Thomas Buchanan: Did he solve the JFK case?

[Paul Rigby]

Ivor Montagu's piece was truncated due, presumably, to the length of the previous items. Here it is in full:

Labour Monthly, November 1964, pp.499-503, & 506-509

The Warren Report

By Ivor Montagu

Legend already relates that when Chief Justice Earl Warren agreed to accept the Chairmanship of the Kennedy Enquiry Commission he wept. He had good reason. Just as others had good reason to press him to undertake it. It is interesting to speculate what would have been the reception of its report had the Commission been headed by another of its members – for instance Alan Dulles, the Central Intelligence Agency chief whom Kennedy let go after the Bay of Pigs, or McCloy, ex-High Commissioner in Germany, or either of the racist Democratic Senators (from Georgia and Louisiana) or the Goldwaterite Republican. ‘But Brutus is an honourable man.’ Or so said Marc Anthony when he was commenting upon another murder by conspiracy. In that case, Julius Caesar. In this, the truth itself. As it is, because of Brutus, the conspiracy has got off to a fair start. Not so fair as the reader of the British press, with its unanimous hooflick nowadays in response to any ‘moo’ of the Washington sacred cow, might imagine however. The headline in the New York Times on the day following publication (September 29) reads: ‘WARREN FINDINGS SATISFY OFFICIALS IN WEST EUROPE: MUCH OF PUBLIC SCEPTICAL.’ Just so.

The main impact of the report is its voluminousness. It is a real bucket of brainwash. 718 often repetitious pages, a list of 552 witnesses, innumerable staff, a score or so of volumes of testimony promised ultimately – who, after this, would be ungrateful enough to doubt the thoroughness with which the job was done. The old army sweat will easily recognise this technique. It was called he was hauled before the C.O., ‘blinding him with science.’ And the job? To divert attention from the source that stood out as most obviously to be accused.

In the January issue of this magazine, before ever the Commission got down to work, the editor outlined the case, the obvious pointers to C.I.A., F.B.I. and the Dallas police, that the world had seized upon and that these agencies of national and local government had to answer. Cumulatively it was damning. Every one of the counts that he enumerated is confirmed in the report. And much more. The sins of omission, the sins of commission, the facts that arouse suspicion.

It cannot be said that these accused were totally disregarded. The former head of one – Allen Dulles – sat actually on the Commission. The gathering of facts was completely – or in effect completely - entrusted to the second, the F.B.I. That neither was linked to the crimes in any way is concluded from the assurances of their chiefs. The assurance of Mr. McCone. The assurance of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. Both gentlemen, through their subordinates, were kind enough to produce files. The CIA found no blameworthy association of Oswald with the CIA. The FBI found no blameworthy association between him and the FBI. Again and again, when a piece of evidence is cited that points in these directions we are told that the FBI found no confirmation. Exactly. There was no cross examination. When relatives of the bumped-off Lee Harvey Oswald asked to appoint counsel to represent him, they were refused. Half-way through, the Commission got cold feet about this and appointed a respected officer of the Court (who hardly ever bothered to attend), a distinguished Goldwaterite, to advise them whether they were being fair. How one would have liked to hear Lawrence Preston, or even Perry Mason, have a go at this sort of thing.

From the beginning of course, the Commission assumed that U.S. agencies cannot frame, cannot fake evidence, cannot lie. Behind them were Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, Hoffa, the Presidential assurances about the U2, Adlai Stevenson’s assurances to the United Nations about the Bay of Pigs. The ink was scarcely blotted on the confessions about the pretended incidents in the Bay of Tonking. But this was its assumption. It remarks firmly that after the releases and pictures and allegations about Lee Harvey Oswald it would have been impossible to ensure a fair trial because of the assumptions any possible jury would make. And then it makes the same assumptions its own whole point of departure in a trial in which his voice was silenced.

