby Hargis's mike could have also recorded the sounds on the dictabelt tape (37-43). ------------------------- Smoke on the Grassy Knoll ------------------------- One of Posner's reasons for rejecting the testimony of witnesses who said they saw smoke on the grassy knoll after the shooting is that "modern ammunition is smokeless" (256). However, Posner says nothing about "smokeless ammunition" in presenting the testimony of James Worrell, who claimed he saw "smoke" come from a rifle which he said was firing from the sixth floor of the TSBD (247). Anyhow, the HSCA's firearms experts debunked the myth of "smokeless ammunition" (Scheim 27; cf. Marrs 59). Even if "modern ammunition" were truly smokeless, which it isn't, that would say little about the ammunition used in 1963. Continuing, Posner says, "It is likely that any smoke seen was in fact steam" from the hot steam pipe behind the fence on the knoll (256). But the steam pipe was too far back from the fence to have produced the smoke seen on the knoll; nor could the smoke have been motorcycle exhaust, as other lone-gunman theorists maintain (Scheim 27). In one clear frame of the Weigman film, as the presidential limousine enters the triple underpass a puff of smoke is clearly visible hanging in front of the trees on the knoll, which is exactly where Sam Holland and other railroad workers placed the smoke (Marrs 58). Not only did some people see what appeared to be gun smoke on the grassy knoll, but several witnesses said they detected the scent of gun powder on and near the knoll right after the shots were fired (Marrs 16-17). The grassy knoll, it should be recalled, was in front and to the right of JFK's limousine when he was shot. -------------- The First Shot -------------- Posner asserts that the first shot came at around frame 160 of the Zapruder film (320-326). In other words, the sixth-floor shooter supposedly fired his first shot just a second or two before the President's limousine disappeared beneath the intervening oak tree in front of the Depository. This suggestion is untenable. In order to fire at frame 160, Oswald would have had to stand up and aim through the window glass or hang halfway out the partially closed window; in either case, he would have been firing almost straight down in an awkward, unsupported position. Even the WC, as desperate as it was to expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time, could not swallow the idea that his first shot came before frame 210, which is when the limousine emerged from beneath the oak tree. The fact remains that the alleged sixth-floor assassin would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire three shots with world-class accuracy using a clumsy bolt-action rifle. Not one of the expert marksmen hired by the WC could duplicate the shooting feat attributed to Oswald. Posner gets himself into more trouble with his claim that the first shot missed (319-326). The problem with this assertion is that if the first shot was fired at Z-frame 160, as Posner claims, it could not possibly have caused James Tague's facial injury, which resulted from flying concrete that came from a nearby curb when the curb was struck by the bullet that missed (assuming only three shots were fired). Tague was standing under the triple underpass, well over 500 feet from where Posner's stray shot would have landed. In response to this difficulty, Posner offers some downright fanciful speculation. According to Posner, the first bullet struck a limb of the oak tree, after which its lead core instantly separated from the metal jacketing and traveled in a straight line from the TSBD to the curb 500 feet away, somehow landing with enough force to send concrete fragments streaking toward Tague! Such far-fetched speculation does not deserve serious analysis. However, just for the record, even if we assume the lead core instantly shed its copper jacketing after the supposed tree-branch collision, the core would not have had sufficient force 500 feet later to send concrete flying fast enough to cut Tague's face. And how could Oswald, the alleged world-class marksman, have missed his target so badly that he hit a branch of the oak tree? How could he have aimed so poorly on his first shot when the first shot is usually the most accurate? Furthermore, for Posner's theory even to be possible, we would have to believe that the bullet struck the limb at a point where the limb was strong enough not to snap or bend from the force of the missile's impact. This means the bullet would have had to strike the limb at least a foot or two from its tip--a staggering miss from the alleged sniper's nest. One might wonder why Posner posits such an early first shot instead of following Moore and placing the initial bullet at the break in the foliage. Posner goes with an early first shot because, unlike other lone-gunman theorists, he acknowledges there is persuasive eyewitness testimony that a shot was fired in between Z-frames 158-186. Posner's problem is that he can't allow for the distinct possibility that a gunman was firing from a building adjacent to the TSBD. An assassin firing from one of the buildings that were closer to Houston Street would have had a good view of the limousine prior to frame 210. --------------- The Second Shot --------------- As for the second shot, Posner says it was the first hit, and that it passed through Kennedy and Connally nearly simultaneously at Z-frame 224 (329-332). Posner bases this idea on the claim that the right front of the Governor's suit lapel flips up at this frame. According to Posner, this establishes the moment of the second shot because the movement of the jacket occurs "at the exact area" where Connally's suit and shirt have a bullet hole (330). But how did this bullet, which, according to the WC, was traveling at a DOWNWARD angle of 450 to 600 when it hit Kennedy in the back, manage to go UP to JFK's throat and yet strike Connally at a DOWNWARD angle of 270? Posner does not even mention this difficulty. So what about the flipping up of the lapel? After reading Posner's claim, I took out my still frames of the Zapruder film and examined frame 224 under substantial magnification. I was unable to determine if the lapel was flipped up in my reprint of the frame. Posner says the lapel motion was discovered in a "computer enhancement" of the Zapruder film by Failure Analysis Associates. Yet, Posner provides no picture of the enhancement. If the lapel does in fact flip up, a simpler, more plausible explanation for this motion would be that it was caused by the rather stiff breeze that was intermittently blowing in Dealey Plaza that day (J. Shaw 18). The movement could NOT have been caused by the bullet that hit Connally in the back because, for one thing, that missile did not strike the Governor until Z-frame 237. A key indicator in Z-frame 238 is that the Governor's right shoulder drops sharply, in one-eighteenth of a second. In fact, his shoulder drops by almost 200. Obviously, this forceful drop of the shoulder was caused by the impact of the bullet, which must have struck at frame 237. Even lone-gunman theorist Jim Moore acknowledges the implications of the shoulder drop: [quote] Portions of the human frame don't suddenly drop 20 degrees without some significant outside force acting upon them. And, when you consider that this shoulder drop took place within an eighteenth of a second, that outside force must have been very significant indeed. Impact on the Governor's back, then, most likely took place at Zapruder frame 237. (168-169) [end of quote] ---------------- The Magic Bullet ---------------- Predictably, Posner embraces the dubious single-bullet theory, which says that a single bullet, also known as the "magic bullet," struck Kennedy in the "upper back," exited his throat, passed through Governor John Connally, causing all of his wounds, yet emerged in near-pristine condition, suffering only a slight flattening at its base and losing no more than three grains of its substance (334-340). This bullet is officially labeled as Commission Exhibit (CE) 399. I would invite any lone-gunman theorist to refute the evidence, especially the medical evidence, against the single-bullet theory presented in Livingstone's HIGH TREASON 2. Even two members of the WC found the theory so implausible that they eventually rejected it. The autopsy doctors also balked at the idea. One of those autopsists, Dr. Pierre Finck, testified under oath in 1969 that during the autopsy he could not find an exit point for the back wound (DiEugenio 1992:291). Another one of the autopsists, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, told author Josiah Thompson that all three autopsy doctors probed the back wound with their fingers but could not penetrate more than an inch or two (Marrs 371). Similarly, James Jenkins, one of the medical technicians who assisted with JFK's autopsy, says the back wound was probed and that it had no point of exit. Retired U.S. Navy pathologist Dr. Robert Karnei, who watched most of the autopsy, likewise recalls the probing of the back wound and the determination that it had no exit point. Moreover, three FBI reports on the autopsy confirm the probing and the back wound's limited depth (Lifton 83-84, 149-169). So the supposed magic bullet did not exit Kennedy's throat. As for the throat wound itself, the Dallas doctors described it in considerable detail, and they said it was a very small, neatly defined, circular puncture--in short, it had all the traits typical of a bullet's point of entry. What about the fact that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399? Posner replies that one of Connally's surgeons, Dr. Charles Gregory, said the fragments that were removed from the Governor's wrist were merely "flakes of metal" and that they weighed less than a postage stamp (339-340). That is not how Nurse Audrey Bell remembers it at all. Nurse Bell is the Parkland Hospital operating-room nurse who handled the fragments that were removed from the Governor's wrist. She insists the fragments were not merely flakes but were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in length by 2 millimeters wide (Lifton 558; Livingstone 304, 312). This squares with the recollection of Connally's other surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary REASONABLE DOUBT: THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows." There didn't seem to be any question about the wrist fragments in the months after the shooting. Asked if CE 399 could have possibly been the bullet that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Finck answered, "No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist" (DiEugenio 1992:297). The Parkland Hospital report said of the wrist wound, "Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound . . . and COULD BE PICKED UP . . . and have been submitted to the Pathology department for identification and examination" (Lane 1992:76, emphasis added). And this is not to mention the fact that the bullet that struck Connally left fragments in all three of his wounds, not just in his wrist. Posner asserts that Dr. Vincent Guinn's neutron activation analysis (NAA) proved that bullet fragments taken from Connally's wrist and Kennedy's brain matched samples from CE 399 (341-342). As