Its starting point and its end: not only that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, but that he did it alone. This ‘alone’ was vital. Some people may wonder why, after the careful construction of threads tying Oswald to the U.S.S.R., to Communists, Trotskyists, Cuba, etc., someone changed his mind and the ‘alone’ version, followed by the Commission, was followed instead, from within an hour or two of his arrest. Someone was sensible. These threads were altogether too thin and must snap under any weight. It was too dangerous to have any live accused whose counter-attack might smash the whole thing. After all, the Reichstag Fire Trial was not without its lesson. To prove the Communists guilty, the prosecution revealed evidence that Van der Lubbe could not have done the job alone. As nothing could implicate the Communists, the Nazis pointed at themselves and all the efforts nowadays to whitewash them are bound to fail. How much handier to have bumped off Van der Lubbe on the spot, instead of merely drugging him, and then had a posthumous enquiry commission with Goering as a member and the Gestapo in sole control of collecting evidence.

To reach their preordained conclusion, the Commission had to do some splendid wriggling. The student of the report will notice three outstanding features. First, that when there is any conflict of evidence the Commission threads itself neatly through it, adopting anything consistent with its theory, dismissing as ‘mistaken’ anything that contradicts it. The doctors who first examined Kennedy thought he was shot from the front. Easy, they were mistaken. Some witnesses thought the shots heard were fired from the depository, some from the bridge. Easy, the first were right, the second wrong. Contradictions in time and identity alike are solved by this convenient formula. However, sometimes this wears a little thin. Witnesses who saw Oswald in inconvenient places were mistaken in their recognition – they had seen T.V. pictures of him and this vitiates their evidence. But on the other hand, in their conclusion the Commission claim that nine witnesses saw Oswald kill Tippett or run away after his murder. It becomes a little ingenuous of them to ignore (what they admit later in their text) that the same reservation applies to these. Sometimes they make downright mistakes. One awkward identification of Oswald is dismissed because the ‘Oswald’ seen got drunk, and Lee Harvey, the Commission says, did not drink. But the report later describes an incident in which he did, most thoroughly. (Incidentally, a tantalising reference occurs (p.628) to ‘the English language edition of the Daily Worker,’ allegedly read by Oswald. One would like to know more about this paper.)

On one crucial question let us examine the Commission’s treatment of the question whether it was possible for a man like Oswald to fire the shots and hit the President. This is a clear example of its method. It knows that there is a great question whether one man with such a rifle could accurately have fired the number of shots available in the given time. So first it is anxious to minimise the number of shots. After a lot of weighing and microscopic examination of the bullets (and no explanation of the interval before traces of bullets were looked for on the ground) it concludes that the number must have been three or four and plumps for three. After analysing the evidence of times shots were heard and wounds were seen it comes to the conclusion that if, of the three bullets fired, two hit Kennedy and one hit Governor Connolly the time necessary would have been 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. But this is inconvenient because it comes too close to the time taken for these shots in their tests. So they have the magnificent idea that if one shot missed, and if this was not the middle one but the first or third, the time evidence could be held to give up to 7.1 or even 7.9 seconds. Accordingly in their report they not only state it as a possibility, that one shot hit both Kennedy and Connolly, but conclude it as a fact, loading a headline THE SHOT THAT MISSED, although this is absolutely contrary not only to Connolly’s impression but to the insistent evidence of Connolly’s wife, also in the car, who is determined it was after Kennedy was hit that she heard the shot that hit her husband. The Commission argue that this is perfectly consistent with their conclusion because sound does not travel instantaneously. According to the distance it gives, the sound would have reached Mrs. Connolly in about 1/6th of a second. (This is not one of the figures in the generous avalanche of technical data.)

Next, they take a rifle found in the book depository and arrange for three expert shots to try to shoot three targets arranged at intervals corresponding in angle and distance to the positions of the Presidential car in the probable interval of time. They succeed, but dangerously near the minimum. But why in the tests where the targets not moving? And, above all, why experts? The evidence the Commission itself cites shows that Oswald’s ability was nowhere near the expert’s. ‘Expert’ is the top category of three. Oswald in the marines had two tests. One gave him a bare two marks above the minimum for the second category. The other (later) placed him well down in the third (the lowest). The Commission’s comment on this latter test is characteristic. Without a shred of evidence it suggests that at the time it might have been raining. And yet now two, possibly all three of his shots were hits. Why do the tests with experts? They quote evidence from Oswald’s wife, that he had practised a dry run (loading and unloading) apparently with this rifle. They have no testimony that he ever fired a single practice shot with it. They argue that his task of aiming anew for each shot was made easier because the car was going down a slope of 3 degrees. The height of the building is one of the relevant figures omitted. But the distances are given, the minimum height for the sixth floor is not hard to gauge from the photographs and trigonometry shows this special pleading pretty weak.

The second feature: that the main sustaining evidence against Oswald has been provided by his wife – who, of course, could not have been made to testify against him at all had this been a trial. The evidence of the other parties is thin and contradictory, doubtful recognitions, selected assumptions, behaviour without rhyme or reason. It is entirely the testimony of Marina, the Russian-born wife, that puts flesh and blood on the flimsy skeleton. Marina, who speaks no English, who first declared her disbelief in her husband’s guilt, who was placed, in effect, incommunicado by the F.B.I as soon as the crime was committed and who the Commission triumphantly boasts in its conclusions, has now changed her view. Marina, against whom, as is clear from the report, the U.S. authorities have a clear case whenever they like to press it, for false statement on her immigration form. The Commission are faced with a problem: how to account for Oswald, with a complete absence of any violence on his previous record, having suddenly taken to assassination. So Marina comes to the rescue with a story that he earlier tried to shoot General Walker. How this marksman, capable of accurate shots from an unfamiliar stance in a few seconds against a moving target came then to miss a sitting target, in a location that, according to the report, he had previously prepared and studied, and with all the time in the world at his disposal, is not even discussed by the Committee. It is Marina, too, who helps to whitewash the most damning document admitted by the Committee; the notation of a local F.B.I. officer’s name and address in Oswald’s notebook. Explanation: the F.B.I. made a routine call on the woman with whom Marina was staying, told her Oswald was a suspicious character and left his name and address so she could report to him on his activities. So the woman promptly gave the name and address to Marina who gave it to Oswald who wrote it in his notebook. Really, there seems no limit to the credulity expected of the public by the Commission and the F.B.I.

The third remarkable feature is the amount of space devoted to psychologising Lee Harvey Oswald. Or perhaps it is not remarkable considering the role played in contemporary U.S. society by the psychologist as a sort of sorcerer or medicine man. The Commission is desperately anxious to discover a motive for this man, who never spoke against Kennedy, had no grudge against Kennedy, suddenly deciding on his own to shoot Kennedy. They even, in one place, suggest (while declaring themselves not convinced) that it was because he had just heard his wife running down his sexual ability in the presence of third parties. This mania for finding the simple inexplicable and resorting to ‘psychology,’ reminds of Honor Tracy’s account, in her book on McArthur’s occupation of Japan, of the two G.I.s who were noticed enjoying their doxies in broad daylight on a public hard tennis court in Tokyo, and were remitted to the psychiatric ward for study on why they were doing it. For, on the assumption of the Committee, that he and he alone is the assassin, the case is certainly a problem. The young man who claims he was first attracted to Communism at the age of 16 – and at 20 promptly joins the U.S. marines; who spends his time in the marines – studying the Russian language and Marxism. The flourishing ex-marine - who has money to go to U.S.S.R. The disillusioned anti-communist who writes an exposure of Soviet society on his way home – and on arrival, instead of publishing it, promptly takes out a subscription to the Worker instead. The unemployed man who spends his spare servings on printing propaganda and a visit to Mexico. This intending assassin who draws attention to himself by getting on radio and arrested as a supporter of ‘Fair Play for Cuba,’ and creating a row in Mexico City at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies – and leaves conveniently at his home a photograph of himself with a pistol and rifle holding copies of the Worker and the Militant. All that of course takes some psychologising – if you make the Commission’s assumption. No psychology can explain (so of course the Commission does not attempt to) why a man whose motive for shooting the President was (as it imaginatively concludes) to assert his personality, to be a somebody in the world and then go down in history, should do this deed and then deny it. Booth, after shooting Lincoln, jumped on the stage for an opportunity to shout ‘Sic semper tyrannis!’ Every other assassin or would-be assassin of a U.S. President (all detailed in the report) proclaimed the deed. Not Lee Harvey Oswald. All he said in public was that he didn’t do it. Of what he said to the Dallas police in private the Commission notes that not a word was recorded, but admits he persisted in his denial.