mentioned, the magic bullet supposedly passed through both Kennedy and Connally. Therefore, according to Posner, Guinn's NAA is evidence of Oswald's guilt and of the single-bullet theory. What are the facts? Guinn himself conceded he could not vouch for the authenticity of the fragments he was given to test. He also acknowledged that the fragments he tested did not weigh the same as the fragments listed as evidence by the WC (Marrs 446-447; Lifton 556-558). Furthermore, Guinn's NAA results contradicted an earlier NAA test conducted by the FBI. In 1964 the FBI subjected fragments from Connally's wrist and Kennedy's brain, along with material from CE 399, to NAA. This test indicated the wrist and brain fragments did NOT match CE 399, thus destroying the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin scenario, which is undoubtedly why the results of the FBI's NAA were suppressed until their release was forced in 1974 by a suit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (Oglesby 87-89; Marrs 446-447). Additional ballistics evidence against the single-bullet theory came when the FBI analyzed metal smears taken from the spot on the curb near James Tague that was struck by a bullet during the shooting. The FBI found, and the WC conceded, that the composition of the smears ruled out the possibility that the curb was struck by a copper-jacketed bullet, which is the kind of ammunition Oswald supposedly used (Lane 1992:69-70). Yet another problem with the single-bullet theory is the fact that Kennedy and Connally were never aligned in such a way that a bullet exiting the President's throat could have struck Connally under the right armpit. Posner claims that computer-generated reverse projection cones establish that the shots came from the southeast end of the Book Depository (334-335). But there are major problems with Posner's trajectory scenario. In his illustration entitled "View from above," Posner depicts Connally as leaning far to his left and having his head turned nearly halfway around to his right at Z-frame 224 (479). Posner must do this in order to place the Governor in the proper position to receive the bullet that allegedly exited Kennedy's throat. But this frame plainly and clearly shows Connally sitting upright with his head turned only slightly to the right. Anyone can look at frame 224 and see this for themselves. Posner's alignment theory assumes that Connally was struck at Z-frame 224. But the Zapruder film shows he was hit at frame 237, for in frame 238 his right shoulder is driven 200 downward, his cheeks puff up, and a pained expression appears on his face. The sharp shoulder drop occurs within an eighteenth of a second, obviously in response to the force of the bullet's impact in the preceding frame. Therefore, Connally was struck at frame 237, as even Moore concedes. Moreover, if Connally was hit at Z-frame 224, why does he show no signs of being struck until frame 238, three-quarters of a second later (Menninger 40)? Dr. Gregory estimated that the interval between the impact of the bullet and the Governor's reaction to it would have been NO MORE THAN ONE-QUARTER TO ONE-HALF A SECOND (Menninger 40). This is not surprising, since the shot that went through Connally's chest caused an involuntary opening of his epiglottis; the escaping air then forced his mouth to open, as seen in the Zapruder film (Menninger 40). Posner's postulated hit at frame 224 leaves too much of a lapse between impact and reaction. In addition, the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that Kennedy was hit a fraction of a second BEFORE the limousine drove behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, at right around frame 190, well over a second earlier than frame 224. In presenting his trajectory reconstruction, Posner assumes that the magic bullet hit Kennedy at the rear base of the neck. However, the wound in question was actually located several inches down in the back, below the shoulder blades, at the third thoracic vertebra. This fact is confirmed by the death certificate, by the autopsy face sheet, by the holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and by an FBI autopsy report written on the night of the assassination. Furthermore, as mentioned, the back wound was probed and found to have no point of exit. Noticeably absent from Posner's alignment theory is any discussion of the incompatible angles at which the magic bullet would have had to travel. For example, according to the WC, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back penetrated at a downward angle of 450 to 600. But the bullet that injured Connally entered at an angle of only 270 (Groden and Livingstone 63; Lane 1992:74-75). To further complicate matters, the HSCA's medical panel unanimously concluded that the bullet that hit the President in the back had a "slightly UPWARD trajectory" (Davis 435, emphasis added; Groden and Livingstone 390). How could a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository have possibly struck Kennedy's back at any kind of an UPWARD angle? How could the same bullet that entered Kennedy's back at a sharply downward angle of 450 to 600 (according to the WC), or at a slightly upward angle (according to the HSCA), have had a trajectory of 270 when it hit Connally? Posner does not have to answer these questions because he simply ignores the magic bullet's conflicting angles of trajectory. No magic-bullet alignment theory has yet explained how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. The windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the alleged sniper's nest (Menninger 248). The Select Committee speculated that the damage was caused by the supposed rear-head-shot bullet after it exited the skull, but a NASA scientist informed the Committee that the alleged trajectory of this supposed bullet was incompatible with the windshield damage (Menninger 246). On the other hand, a bullet fired from the first or second floor of the Dal Tex Building or the County Records Building could have struck the windshield at the required angle. ----------------------------------------- The Fatal Head Shot and the Zapruder Film ----------------------------------------- Posner attempts to explain why the Zapruder film shows JFK's upper body rocketing backward in reaction to the fatal head shot (315-316). Citing the work of Drs. Luis Alvarez and John Lattimer, Posner says the backward snap of Kennedy's upper body resulted, not from a shot from the front, but from a neuromuscular reaction and the so-called "jet effect" after a bullet entered JFK's head from behind. This is a far cry from the days when WC member Allen Dulles denied the Zapruder film showed Kennedy moving backward in response to the final shot. Gone, too, are the days when it was proposed that the limousine suddenly lurched forward at the precise moment of the last shot and thus caused the President's fierce backward motion. We can also rest assured that CBS's Dan Rather will never again tell a nationwide audience, as he did the day after the assassination, that in the Zapruder film Kennedy's head is thrust FORWARD by the final shot. Now we are told the President was indeed rocketed violently backward but that this movement was caused by a neuromuscular reaction and the jet effect. Of course, both of these theories assume the fatal head shot was fired from behind. On this basis alone they can be dismissed as spurious, for the evidence is clear that the final shot came from the front. However, even when considered in their own right, these theories run into serious trouble. Neuromuscular reactions normally do not begin for several minutes after the upper brain centers have been separated from the brain stem and the spinal cord, and the jet-effect hypothesis violates the Newtonian laws of physics, including the third law, which WC defenders sometimes invoke in the theory's defense (Livingstone 367-368). In 1988 3M's Comtel Corporation, which specializes in photographic analysis through computerized enhancements, examined the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film to determine the direction of the shot. As reported in Jack Anderson's 1988 documentary, WHO MURDERED JFK?, Comtel's analysis proved "beyond a doubt that the fatal gunshot came from in front of the president's car." How does Posner explain the fact that the police officers who were riding to the left REAR of the limousine were forcefully splattered with JFK's blood and brain tissue? He resorts to invention. He claims that in an "enhanced" version of the Zapruder film "the two officers drive right into the head spray, which actually shot up and to the front of the President" (316 n). THIS IS SHEER FICTION. In order to slam into the spray, the two officers would have had to suddenly surge forward, fast enough and far enough to almost instantly pull even with, or pass, Jackie Kennedy, especially if the spray "shot up and to the front." When I first read Posner's claim that the officers drive into the spray, I thought to myself, "Wow! How did I miss that?" I then reviewed the relevant Zapruder frames, 313 to 413, at normal speed, in slow motion, and in super slow motion, and confirmed what I already knew: The two policemen never drive up beside Mrs. Kennedy, much less pass her. This is not surprising, since reportedly they were under strict orders not to move beyond the rear wheels of the limousine under any circumstances (Sloan 113). Furthermore, after the fatal head shot, one of those patrolmen, Officer Bobby Hargis, got off his cycle and ran up the grassy knoll. As for the direction of the spray from Kennedy's head, most of it was blown backward, not forward, indicating that the fatal shot came from the front. Officer Hargis, riding just behind the limousine's left rear bumper, was struck so forcefully by blood and brain matter that at first he thought he himself had been hit. Officer B. J. Martin, who was on Hargis's left, looked to his right after the first shots; later, he found blood stains on the LEFT side of his helmet, as well as on his windshield. Only blood spraying from the rear of JFK's head could have reached all the way out to Officer Martin. There is also the fact that a piece of skull from the REAR of the President's head was blown BACKWARD by the fatal head shot (Marrs 13-15; Livingstone 172; Lifton 316-317; cf. Lifton 530-533). The skull fragment was blown out with such force that it flew for at least ten feet before landing (Summers 32; Groden and Livingstone 231). On April 13, 1994, I spoke with Mr. Clark Thiriot, an engineer with Lockheed Aerospace Corporation. Mr. Thiriot is an expert in physics and mathematics. In addition to his job with Lockheed, Mr. Thiriot teaches math for the University of Maryland (European Division). I asked Mr. Thiriot the following question: "Suppose you were trying to determine the direction of a shot to a person's head by the movement of his body when the bullet impacted. Let's assume the individual was seated in a car and that the car was not moving when the bullet struck (cf. Marrs 12). If the person's body moved violently backward when the missile hit, so hard that his body bounced forward a few inches after slamming against the seat, from which direction would you say the shot came?" Mr. Thiriot