But if this assumption is not made, if the denials of the C.I.A. and F.B.I. are taken, as grown-ups surely should take them, with the head cocked just slightly to one side and a recollection of the number of times these bodies have been caught lying, framing and – in the case of the first – even assassinating; if, in other words, we admit even just the possibility that Oswald (who was certainly not innocent) was a fall-guy, small fry doing a job for one and/or the other, one of the many kept ripe and ready for convenient usage and here employed to put hounds off the scent – then there is no mystery whatever about his biography, the problem disappears.

The effort to blur this in connection with the State Department, whose actual records can less easily claim excuse for non-publication than can those of the two cloak-and-dagger institutions, brings on a veritable orgy of contortions on the part of the Commission. Oswald gets his passport to go to Russia, the first time, in six days, puts on an act at the U.S. Embassy insulting everyone and declaring his loyalty to U.S.S.R. When even this does not get him any job nearer the hub of affairs in Russia then relegation to the premises as a small craftsman, he applies to return with his wife and asks for cash to do so. The resentful Embassy staff at first says no, but then is overruled by superiors at home who stretch the regulations. The Commission says this was because the State Department regarded Oswald as ‘an unstable character whose actions are highly unpredictable,’ and therefore considered it in the best interests of U.S.A. to get him back and out of Russia as soon as possible. Nevertheless, when he applies to the State Department for a new passport to go to Cuba and to the U.S.S.R. again, the same department which has just subsidised him to come out of U.S.S.R. in the U.S. interest, grants it at once, this time in one day! Which, says the Commission, was just routine! The Commission admits that in such cases a ‘look-out card’ is made out, warning that such a man should not get a passport again without due consideration. It even has a witness who remembers making out such a card for Oswald, but it was not in his file and none can remember how it failed to get in (or got out).

A report so packed with facts cannot but include, however fantastic, illuminations of American life. It is by no means devoid of unintentional humour. One is when Oswald, whose letters and diary and other writings are abundantly quoted throughout and who cannot write one single sentence correctly and without misspellings, is solemnly recorded as having been interviewed for a job and assessed as being of ‘outstanding verbal-clerical potential’ (p.640). Another is when, with equal deadpan, we are told (p.361) that he baited his officers by leading ‘them into discussions of foreign affairs about which they often knew less than he did.’ (Heavens above, what must be the level of commissioned rank education in the U.S. marines!) But the whole ‘investigation’ rollicks into farce when it starts on the biography of Jack Ruby, the man who so conveniently shut the mouth of fall-guy Oswald.

‘Many former employers of Ruby,’ we learn, ‘stated that he was a pleasant or unobjectionable employer,’ ‘genuinely interested in their welfare and happiness. In a moment, however, it is explained that he also dominated them, publicly embarrassed them, frequently resorted to violence against them, sometimes attempted to cheat them of their pay, and delayed paying their salaries. He struck one on the head with a blackjack, kicked another – a guitarist – in the groin. His partner was given eight years for sodomy and he himself arrested eight times in a few years for violence and various violations of laws. His activities, the Commission quotes a friend as saying, were ‘shady but legitimate.’ Nevertheless this paragon was on excellent terms with the Dallas police. His ‘personal attachment’ to police affairs is demonstrated by reports that he attended the funeral of at least one policeman killed in action. Ruby regarded several officers as personal friends and others had worked for him. Finally, at least one policeman regularly dated and eventually married, one of the nightclub’s strippers. The Commission concludes that ‘the precise nature of his relationship to members of the Dallas Police Department is not susceptible to conclusive evaluation,’ but it hazards the guess that the Dallas’ police chief’s testimony that a maximum of 50 of his men were acquainted with Ruby is possibly an underestimation. Nobody noticed him about in police headquarters when he shot Oswald, they guess, because probably he was there only about 30 seconds.