replied that, based on what I had told him, he would definitely say the shot came from the front. He explained that the bullet's action force would cause the head to move in the same direction as the missile. He pointed out that Newton's second law and the principle of the conservation of momentum would demand that this be the case. I might add that Mr. Thiriot did NOT know that my question related to the JFK assassination until after he answered it. ------------------- The Garrison Affair ------------------- It would take literally dozens of pages to respond to all of the distortions, omissions, and errors in Posner's treatment of Jim Garrison (423-452). Time only permits me to briefly summarize the Garrison affair and to answer a few of Posner's claims. On March 1, 1967, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison arrested international businessman and New Orleans resident Clay Shaw on the charge of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. Essentially, Garrison claimed that Shaw had ties to the CIA and that he had participated in a CIA-connected plot to kill JFK. Garrison said one of Shaw's confederates was David Ferrie, an ultra-radical right-winger with CIA and Mafia connections. Two years later, the case went to court, and on February 28, 1969, the jury found Shaw not guilty. (Interestingly, the two alternate jurors voted guilty.) The verdict was not surprising since Garrison's case had been devastated by one act of sabotage after another in the two years leading up to the trial. Some of Garrison's key witnesses either died suddenly under strange circumstances (e.g., David Ferrie) or were admittedly murdered (e.g., Eladio del Valle). Several important witnesses and potential suspects fled to other states and avoided Garrison's attempts to extradite them. The federal government refused to turn over important evidence relating to the assassination. The government also refused to serve Garrison's subpoenas on certain CIA and FBI officials. Garrison's office was infiltrated by people who were trying to help Shaw, some of whom were allegedly sent by the CIA or the FBI. Most of the major American news media conducted an unrelenting smear campaign against Garrison and his investigation. Many of Garrison's files, including his witness list, were stolen and given to Shaw's defense team. And, the trial judge would not allow the presentation of a key piece of evidence that proved Shaw had used a highly suspicious alias. But, according to Posner, Garrison had absolutely no case; it was all a giant fabrication. Posner paints Garrison as a power-hungry, unscrupulous tyrant who knowingly prosecuted an innocent man for personal gain. And what of Clay Shaw? Posner says he was just an ordinary businessman, a harmless poet and playwright, with no ties whatsoever to the CIA. Posner claims Shaw never used the alias Clay Bertrand. In fact, according to Posner, there was no such person. And as for David Ferrie, Posner insists there is no evidence that Shaw knew him. As mentioned, it would take dozens of pages to adequately review Posner's attack on Garrison. What follows is a survey of some of Posner's errors and omissions. * Shaw sat on the boards of two secretive international companies that were suspected of having fascist leanings and intelligence connections. Both companies, Permindex and the Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC), were widely regarded as being fronts for the CIA. CMC was expelled from Italy and Switzerland for allegedly engaging in illegal political-espionage activities on behalf of the CIA. Permindex was publicly accused by French president Charles de Gaulle of channeling funds to the violent and outlawed Secret Army Organization, which tried to assassinate him on several occasions. One might wonder how Posner squares all of this with his picture of Shaw as the innocent playwright- businessman. He doesn't. He says nothing about Shaw's involvement with these two companies. * Posner claims Shaw had no CIA connections. But Shaw's lengthy association with the Agency was disclosed in a CIA document that was released in 1977. Between 1949 and 1956, Shaw filed thirty reports with the CIA. Three former intelligence agents have linked Shaw to the CIA; these same agents also maintain that Shaw conducted some of his intelligence activities in concert with Guy Bannister and David Ferrie, both of whom are strongly suspected of having participated in the framing of Oswald as the patsy (DiEugenio 1992:140, 385 n 22; Oglesby 287; Marrs 500; Russell 215-217). Former CIA director Richard Helms admitted under oath in 1979 that Shaw had been a CIA contact of the Domestic Contact Division (Lane 1991:222-224). A CIA document released in 1993 and made available at the National Archives discloses that Shaw had a covert clearance for a top secret CIA project codenamed QKENCHANT (DiEugenio 1993:21). On a related note, a recent investigation into Shaw's British contacts revealed that a number of them had intelligence connections; moreover, there are indications that Shaw might have worked for the OSS, the World War II precursor of the CIA, and participated in the transfer of Nazi prisoners and war criminals to the West (Frewin; DiEugenio 1992:214-216). * Posner says there is no evidence that Shaw knew David Ferrie. Then how does Posner explain the two well-known pictures showing Shaw and Ferrie together at a homosexual house party? He doesn't. He never mentions them (the photos can be seen in DiEugenio 1992:206 and in Groden and Livingstone's third group of black and white pictures). In addition to the photographic evidence, several witnesses told Garrison that Shaw and Ferrie knew each other. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tadin testified that Ferrie introduced Shaw to them and told them Shaw was a friend of his (DiEugenio 1992:204-205). Also, during his trial, Shaw admitted under cross-examination that he knew Layton Martens and James Lewallen, both of whom were friends of Ferrie's; in fact, Martens was one of Ferrie's roommates (Frewin 31). * Posner asserts that Shaw never used the alias Clay Bertrand. However, Posner does not explain why Shaw accepted mail addressed to a Clem Bertrand (DiEugenio 1992:196). Also ignored by Posner is the fact that a hostess at the VIP Room at the New Orleans Airport testified she had seen Shaw sign the guest register as "Clay Bertrand" (DiEugenio 1992:198; Garrison 282-283). Garrison's staff obtained the VIP Room's guest register and found the signature of a "Clay Bertrand." A handwriting expert from Boston, Mrs. Elizabeth McCarthy, was then asked to evaluate the guest-register signature in relation to Shaw's handwriting. She told the court, "It is my opinion that it is highly probable that Clay Shaw signed the signature" (Garrison 282-283; DiEugenio 1992:198). Shaw's defense team produced their own handwriting expert, who disputed Mrs. McCarthy's conclusion. However, Shaw's lawyers were unable to refute the hostess's testimony. Shaw himself took the stand and denied using the alias Clay Bertrand; he also said he didn't know David Ferrie. Even the trial judge, Judge Edward Haggerty, later admitted he didn't believe Shaw. In a filmed interview broadcast in New Orleans in 1992, Haggerty said, "Shaw lied through his teeth," and added that Shaw did "a con job on the jury" (DiEugenio 1992:369 n 81). * This brings us to the subject of the name Clay Bertrand. Why was Shaw's alleged use of this alias so hotly contested by the defense? Why is it still so strongly denied by Shaw's defenders? Because New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews told the FBI that shortly after the assassination a "Clay Bertrand" called him and asked him to defend Oswald. Later, under considerable pressure, Andrews claimed he had just imagined the whole thing. But then he repeated his story to Garrison and to one of Garrison's assistants, only to reverse himself again in subsequent interviews and during Shaw's trial. Posner, of course, accepts Andrews' repudiation of his initial FBI testimony. What Posner doesn't do is explain the fact that Andrews' original story was corroborated by three different people, two of whom worked in Andrews' office (DiEugenio 1992:129-130, 369-370 n 82). * Posner repeats charges against Garrison that were either proven false or never substantiated. For instance, Posner recites the erroneous attacks presented in NBC's 1967 anti-Garrison "White Paper" documentary. The program's producer was a vehement Garrison critic named Walter Sheridan. Some of the people interviewed for the documentary included Dean Andrews, two convicted burglars, and James Phelan, another Garrison opponent who had already made unproven accusations against the district attorney in a national magazine. These men presented a long list of charges against Garrison, from bribery to witness intimidation. However, when Garrison called these same individuals to testify in a real proceeding, under oath, so they could repeat their claims to a grand jury, Andrews was indicted for perjury; the two burglars took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, were cited for contempt, and had time added to their sentences; Phelan refused to appear; and Sheridan left New Orleans. * In all seriousness, Posner suggests that Garrison's staff planted the typed suicide note that was found in Ferrie's apartment. (Actually, two typed suicide notes were found, though Posner mentions only one.) Posner bases this suggestion on a suspicion voiced by none other than Gordon Novel, a CIA contact whom Garrison sought to extradite. During the Watergate scandal, Novel, an electronics whiz, approached the White House and offered to help erase Richard Nixon's self-incriminating tapes (DiEugenio 1992:247; Marrs 508). Posner paints Novel as a victim of Garrison's alleged persecution and repeats a number of Novel's charges against him. * Posner says Ferrie's death was purely natural. He points out that the coroner ruled that Ferrie died of an aneurism (a broken blood vessel) in the brain, and that forensic pathologists confirmed this in 1992. But determining that someone died of a brain aneurism does not automatically prove that the individual died solely of natural causes. In any case, most conspiracy theorists do not believe Ferrie committed suicide either, but at the same time they doubt he died a purely natural death. Ferrie was discovered lying naked on his sofa with a sheet pulled over his head. Two typed suicide notes were found in his apartment. There were several empty medicine bottles on the table next to Ferrie's body. One of the drugs found in the apartment was Ploroid, a drug designed to greatly increase a person's metabolism. Garrison learned that with Ferrie's hypertension Ploroid could have caused him to die from a brain aneurism without leaving a trace (DiEugenio 1992:152; Garrison 163-167). What would the hyperactive Ferrie have been doing with a drug like Ploroid anyway? Garrison suspected, and many assassination researchers have long believed, that someone forced Ferrie to swallow medicine from the bottles found on the nearby table, perhaps including the Ploroid. Recently disclosed photos from Ferrie's autopsy lend credence to this belief. The photos, made public in 1992, show bruises on the inside of Ferrie's mouth and gums, which suggest his mouth was forced shut, "perhaps to make him swallow something against his will" (DiEugenio 1992:153). The day before he died, Ferrie purchased 100 thyroid tablets. However, when his body was discovered, they were nowhere to be found in his apartment. Researcher Frank Minyard theorizes that the killers may have mixed the pills into a solution and then forced it down Ferrie's throat with a tube. In this regard, it is interesting to note that one of the contusions visible in the autopsy photos of Ferrie's mouth is on the inside of the lower lip "where the tube may have struck during a struggle" (DiEugenio 1992:360 n 17). To fully comprehend the unfair and distorted nature of Posner's attack on Jim Garrison, I would invite the reader to compare Posner's chapter on him with James DiEugenio's book DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE. DiEugenio certainly takes Garrison to task for his mistakes, but he also shows that Garrison was on the right track. DiEugenio makes extensive use of the Shaw trial transcripts and offers new insights into the case from recent interviews with important witnesses and former members of Garrison's staff. Published in 1992, DESTINY BETRAYED is fully documented, with upwards of 1,000 notes and an extensive bibliography. I would also recommend Carl Oglesby's and Jim Marrs' analyses of Garrison and his investigation (Oglesby 271-292; Marrs 494-515). ----------------------- Oswald and David Ferrie ----------------------- Posner knows it is crucial for his case that he prove that Oswald was not associated with David Ferrie, "since Ferrie had extensive anti-Castro Cuban contacts and also did some work for an attorney for Carlos Marcello. . . ." (142). After all, one would hardly expect the supposedly left-wing Oswald to be associating with the likes of David Ferrie. Not only was Ferrie reportedly a CIA contact, but he was heavily involved in CIA-backed anti-Castro operations and had close ties to right-wing Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello. And Ferrie made no secret of his passionate hatred of Kennedy. On one occasion, Ferrie was heard to remark that Kennedy "ought to be shot" (Davis 174). So a Ferrie-Oswald relationship poses serious problems for Posner. Posner probably wouldn't mind linking Oswald to someone who expressed violent sentiments against JFK (even though Oswald, by all accounts, thought highly of the President), but he doesn't dare connect Oswald to Ferrie, for if Oswald was the Castro-loving ultra-leftist that Posner says he was, why on earth would he have been associating with a rabid right-winger who had ties to the Mafia and the CIA? Therefore, Posner asserts that there is "no credible evidence" that Oswald knew David Ferrie (148). Then what was Oswald doing with Ferrie's library card on the day of the assassination (Davis 213-217)? Why did Ferrie ask Oswald's former neighbors in New Orleans about his library card? Why did he visit Oswald's Dallas landlady to inquire about his library card? Posner does not address this issue. Posner denies that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in 1955. He claims that CAP records show that Ferrie's 1955 CAP membership renewal request was rejected (143). But Ferrie formed his own CAP unit, and it was this unit to which Oswald belonged. Most of the CAP records for Ferrie's squadron were stolen in late 1960. However, HSCA investigators "established that Ferrie's service with the Air Patrol fitted with that of Oswald" (Summers 301-302). The Select Committee "also identified no fewer than six witnesses whose statements tended to confirm that Oswald had been present at Patrol meetings attended by Ferrie" (Summers 302; cf. Blakey and Billings 375-376). One witness told Committee investigators, [quote] Oswald and Ferrie were in the unit together. I'm not saying that they may have been there together. I'm saying it's a certainty. (Summers 302) [end of quote] In addition, a former CAP cadet told the FBI that after the assassination Ferrie visited him to see if any old squadron photos pictured him and Oswald together (Summers 301). Posner dismisses the testimony of the witnesses in Clinton and Jackson, Louisiana, who said they saw Oswald and Ferrie together in the summer of 1963 (141-148). These highly credible witnesses included a state representative, a deputy sheriff, and a town registrar of voters. Posner's reasons for rejecting their testimony are strained and unconvincing. He even suggests that the witnesses never actually saw Oswald. Jim Garrison and his staff found the Clinton and Jackson witnesses to be credible (Garrison 122-126). Years later, the House Select Committee interviewed these witnesses in executive session and concluded they were honest and sincere (Blakey and Billings 193-194). One of Ferrie's former roommates, Raymond Broshears, told author Dick Russell in 1975 that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other quite well. Among other things, Broshears said, "David told me Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill the President. He was very adamant about it, and I believed him. All the things he told me about Oswald, I doubt he could have shot a rabbit standing fifty feet away" (Russell 576). What of the Ferrie-Oswald relationship? Jim Garrison believed, and many researchers agree, that Ferrie was involved in the New Orleans phase of the operation to frame Oswald as a pro-Castro, far-left activist. ----------------------------------------- Oswald, Guy Banister, and 544 Camp Street ----------------------------------------- Posner says Oswald had no connection to Guy Banister, and, therefore, had no reason to visit Banister's office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans (137-142). This is another crucial point of contention, for Banister was a former FBI man with significant intelligence connections, and his 544 Camp Street office was a meeting place for anti-Castro militants, CIA and FBI agents, and organized crime figures (Marrs 147-149, 235-237; Blakey and Billings 188-191; Garrison 27-31). Banister-associate Jack Martin said he saw Oswald in Banister's office in the summer of 1963. Martin added that on at least one occasion Oswald went there with David Ferrie. Posner dismisses Banister's statements because he was a heavy drinker and because he had previously told the FBI he had not seen Oswald in Banister's office (139). Additionally, Posner notes that the HSCA likewise rejected Martin's testimony. However, Martin was certainly in a position to witness the visits he claimed to have seen, and it was Martin who tipped off Jim Garrison's office to the fact that David Ferrie had made a suspicious trip to Texas on the night of the assassination. When Martin first informed on Ferrie, he requested anonymity, but somehow his cover was blown after FBI agent Regis Kennedy interviewed him a short time later. This was the same Regis Kennedy who told the HSCA that from 1959 to 1963 Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello was a legitimate businessman who had no links to organized crime (Blakey and Billings 293). Martin's testimony was corroborated on some key points by Banister's former secretary, Delphine Roberts. Roberts told the DALLAS MORNING NEWS in 1978 that Oswald had worked for Banister as an undercover agent in the summer of 1963 (Marrs 148). She subsequently repeated this claim to British journalist Anthony Summers. She further told Summers that intelligence agents and law enforcement officers frequented Banister's office and that she learned from Banister that Oswald made more than one trip to Mexico City (Summers 294-296). In addition, Roberts said that when she spotted Oswald handing out his literature and asked Banister about it, he replied, "Don't worry. . . . He's with us. He's with the office" (Summers 295). According to Posner, Roberts, who is an avowed ultra-conservative, now says her statements to Summers were false (139-141). However, there are reasons to question her retraction. For instance, her claim that Banister told her that Oswald had visited Mexico City more than once rings true, for there is now evidence of an earlier Oswald trip to the Mexican capital (e.g., Russell 370). Her statements about an Oswald-Banister connection were supported by another former Banister associate, Ivan Nitschke, who reported in 1978 that Banister became "interested in Oswald" in the summer of 1963 (Russell 396; Summers 296). Moreover, Roberts's claim that Banister told her not to worry about Oswald's pro-Castro pamphleteering was supported by one of Banister's former informants, Allen Campbell. Campbell told Garrison staffers that when somebody in Banister's office informed Banister of Oswald's pro-Castro demonstration in front of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart, he merely laughed (Summers 293). That Oswald was connected to Banister's office would seem to be proven by the fact that the address 544 Camp Street was stamped on some of the pro-Castro pamphlets he distributed in New Orleans in August 1963. Not according to Posner. "There are," says Posner, "several nonsinister explanations" (141). Posner seems to favor the idea that Oswald put the address on the leaflets to embarrass Banister, the extreme right wing, and the city's anti-Castro militants (142). But this theory ignores the other evidence of an Oswald-Banister connection, and it fails to account for the reports that copies of one of Oswald's pro-Castro leaflets were found in Banister's files after he died (Blakey and Billings 190). In addition, the Oswald leaflets recovered in New Orleans were not the only ones that were found. Twenty copies of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets were discovered among his possessions in Dallas, and ten of them were stamped with the 544 Camp Street address (Summers 288). Oswald's pamphleteering becomes even more significant in light of recent information about one of the pamphlets he was distributing. In the third week of August 1963, Oswald was handing out a pro-Castro pamphlet entitled THE CRIME AGAINST CUBA. The booklet was written in June 1961 by noted peace activist Corliss Lamont. By December of that year, the pamphlet was already in its fourth printing. Interestingly enough, the copy that Oswald was handing out was not the latest edition, but the first edition, WHICH SOLD OUT WHEN HE WAS IN THE SOVIET UNION (DiEugenio 1992:219). So how did Oswald obtain that edition? The answer may lie in a recently discovered photocopy of a June 1961 invoice which shows an order for forty-five copies of the first edition. THE ORDER WAS PLACED BY THE CIA. A copy of the invoice can be seen on page 219 of James DiEugenio's book DESTINY BETRAYED. In the "Furnish Supplies or Services To" and "Seller's Invoice Sent To" blocks, appears the following entry: Central Intelligence Agency Mailroom Library Washington 25, D.C. In the "Ordered By" block, appear the words "Chief, Acquisitions Branch." It is entirely possible that Oswald obtained his copies of the sold-out edition from the CIA. Additional proof of an Oswald-Banister connection is the evidence linking Oswald to David Ferrie. But Posner doesn't deal with this link because he denies that Oswald and Ferrie knew each other. Summers