From gay to grave: perhaps the most sinister part of the Report is the last chapter. It goes over all the actions and failures of the security organs that were charged with Kennedy’s safety. ‘Errors,’ it characterises them. The remedy? A committee to think up something and meanwhile more of the same. More Secret Service. More money and men for J. Edgar Hoover. More ‘Liaison with local Law Enforcement Agencies’ (i.e., such as the Dallas police). And, we may suppose, if he is bumped off, more enquiries packed with enemies. The warning is clear: like a Sultan surrounded by his Mamelukes, the titular ruler of U.S.A. is to continue to know he must not go too far.

[Paul Rigby]

Labour Monthly, November 1964, pp.499-503, & 506-509

The Warren Report

By Ivor Montagu

Legend already relates that when Chief Justice Earl Warren agreed to accept the Chairmanship of the Kennedy Enquiry Commission he wept. He had good reason. Just as others had good reason to press him to undertake it. It is interesting to speculate what would have been the reception of its report had the Commission been headed by another of its members – for instance Alan Dulles, the Central Intelligence Agency chief whom Kennedy let go after the Bay of Pigs, or McCloy, ex-High Commissioner in Germany, or either of the racist Democratic Senators (from Georgia and Louisiana) or the Goldwaterite Republican. ‘But Brutus is an honourable man.’ Or so said Marc Anthony when he was commenting upon another murder by conspiracy. In that case, Julius Caesar. In this, the truth itself. As it is, because of Brutus, the conspiracy has got off to a fair start. Not so fair as the reader of the British press, with its unanimous hooflick nowadays in response to any ‘moo’ of the Washington sacred cow, might imagine however. The headline in the New York Times on the day following publication (September 29) reads: ‘WARREN FINDINGS SATISFY OFFICIALS IN WEST EUROPE: MUCH OF PUBLIC SCEPTICAL.’ Just so.

The main impact of the report is its voluminousness. It is a real bucket of brainwash. 718 often repetitious pages, a list of 552 witnesses, innumerable staff, a score or so of volumes of testimony promised ultimately – who, after this, would be ungrateful enough to doubt the thoroughness with which the job was done. The old army sweat will easily recognise this technique. It was called he was hauled before the C.O., ‘blinding him with science.’ And the job? To divert attention from the source that stood out as most obviously to be accused.

In the January issue of this magazine, before ever the Commission got down to work, the editor outlined the case, the obvious pointers to C.I.A., F.B.I. and the Dallas police, that the world had seized upon and that these agencies of national and local government had to answer. Cumulatively it was damning. Every one of the counts that he enumerated is confirmed in the report. And much more. The sins of omission, the sins of commission, the facts that arouse suspicion.

It cannot be said that these accused were totally disregarded. The former head of one – Allen Dulles – sat actually on the Commission. The gathering of facts was completely – or in effect completely - entrusted to the second, the F.B.I. That neither was linked to the crimes in any way is concluded from the assurances of their chiefs. The assurance of Mr. McCone. The assurance of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. Both gentlemen, through their subordinates, were kind enough to produce files. The CIA found no blameworthy association of Oswald with the CIA. The FBI found no blameworthy association between him and the FBI. Again and again, when a piece of evidence is cited that points in these directions we are told that the FBI found no confirmation. Exactly. There was no cross examination. When relatives of the bumped-off Lee Harvey Oswald asked to appoint counsel to represent him, they were refused. Half-way through, the Commission got cold feet about this and appointed a respected officer of the Court (who hardly ever bothered to attend), a distinguished Goldwaterite, to advise them whether they were being fair. How one would have liked to hear Lawrence Preston, or even Perry Mason, have a go at this sort of thing.

From the beginning of course, the Commission assumed that U.S. agencies cannot frame, cannot fake evidence, cannot lie. Behind them were Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, Hoffa, the Presidential assurances about the U2, Adlai Stevenson’s assurances to the United Nations about the Bay of Pigs. The ink was scarcely blotted on the confessions about the pretended incidents in the Bay of Tonking. But this was its assumption. It remarks firmly that after the releases and pictures and allegations about Lee Harvey Oswald it would have been impossible to ensure a fair trial because of the assumptions any possible jury would make. And then it makes the same assumptions its own whole point of departure in a trial in which his voice was silenced.