concludes, "The new information now available suggests Banister drew Oswald into an American intelligence scheme, perhaps aimed at compromising the Fair Play for Cuba Committee" (290). Other researchers believe Banister's principal purpose in working with Oswald was to "sheepdip" him as a pro-Castro activist as part of an operation to make him the scapegoat for the assassination. ------------------------- No Oswald Impersonations? ------------------------- Posner goes to the extreme of claiming there were no Oswald impersonations whatsoever (174-196, 211 n, 213-214). However, not only does Posner offer weak reasons for rejecting the impersonation accounts, but he does not even deal with all of them. For example, Posner says nothing about the incident in which a phony Oswald trespassed onto private property, engaged in target practice, and then left behind a 6.5mm shell (Marrs 545). Posner also ignores the account of Leonard Hutchinson. After the assassination, Hutchinson, who owned a grocery store in Irving, Texas, said he had been asked to cash a two-party check in the amount of $189 for a "Harvey Oswald" on November 8. A nearby barber said he saw a man resembling Oswald enter Hutchinson's store that day (Smith 258-259). But the real Oswald was elsewhere on November 8 (Smith 259). Hutchinson said he saw the man in his store several other times, and that on one occasion the man was accompanied by a young woman who conversed with the phony Oswald in a foreign language (Marrs 541). Hutchinson recognized the couple from photographs of Lee and Marina Oswald that were broadcast over TV after the assassination. It is doubtful the real Lee and Marina Oswald were ever in Hutchinson's store. Incidentally, this is not the only reported case of someone impersonating Marina either (Marrs 544). Other Oswald impersonations ignored by Posner include the following: * On October 11, 1963, when the real Oswald was in Dallas, someone in New Orleans filed a change-of-address card in Oswald's name to forward his mail to a house in Dallas. The card is signed in Oswald's name but the signature is not in his handwriting (Summers 375). * Two weeks before the assassination, a phony Oswald asked about a job as a parking attendant at the Southland Hotel in downtown Dallas. When the parking lot manager wrote the applicant's name down as "Lee Harvey Osborn," the man corrected it to "Oswald." The real Oswald, observes Summers, "did not usually spell out his full name but called himself simply 'Lee Oswald'" (Summers 378). The imposter then asked a strange question that would later have sinister significance: He wanted to know how high the hotel was and whether it provided a good view of Dallas (Summers 378). * On November 1, 1963, a Cuban man entered a gift shot in Dade County, Florida, and told an employee there that he had a friend named Lee who could speak Russian and German. The man added that his friend Lee lived in Texas or Mexico and "was also a sharpshooter" (Russell 538). * On July 26, 1963, when the real Oswald was in New Orleans, someone visited the Atomic Energy Museum in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and signed the register "Lee H. Oswald, USSR, Dallas Road, Dallas, Texas" (Russell 361). The imposter's intention, of course, was to make it seem as though Oswald thought of himself as a Soviet citizen. Now let us examine the impersonation accounts which Posner rejects. Posner dismisses the story of Albert Bogard, the car salesman who said a man named "Oswald" test drove a car shortly before the assassination. Bogard testified to the WC that a man who introducted himself as "Lee Oswald" expressed an interest in buying a car and even went for a test drive during which he drove 60 to 70 miles an hour on the Stemmons Freeway. The real Oswald did not drive. According to Bogard, when they returned to the dealership, "Oswald" said he didn't have enough money for a down payment but that he'd be coming into a lot of money very soon. Another salesman at the dealership, Eugene Wilson, said the phony Oswald remarked that he could get a better deal by going back to Russia "where they treat workers like men" (Groden and Livingstone 132). Posner says none of Bogard's fellow workers supported his story (211 n). This is not true. Bogard's account was supported by two other salesmen, Wilson and Frank Pizzo (Marrs 542; Summers 377). Posner notes that the dealership's manager denied Bogard's story and later fired him for telling it. Posner prefers to believe the manager rather than Bogard and the other two car salesmen. Even after he was fired, Bogard did not deny his account. Furthermore, Bogard submitted to an FBI lie detector test. The FBI grudgingly acknowledged that the polygraph results "were those normally expected of a person telling the truth" (Smith 260). Although he claims that no one at the dealership supported Bogard's story, Posner does admit that one salesman (Wilson) remembered a five-foot-tall Oswald. Actually, both Rizzo and Wilson said the imposter was only about five feet tall (Groden and Livingstone 190). Not only does Posner cite only half of this corroborating testimony, but he rejects this impersonation because the Oswald imposter was significantly shorter than the real Oswald. Posner dismisses the accounts of a phony Oswald firing at two rifle ranges in Dallas and Irving in early November (213-214). For the most part, Posner nit-picks at minor inconsistencies, seeing great significance in the fact that the witnesses disagreed about the exact model and color of the car the man drove and the kind of rifle and scope he used. Dr. Homer Wood and his son, Sterling Wood, remembered the man and were shocked when they saw photos of Oswald on TV after the assassination. So closely did the imposter resemble the alleged assassin that both Dr. Wood and his son are still convinced the man they saw was Lee Harvey Oswald (Marrs 545). However, the real Oswald never visited the two rifle ranges. Posner notes that one of the witnesses, Malcolm Price, said the last time he saw "Oswald" at the Dallas range was during a turkey shoot on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, which was after Oswald had been arrested. But what if the man Price saw was an imposter? What would have prevented him from returning to the range after the assassination? There is also the possibility that Price was simply mistaken about the date and merged the phony Oswald's last appearance with the turkey shoot. Posner strongly questions the credibility of Sylvia Odio, who reported a very specific and disturbing Oswald impersonation involving anti-Castro Cubans (175-180). Posner paints her as an emotionally unstable woman who either imagined her story or made it up to get attention. Posner's attack, however, is both slanted and incomplete. The available evidence supports Mrs. Odio's story. A senior WC staffer wrote, "Mrs. Odio has checked out thoroughly," and called her "the most significant witness linking Oswald to the anti-Castro Cubans" (Summers 389-390). The House Select Commitee examined Mrs. Odio's story and also concluded it was credible (Russell 480). Similarly, British scholar Matthew Smith studied the relevant evidence and came away convinced that Mrs. Odio was reliable (257-259). Posner seeks to exploit the fact that Mrs. Odio did not tell her story to the authorities right away. Yet, as Posner surely ought to know, Mrs. Odio was afraid to go to the authorities. In fact, she did not discuss her experience with official investigators until the FBI approached her after a series of private conversations about it came to the attention of an FBI agent. Only after the FBI contacted her did she discuss her story with government representatives. Incredibly, as part of his attack on Mrs. Odio, Posner quotes Carlos Bringuier. This is the same Carlos Bringuier who, in 1963, was a CIA contact in New Orleans, a fanatical right-wing Cuban exile, and the propaganda secretary for the CIA-sponsored Cuban Revolutionary Council (Russell 389-390). (Posner describes Bringuier merely as an "anti-Castro leader.") It was Bringuier who picked that suspicious "fight" with Oswald in New Orleans. Bringuier's original anti-Castro headquarters was located in Guy Banister's building on 544 Camp Street. Oddly enough, this address appeared on one of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflets. Many assassination researchers suspect Bringuier and Banister of having participated in the framing of Oswald as the patsy for the assassination. Since so much has already been written about Mrs. Odio's testimony, I will not respond to all of Posner's criticisms of it. However, I would invite the reader to compare Posner's case against Mrs. Odio's testimony with the defenses of it written by Anthony Summers, Jim Marrs, and Dick Russell (Summers 383-393; Marrs 150-152; Russell 478-483). Posner says all of the reported contacts with Oswald in Mexico City were with the real Lee Harvey Oswald (170-173, 181-196). This is not a credible position in light of the evidence. There are gaping holes in Posner's reconstruction of Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City. Here are a few of the irregularities about that visit that Posner does not mention at all: * Oswald's alleged bus tickets were found only a few days before the Warren Report was to be published. The tickets were supposedly found in some Spanish-language magazines that Oswald had allegedly brought back from Mexico City. As the story goes, Marina Oswald supposedly took these magazines with her to the hotel where the government detained her after the assassination. There, at the last minute, Marina found the tickets in one of the magazines. No one has yet explained why Marina would have taken Spanish magazines with her when she did not even speak the language. Nor has anyone explained why it took so long to "find" the tickets. FBI had agents had already carefully searched the motel rooms where Marina and her children were being kept. The agents said they had examined every scrap of paper in the rooms and found nothing of interest (Lane 1991:66). The rooms were searched again by a different team of agents. They didn't find the tickets either. It was only after the WC finally began to get suspicious about the lack of hard evidence of Oswald's Mexico City trip that the tickets miraculously turned up. * Every name in the September 27 register of the hotel where Oswald allegedly stayed is in the same handwriting except Oswald's (DiEugenio 1992:264). The WC tried to explain this by claiming that on the first night a guest would write his or her own name but that on succeeding nights the hotel clerk wrote them in. "Yet," observes James DiEugenio, "eight other guests checked in on September 27, and, on the register for September 28, Oswald's name is again in a unique handwriting. To make it more curious, the handwriting is not the same as that of the signature [from] the previous day" (1992:264). * Posner, following the WC, says Oswald returned to Dallas by bus on October 3 (196). But the Mexican border records for October 3 do not show Oswald heading for Dallas by bus, but for New Orleans by car (DiEugenio 1992:264). * Oswald allegedly traveled on the Flecha Roja bus line. This bus line normally kept a passenger manifest for each of its runs. The original was sent to Mexico City and a duplicate copy was retained at Nuevo Laredo. However, four months after the assassination, when the FBI went to Mexico City to examine the original passenger list, they were told that Mexican government investigators had taken the list and had not returned it (DiEugenio 1992:264). These unnamed "investigators," the FBI was told, had also taken the duplicate. Neither the original nor the duplicate was ever located. For years lone-gunman theorists have avoided dealing with two troubling facts concerning the impersonation issue: One, the CIA told the WC it had a tape of Oswald calling the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, but FBI agents listened to the tape and concluded the voice on it was not Oswald's. Two, the CIA claimed it had pictures which showed Oswald outside the Soviet Embassy, but when the pictures subsequently came to light it was clear that the man in them bore no resemblance to Oswald. Posner tackles these difficulties head-on. In essence, he says they were the results of innocent mistakes on the part of the CIA (185-188). The CIA, says Posner, accidentally identified the wrong photos and inadvertantly gave the FBI the wrong tape. In addition, Posner, quoting an anonymous CIA officer, suggests that the CIA might have routinely destroyed its recording of Oswald's alleged call to the Soviet embassy. Let's consider the scenario Posner would have us accept: The President of the United States had been assassinated. Shortly thereafter, the CIA was asked to assist the WC in its investigation. The CIA then claimed it had photographic and audio evidence that Oswald, the alleged assassin, phoned and visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies. A short while later, the Agency said that while at the Soviet embassy Oswald spoke with a KGB expert in sabotage and assassination. However, the CIA, in the most important investigation of the century, somehow had the wrong photos and the wrong tape. To make matters worse, the Agency might have sent the wrong tape because it had mistakenly erased the real one. This is what Posner would have us believe. It should be pointed out that the CIA never actually showed the pictures to the WC; they surfaced years later. On January 24, 1964, the CIA told the WC that Oswald had met with Valery Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. The Agency said Kostikov was a KGB agent involved in assassination and sabotage. The Commission was so frightened by this information that it decided to simply take the CIA's word about Oswald's Mexico City activities. Thus, the CIA was never forced to turn over the photos and the tape. FBI agents examined the pictures and listened to the tape and knew they were not of Oswald, but the Bureau did not inform the Commission of this fact. Posner does not discuss the CIA and FBI deception. Posner claims that two employees at the Cuban Embassy, Sylvia Duran and Alfredo Mirabel Diaz, positively identified Oswald as the man they had seen (188-191). Diaz, however, admitted he only saw the man briefly (Summers 349). And Sylvia Duran said in 1978 that she was no longer certain that Oswald was the person who visited the embassy (Summers 350-351; Marrs 193-195). Also, Duran's initial identification of the visitor as Oswald was made under extreme duress (Marrs 193-195; Lane 1991:58-60). Furthermore, the embassy consul at that time, Eusebio Azcue, continues to assert that the visitor was not Lee Harvey Oswald (Summers 346-351). Posner points out that Azcue wavered somewhat when the Select Committee informed him that the signatures on the visa application had been verified as Oswald's (188 n). Yet, even then Azcue did not actually reverse himself. What about the Oswald photos and the signatures on the visa application? Consul Azcue pointed out that the clerk could have allowed the visitor to take the visa application out of the embassy, thus providing an opportunity to obtain the real Oswald's signature. Or, the signatures could have been expertly faked. After the assassination, researchers found a photocopy of Oswald's Social Security card on which someone appears to have been practicing how to forge Oswald's signature (Russell 392). As for the Oswald pictures on the application, intensive research after the assassination revealed that they were NOT made at any of the local photo shops (Summers 349). If the imposter was allowed to take the application out of the embassy, he could have simply attached Oswald's pictures to it. Posner argues that the visitor must have been Oswald or else the clerk would have noticed that the photos did not match the applicant. But Consul Azcue said the clerk might not have checked the pictures against the individual who was applying, explaining that "occupied as she was, she most probably proceeded to place the photograph on the application without this check" (Summers 349). It seems obvious that the CIA never had any proof that Oswald visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies. If the Agency had possessed photographic and/or audio evidence that Oswald made these alleged visits, it would have been more than willing to display this material to the WC. I believe the CIA's deception was part of a larger plan to link the assassination to the Soviets and the Cubans in order to provoke a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The Oswald imposter issue becomes even more troubling in light of the fact that questions about Oswald's identity surfaced well BEFORE the assassination. In June 1960, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover asked the State Department for any current information it might receive on Oswald "since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate" (Marrs 539). In March 1961, the Passport Office informed the State Department, ". . . it has been stated that there is an imposter using Oswald's identification data and that no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold of his valid passport. . . ." (Marrs 539). Notes Livingstone, "J. Edgar Hoover believed that the Oswald in Russia years before might have been an imposter. There are conflicts about the height and description of the Oswald who returned to the United States" (Livingstone 178). ----------------- Suspicious Deaths ----------------- Posner, in a downright bizarre appendix entitled "The Non- Mysterious 'Mystery Deaths,'" denies there has been any sort of organized effort to eliminate witnesses (483-499). Posner's list of "non-mysterious deaths" is noticeably incomplete, and some of the deaths he lists as suicides or accidents were clearly neither. Moreover, Posner does not mention the fact that both of the two major official investigations into the assassination were accompanied by an outbreak of witness deaths. Even in Posner's incomplete list of 48 "unnatural deaths" as of 1977, there are 14 murders. What are the odds that 14 out of 48 witnesses to a crime would be murdered in the succeeding fourteen years? For those who would like to learn more about the disturbing pattern of witness elimination in the JFK assassination, I would refer them to the research of Jim Marrs, David Scheim, and Matthew Smith, although other authors have also written useful analyses on the subject (Marrs 555-66; Scheim 39-49; Smith 169-178). ------------------------- Posner on Carlos Marcello ------------------------- Many researchers believe Marcello was deeply involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Marcello was furious at the Kennedys because of their anti-Mafia campaign. Prior to the assassination, witnesses heard Marcello make threatening remarks against President Kennedy. In September 1962, an FBI informant heard Marcello remark that if he had Kennedy killed, he would frame an individual not connected to the Marcello organization so the police would immediately apprehend this person for the murder (Davis 121-123). Marcello added that he had already thought of a way to frame a "nut" to take the blame (Davis 122). Furthermore, in the weeks leading up to the President's murder, Marcello met often with David Ferrie. During this same period, Marcello lieutenants were in contact with Jack Ruby. It is worth noting that Marcello had supported the CIA's anti-Castro efforts. The witness who reported on Marcello's statement about framing a "nut" was FBI informant Edward Becker. Posner expresses the view that Marcello would not have been so frank with someone he didn't know well (460). Becker himself has answered this objection: [quote] First of all, I wasn't a stranger. I was with Roppolo, who was practically a member of the family. The Marcellos and the Roppolos had grown up together. . . . So being with Roppolo meant I was OK. Also, Carlos soon learned we knew a lot of the same people in Vegas. He even checked me out with them. And I'd already met with Carlos a couple of times before the meeting at Churchill Farms. . . . Everybody who's dealt with Carlos knows how boastful he gets when he's had a few [drinks]. (Davis 233) [end of quote] Posner points that Carl Roppolo "denied Marcello ever said anything like that, and was not even sure there was a meeting with Becker" (460). What Posner doesn't tell us is that Roppolo was a close personal friend of Marcello's with connections to his crime organization. Roppolo's wife worked for Marcello. Posner says the Select Committee concluded that Becker had a "questionable reputation for honesty and may not be a credible source of information" (460). Posner is engaging in some selective quoting. In point of fact, the Select Committee, observes John Davis, "interviewed Edward Becker and found him to be a credible witness" (236). The former chief counsel for the Committee, G. Robert Blakey, confirms this fact: [quote] In our effort to evaluate the story, we found that Becker, a former public relations man for the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, had been involved in shady transactions with Max Field, a criminal associate of Joseph Sica, a prominent mob figure in Los Angeles. Such an association, we believed, helped explain Becker's presence at a meeting with Marcello. Next, we talked to Julian Blodgett, a former FBI agent and chief investigator in the Los Angeles district attorney's office who, as a private investigator in 1962, had employed Becker on occasion. Blodgett conceded that Becker was "a controversial guy," but he believed his account of the meeting with Marcello. We were able to obtain substantial corroboration for Becker's presence in the New Orleans area in September 1962, and we learned that he had said he went to Churchill Farms with a longtime friend, Carlos Roppolo of Shrevport, to discuss a promotional scheme with Marcello. . . . Finally, [Ed] Reid [an expert on organized crime] told us he believed Becker's account, since he had obtained trustworthy information from him on other occasions. (Blakey and Billings 280; cf. Scheim 76-77). [end of quote] Becker said Marcello issued one of the treats against Kennedy in Sicilian. Posner quotes a former New Orleans police intelligence chief who knew Marcello to the effect that Marcello speaks little if any Sicilian (461). But surely Posner has read enough about Marcello to know that his parents were Sicilian. Moreover, the threat