Its starting point and its end: not only that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, but that he did it alone. This ‘alone’ was vital. Some people may wonder why, after the careful construction of threads tying Oswald to the U.S.S.R., to Communists, Trotskyists, Cuba, etc., someone changed his mind and the ‘alone’ version, followed by the Commission, was followed instead, from within an hour or two of his arrest. Someone was sensible. These threads were altogether too thin and must snap under any weight. It was too dangerous to have any live accused whose counter-attack might smash the whole thing. After all, the Reichstag Fire Trial was not without its lesson. To prove the Communists guilty, the prosecution revealed evidence that Van der Lubbe could not have done the job alone. As nothing could implicate the Communists, the Nazis pointed at themselves and all the efforts nowadays to whitewash them are bound to fail. How much handier to have bumped off Van der Lubbe on the spot, instead of merely drugging him, and then had a posthumous enquiry commission with Goering as a member and the Gestapo in sole control of collecting evidence.

To reach their preordained conclusion, the Commission had to do some splendid wriggling. The student of the report will notice three outstanding features. First, that when there is any conflict of evidence the Commission threads itself neatly through it, adopting anything consistent with its theory, dismissing as ‘mistaken’ anything that contradicts it. The doctors who first examined Kennedy thought he was shot from the front. Easy, they were mistaken. Some witnesses thought the shots heard were fired from the depository, some from the bridge. Easy, the first were right, the second wrong. Contradictions in time and identity alike are solved by this convenient formula. However, sometimes this wears a little thin. Witnesses who saw Oswald in inconvenient places were mistaken in their recognition – they had seen T.V. pictures of him and this vitiates their evidence. But on the other hand, in their conclusion the Commission claim that nine witnesses saw Oswald kill Tippett or run away after his murder. It becomes a little ingenuous of them to ignore (what they admit later in their text) that the same reservation applies to these. Sometimes they make downright mistakes. One awkward identification of Oswald is dismissed because the ‘Oswald’ seen got drunk, and Lee Harvey, the Commission says, did not drink. But the report later describes an incident in which he did, most thoroughly. (Incidentally, a tantalising reference occurs (p.628) to ‘the English language edition of the Daily Worker,’ allegedly read by Oswald. One would like to know more about this paper.)

On one crucial question let us examine the Commission’s treatment of the question whether it was possible for a man like Oswald to fire the shots and hit the President. This is a clear example of its method. It knows that there is a great question whether one man with such a rifle could accurately have fired the number of shots available in the given time. So first it is anxious to minimise the number of shots. After a lot of weighing and microscopic examination of the bullets (and no explanation of the interval before traces of bullets were looked for on the ground) it concludes that the number must have been three or four and plumps for three. After analysing the evidence of times shots were heard and wounds were seen it comes to the conclusion that if, of the three bullets fired, two hit Kennedy and one hit Governor Connolly the time necessary would have been 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. But this is inconvenient because it comes too close to the time taken for these shots in their tests. So they have the magnificent idea that if one shot missed, and if this was not the middle one but the first or third, the time evidence could be held to give up to 7.1 or even 7.9 seconds. Accordingly in their report they not only state it as a possibility, that one shot hit both Kennedy and Connolly, but conclude it as a fact, loading a headline THE SHOT THAT MISSED, although this is absolutely contrary not only to Connolly’s impression but to the insistent evidence of Connolly’s wife, also in the car, who is determined it was after Kennedy was hit that she heard the shot that hit her husband. The Commission argue that this is perfectly consistent with their conclusion because sound does not travel instantaneously. According to the distance it gives, the sound would have reached Mrs. Connolly in about 1/6th of a second. (This is not one of the figures in the generous avalanche of technical data.)

Next, they take a rifle found in the book depository and arrange for three expert shots to try to shoot three targets arranged at intervals corresponding in angle and distance to the positions of the Presidential car in the probable interval of time. They succeed, but dangerously near the minimum. But why in the tests where the targets not moving? And, above all, why experts? The evidence the Commission itself cites shows that Oswald’s ability was nowhere near the expert’s. ‘Expert’ is the top category of three. Oswald in the marines had two tests. One gave him a bare two marks above the minimum for the second category. The other (later) placed him well down in the third (the lowest). The Commission’s comment on this latter test is characteristic. Without a shred of evidence it suggests that at the time it might have been raining. And yet now two, possibly all three of his shots were hits. Why do the tests with experts? They quote evidence from Oswald’s wife, that he had practised a dry run (loading and unloading) apparently with this rifle. They have no testimony that he ever fired a single practice shot with it. They argue that his task of aiming anew for each shot was made easier because the car was going down a slope of 3 degrees. The height of the building is one of the relevant figures omitted. But the distances are given, the minimum height for the sixth floor is not hard to gauge from the photographs and trigonometry shows this special pleading pretty weak.