Marcello directed against Kennedy ("Take the stone out of my shoe") is a common Sicilian curse which expresses a desire to see harm come to the person being cursed, and Marcello certainly had had enough exposure to Sicilian culture to have picked up the saying. Marcello's threat against Kennedy was similar to the one voiced by fellow mobster Santos Trafficante. In September 1962, the same month Becker heard Marcello threaten JFK, Trafficante told Jose Aleman, ". . . this man Kennedy is in trouble and he will get what is coming to him." Aleman, a prominent member of the Cuban exile community in Miami, disagreed and said Kennedy would probably get reelected. To this Trafficante responded, "You don't understand me. Kennedy's not going to make it to the election. He's going to be hit" (Marrs 170). Trafficante didn't know that Aleman was an FBI informant. Aleman reported what he had heard to the FBI, but his report was ignored. He repeated his allegation to THE WASHINGTON POST in 1976. And, in March 1977, he confirmed his report to HSCA staffers (Blakey and Billings 280). However, when he appeared in public session in 1978, he began to waffle, saying he had understood Trafficante to mean that Kennedy was going to be "hit by a lot of votes" in the 1964 election. To all but the blind, it was obvious that Aleman changed his story because he was frightened. He indicated to the Select Committee that he feared for his life, and he requested the protection of U.S. marshals while he was in Washington. Posner rejects Aleman's story because the FBI said it had no record of Aleman's report and because Aleman watered down his account in public testimony before the HSCA (459-460). Given the FBI's track record on assassination evidence, it comes as no surprise that the Bureau failed to find Aleman's report. As for Aleman's public testimony, Posner does not mention that Aleman feared for his life. Posner is also silent about the fact that Aleman confirmed his report to HSCA staffers in 1977. -------------------------- The Case of Joseph Milteer -------------------------- On November 9, 1963, a right-wing extremist named Joseph Milteer unknowingly told a Miami police informant that the assassination of JFK was already "in the works" (Marrs 265; Summers 404). Milteer said the best way to kill Kennedy would be "from an office building with a high-powered rifle" (Summers 404; Marrs 265). The informant, William Somersett, captured Milteer's comments on tape. The tape is played and discussed in the A&E documentary THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY. On the day of the assassination, Milteer phoned Somersett from Dallas and said Kennedy was due there shortly. Milteer added that Kennedy would never be seen in Miami again (Marrs 265). After the assassination, the Miami police informant had another meeting with Milteer, during which Milteer boasted, "Everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle. . . . I don't do any guessing" (Marrs 265). Milteer said not to worry about the capture of Oswald, "because he doesn't know anything" (Marrs 265). Who was Joseph Milteer? Milteer, a man of considerable wealth, belonged to a number of radical and racist groups. He was a regional director of the fanatical Constitution Party. In addition, he held membership in the White Citizens' Council of Atlanta and in the National States Rights Party, which had close links with the anti-Castro movement (Summers 405). In his post-assassination conversation with informant Somersett, Milteer described himself as part of an "international underground" which had used Oswald as a dupe to put the blame on the Communists (Russell 551-553, 706-707). As mentioned, Milteer called informant Somersett from Dallas on the day of the assassination. What was Milteer doing in Dallas on November 22, of all days? Was he there to watch the President's death? Photographic analyst Robert Groden has identified Milteer in photographs from Dealey Plaza. Groden first presented this evidence to the HSCA, but the Committee was reluctant to accept it and actually set out to disprove Milteer's presence in the films. The Committee's film experts claimed that the man in the photos could not be Milteer because he was too short. "In fact," notes DiEugenio, the Committee's "faulty mathematical premises, as later disclosed, made everyone seem shorter than they were" (1992:231). In their book HIGH TREASON, Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone present photographic comparisons of Milteer with the man in the Dealey Plaza pictures (see the eleventh page of the third set of black-and-white photos therein). I agree with those who see a rather striking resemblance between Milteer and the man pictured in Dealey Plaza. Posner has precious little to say about the Milteer case. Posner blandly notes that Milteer said Kennedy "would be killed," and claims that photo analysts for the Select Committee "proved" Milteer did not appear in any Dealey Plaza pictures (498). Posner calls Milteer's November 9 assassination prediction a "boastful claim" and says "there is no link between Milteer and the events in Dallas" (498). --------------------------------------------- Richard Case Nagell: Valuable Witness or Nut? --------------------------------------------- For several years, Richard Case Nagell was a military intelligence agent. He also worked for the CIA at times. He was assigned to penetrate Soviet intelligence. Nagell knew Oswald and at one point was assigned to follow him. Nagell has considerable knowledge of the plot that killed JFK. However, Nagell refuses to go public with all he knows until he is granted immunity from prosecution for his activities as an intelligence agent. A thorough, well-documented presentation of what Nagell has been willing to disclose so far can be found in Dick Russell's 1992 book, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. Russell discusses Nagell's career in U.S. intelligence and carefully examines what he has said about the assassination. Russell corroborates much of Nagell's remarkable story through other witnesses and declassified documents. Posner paints Nagell as unreliable and mentally unstable. Posner observes that when Nagell offered his help to Jim Garrison, he was "confined to the psychiatric section of the federal prison in Springfield, Missouri" (445). But Posner says nothing about how Nagell was railroaded into that situation. Nor does Posner deal with the overwhelming evidence that Nagell is perfectly sane. Posner says that Garrison investigator William Martin found Nagell "unreliable," and that Nagell then "complained that Martin was part of the CIA plot against him" (445). Posner is not telling us the whole story. In Martin's first memorandum about Nagell, he said, [quote] [Nagell] is an extremely articulate and well spoken individual who seems to have full command of his senses and total recall of his activities and constantly mentions dates, times, and places that pertain to matters concerning this investigation. (Russell 423) [end of quote] Later, however, Martin began to behave suspiciously. He let slip to Nagell that he used to work for the CIA. His subsequent memorandums to Garrison about his visits with Nagell "contained some damaging and, according to Nagell, blatant disinformation" (Russell 643-644). Nagell gave Martin several important documents which Martin was supposed to copy for Nagell's sister and for researcher Arthur Greenstein. Martin took an unusually long time to do so. When Nagell asked about the excessive delay, Martin replied that there were "security considerations involved" (Russell 644). Shortly after this, Nagell terminated his meetings with Martin. Posner mentions none of this. Nor does Posner inform his readers that both Garrison and his chief investigator, Bill Wood, himself an ex-CIA officer, became convinced that Martin was a CIA infiltrator (Russell 642-643). Said Garrison, ". . . people that we sensed did have possibilities of being useful witnesses were increasingly turned off by him [Martin]." Garrison added that those on his staff who had experience in the intelligence community made Martin as CIA "right away" (Russell 643). Bill Wood subsequently found out that Martin had belonged to one of Guy Banister's right-wing groups in New Orleans (Russell 643). At around the same time that Garrison's staffers were becoming increasingly suspicious of Martin, he left New Orleans. He did not inform anyone in Garrison's office that he was leaving, and, needless to say, he did not provide a forwarding address. Posner doesn't mention any of this either. Posner claims that Nagell "was so unreliable that not even Garrison used him" (467). This is patently false. Garrison himself made it clear that the only reason he didn't call Nagell as a witness was that Nagell would not disclose which intelligence agency (or agencies) had employed him (Garrison 212-216). Garrison feared that defense lawyers would use this to discredit Nagell as a witness. After meeting with Nagell, Garrison said, [quote] During most of my flight home I reflected long and hard on my Central Park meeting with Richard Case Nagell. I had studied him closely for all of the three hours or so we were together, and I was satisfied that weaving a fabricated tale was not in this man's makeup. (216) [end of quote] Posner simply ignores all of the evidence Russell provides which corroborates Nagell's story. For instance, Russell notes that in 1974 Nagell spoke of a military unit known as Field Operations Intelligence, whose existence had never before been publicly revealed. Also, Russell found a witness, a retired El Paso policeman, who confirmed that Nagell had foreknowledge of the assassination. In addition, Russell cites a 1969 military intelligence "agent report" obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report states that Nagell had been employed by the CIA and that he had "conducted an inquiry into the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald" from July to September 1963, exactly as Nagell claims. This is just a sampling of the corroboration Russell provides for Nagell's story. Posner says nothing about any of this evidence. ---------------------------- The Murder of Officer Tippit ---------------------------- Posner says that eyewitnesses, ballistics, and physical evidence prove that Oswald murdered Officer J. D. Tippit a little over forty minutes after he allegedly shot JFK (273-280). Posner ignores significant evidence of Oswald's innocence and merely repeats the WC's untenable version of the killing. The case against Oswald in Tippit's murder is so weak that I see no need to analyze all of Posner's assertions. For more information on the tenuous nature of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit affair, I would invite the reader to compare Posner's claims with Marrs' and Lane's arguments on the subject (Marrs 350-353; Lane 1992:190-208). However, I would like to examine some of the evidence that Posner COMPLETELY IGNORES: * The witness with the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first refused to identify Oswald as the killer, and only made the identification after his brother was murdered. * Two witnesses to the Tippit slaying said Oswald was not at the scene and that someone else shot the policeman. * Two other witnesses said Oswald entered the Texas Theater just a few minutes after 1:00 P.M., and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested there about an hour later. But Tippit was killed at no later than 1:10. * Officer J. M. Poe marked the empty shells found at the crime scene with his initials, a standard chain-of-evidence procedure, but the shells produced by the FBI and the WC as evidence of Oswald's guilt had no such markings on them. * Helen Markham, Posner's star witness against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, gave such wildly conflicting and confused testimony that one WC staffer called her an "utter screwball." Mrs. Markham gave three different versions of her story. Although by all accounts (including Posner's) Tippit died instantly, Mrs. Markham said she talked with him for twenty-five minutes after he was shot. In a taped conversation with attorney Mark Lane, Mrs. Markham said Tippit's killer was short and stocky with bushy, black hair. A number of the witnesses denied Mrs. Markham was even at the scene of the crime. A FRANTIC 43 MINUTES A telling point for Oswald's innocence is the fact that he did not have enough time to go from the TSBD to the scene of the Tippit slaying. The WC said he left the Depository at 12:33 P.M. and killed Tippit 43 minutes later, at 1:15. But even a casual review of Oswald's alleged movements shows he could not have done what the Commission said he did. Posner disagrees, saying, [quote] Could Oswald have physically been at the Tippit scene by 1:15, the time of the shooting? A reconstruction of the time that elapsed since he left the Depository shows it is more than possible. (274 n) [end of quote] But Posner's TSBD-to-Oak-Cliff scenario relies heavily on the WC's untenable version of Oswald's post-assassination movements. For example, Posner accepts the WC's claim that Tippit was shot at 1:15 P.M. However, eyewitness statements and Dallas police radio transcripts clearly indicate the shooting occurred no later than 1:10. Posner departs from the Commission version by saying that Oswald left his roominghouse just before 1:00. Posner does this in order to get Oswald to the Tippit scene by 1:15. Yet, according to Oswald's landlady, he did not leave the house until 1:03 or 1:04 (Summers 92). The plain fact of the matter is that any reconstruction which places Oswald at the Tippit scene by 1:10, or even by 1:15, is contrary to the evidence. I would invite the reader to compare Posner's scenario to Mark Lane's research on the subject (1992:159-175). A research team from the All American Television Company did a reconstruction of Oswald's movements from the TSBD to the Tippit scene for the 1992 documentary THE JFK CONSPIRACY, which was hosted by world-famous actor James Earl Jones. The team confirmed that Oswald could not have arrived to the scene of the crime by 1:15, much less by 1:10. I quote from James Earl Jones' narration: [quote] At 12:33 the Warren Commission said Oswald left the Depository and walked seven blocks to catch a bus. They gave him three minutes. Three minutes, but it took us six and a half. Meanwhile, after traveling a couple of blocks, the bus was caught in an immense traffic jam. They said he got off the bus. At 12:48, they said Oswald climbed into a taxi. They gave him six minutes to reach his next stop [his neighborhood in Oak Cliff]. It took us over eight [minutes], WITHOUT traffic. The Commission said Oswald entered his boardinghouse at one o'clock. At 1:03, his landlady said he [Oswald] left the house and went to the northbound bus stop. Yet, in order to kill Officer Tippit, he had to travel south. So, the Commission said he must have changed his mind. The witnesses all said Tippit was killed no later than 1:10, and that was after the policeman and his killer had a conversation [according to the WC's star witness, Helen Markham]. Seven minutes [for Oswald to get from his house to the murder scene]. Oswald simply didn't have enough time. In every case, the Commission failed the time test, and we had no congested traffic to deal with. (original emphasis) [end of quote] ----------------------------------- Jack Ruby and the Killing of Oswald ----------------------------------- Incredibly, Posner not only denies that Jack Ruby had Mafia ties, but he repeats the long-discredited claim that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was merely an act of spontaneous rage (350-403). Ruby's extensive Mafia links and activities have been abundantly documented by several scholars, including G. Robert Blakey, the former chief counsel for the HSCA. Ruby placed calls to important mob connections all over the country right after Kennedy's visit to Dallas was announced. Just a coincidence? Yes, says Posner. Posner accounts for these calls by accepting Ruby's alibi that they were made to voice business complaints to the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA). The AGVA alibi is laughable and has been thoroughly destroyed by David Scheim in his book THE MAFIA KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY (289-300). As for Ruby's killing of Oswald, Posner's principal witness that it was a spontaneous act is none other than ultra-conservative William Alexander, the very man who, as an assistant district attorney, helped to successfully prosecute Ruby for premeditated murder in the shooting! Posner admits that Ruby made a minimum of three visits to the Dallas police station after Oswald was arrested, and that on at least one of those occasions Ruby had his pistol with him. Yet, Posner does not see this as evidence of stalking, primarily because Ruby failed to shoot Oswald when he was escorted past Ruby during one of those visits. And what about the fact that Ruby somehow showed up in the basement of the Dallas police station in the middle of the night, armed with a pistol, just in time to shoot Oswald as he was about to be transferred to a waiting van? A chance encounter, says Posner, just lucky timing. Among other things, Posner ignores Billy Grammer's testimony. On November 24, 1963, Grammer, as a young lieutenant on the Dallas police force, was working in the communications room when he received a call from Ruby. Grammer said Ruby warned him that the police had to change the plans for Oswald's transfer or "we're going to kill Oswald right there in the basement" (Marrs 417). Ruby did not identify himself by name, but Grammer recognized his voice. In an interview for the A&E documentary THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, Grammer said he was absolutely certain Ruby was the caller. This is just part of the evidence that Ruby was trying to avoid having to carry out his assignment to shoot Oswald. Unfortunately, he did not succeed, and shortly after calling Grammer he carried out the order to execute Oswald. Even the ultra-cautious HSCA could not ignore the compelling evidence that Ruby's killing of Oswald was NOT spontaneous. The Select Committee also concluded that Ruby probably entered the basement of the Dallas police department with assistance. Posner, however, brushing aside all evidence to the contrary, clings to the WC's claim that Ruby entered the basement without assistance by walking down the Main Street ramp (395). Posner says Ruby did this while the officer guarding the ramp, Ray Vaughn, was temporarily distracted when a car drove up the ramp from the basement. However, Vaughn insisted that neither Ruby nor anyone else went down the ramp while he was guarding it, and three policemen who had been parked in a squad car on the ramp said they did not see Ruby enter either (Blakey and Billings 345). In addition, an off-duty police officer who was standing across the street said he was certain Ruby did not use the ramp (Blakey and Billings 345). ---------- Conclusion ---------- I could document many other errors in Posner's book. For all its sophisticated graphics and endorsements, CASE CLOSED is one of the worst books ever published on the assassination. Suffice it to say that the case of the murder of President John F. Kennedy is definitely NOT closed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- About the Author: MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. He is also the author of two books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts. Bibliography Blakey, G. Robert and Richard Billings. FATAL HOUR: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY BY ORGANIZED CRIME. Berkley Books Edition. New York: Berkley Books, 1992. Crenshaw, Charles A., M.D. JFK: CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE. New York: Signet, 1992. DiEugenio, James. DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBE, AND THE GARRISON CASE. New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1992. -----. "Posner in New Orleans." In DATELINE: DALLAS, November 22, 1993. 19-22. Frewin, Anthony. LATE-BREAKING NEWS ON CLAY SHAW'S UNITED KINGDOM CONTACTS. Research Transcript. Dallas: JFK Assassination Information Center, 1992. Groden, Robert and Harrison Livingstone. HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND THE NEW EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY. Berkley Books Edition. New York: Berkley Books, 1990. Lane, Mark. RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Thunder's Mouth Press Edition. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992. -----. PLAUSIBLE DENIAL: WAS THE CIA INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK? New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991. Lifton, David S. BEST EVIDENCE. Carroll & Graf Edition. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1988. Livingstone, Harrison Edward. HIGH TREASON 2. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1992. Marrs, Jim. CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1989. Marsh, W. Anthony. "The Ramsey Report." DATELINE: DALLAS, Summer/Fall 1992. 14-16. Menninger, Bonar. MORTAL ERROR: THE SHOT THAT KILLED JFK. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992. Moore, Jim. CONSPIRACY OF ONE. Revised Edition. Ft. Worth: The Summit Group, 1991. Oglesby, Carl. THE JFK ASSASSINATION: THE FACTS AND THE THEORIES. New York: Signet, 1992. Posner, Gerald. CASE CLOSED: LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK (New York: Random House, 1993). Russell, Dick. THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1992. Scally, Christopher. SO NEAR . . . AND YET SO FAR. Research Manuscript. Dallas: JFK Assassination Information Center, 1980. Scheim, David S. THE MAFIA KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY. London, England: Virgin Publishing Ltd, 1992. Shaw, J. Gary. "Posner's Single Bullet Theory. . . ." In DATELINE: DALLAS, Special Edition, November 22, 1992. 15-19. Sloan, Bill with Jean Hill. JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 1992. Smith, Matthew. JFK: THE SECOND PLOT. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Mainstream Publishing, 1982. Summers, Anthony. CONSPIRACY. Updated and Expanded Edition. New York: Paragon House, 1989. Vankin, Jonathan. CONSPIRACIES, COVER-UPS, AND CRIMES. New York: Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1992. Zirbel, Craig. THE TEXAS CONNECTION. Warner Books Edition. New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1991.