The second feature: that the main sustaining evidence against Oswald has been provided by his wife – who, of course, could not have been made to testify against him at all had this been a trial. The evidence of the other parties is thin and contradictory, doubtful recognitions, selected assumptions, behaviour without rhyme or reason. It is entirely the testimony of Marina, the Russian-born wife, that puts flesh and blood on the flimsy skeleton. Marina, who speaks no English, who first declared her disbelief in her husband’s guilt, who was placed, in effect, incommunicado by the F.B.I as soon as the crime was committed and who the Commission triumphantly boasts in its conclusions, has now changed her view. Marina, against whom, as is clear from the report, the U.S. authorities have a clear case whenever they like to press it, for false statement on her immigration form. The Commission are faced with a problem: how to account for Oswald, with a complete absence of any violence on his previous record, having suddenly taken to assassination. So Marina comes to the rescue with a story that he earlier tried to shoot General Walker. How this marksman, capable of accurate shots from an unfamiliar stance in a few seconds against a moving target came then to miss a sitting target, in a location that, according to the report, he had previously prepared and studied, and with all the time in the world at his disposal, is not even discussed by the Committee. It is Marina, too, who helps to whitewash the most damning document admitted by the Committee; the notation of a local F.B.I. officer’s name and address in Oswald’s notebook. Explanation: the F.B.I. made a routine call on the woman with whom Marina was staying, told her Oswald was a suspicious character and left his name and address so she could report to him on his activities. So the woman promptly gave the name and address to Marina who gave it to Oswald who wrote it in his notebook. Really, there seems no limit to the credulity expected of the public by the Commission and the F.B.I.

The third remarkable feature is the amount of space devoted to psychologising Lee Harvey Oswald. Or perhaps it is not remarkable considering the role played in contemporary U.S. society by the psychologist as a sort of sorcerer or medicine man. The Commission is desperately anxious to discover a motive for this man, who never spoke against Kennedy, had no grudge against Kennedy, suddenly deciding on his own to shoot Kennedy. They even, in one place, suggest (while declaring themselves not convinced) that it was because he had just heard his wife running down his sexual ability in the presence of third parties. This mania for finding the simple inexplicable and resorting to ‘psychology,’ reminds of Honor Tracy’s account, in her book on McArthur’s occupation of Japan, of the two G.I.s who were noticed enjoying their doxies in broad daylight on a public hard tennis court in Tokyo, and were remitted to the psychiatric ward for study on why they were doing it. For, on the assumption of the Committee, that he and he alone is the assassin, the case is certainly a problem. The young man who claims he was first attracted to Communism at the age of 16 – and at 20 promptly joins the U.S. marines; who spends his time in the marines – studying the Russian language and Marxism. The flourishing ex-marine - who has money to go to U.S.S.R. The disillusioned anti-communist who writes an exposure of Soviet society on his way home – and on arrival, instead of publishing it, promptly takes out a subscription to the Worker instead. The unemployed man who spends his spare servings on printing propaganda and a visit to Mexico. This intending assassin who draws attention to himself by getting on radio and arrested as a supporter of ‘Fair Play for Cuba,’ and creating a row in Mexico City at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies – and leaves conveniently at his home a photograph of himself with a pistol and rifle holding copies of the Worker and the Militant. All that of course takes some psychologising – if you make the Commission’s assumption. No psychology can explain (so of course the Commission does not attempt to) why a man whose motive for shooting the President was (as it imaginatively concludes) to assert his personality, to be a somebody in the world and then go down in history, should do this deed and then deny it. Booth, after shooting Lincoln, jumped on the stage for an opportunity to shout ‘Sic semper tyrannis!’ Every other assassin or would-be assassin of a U.S. President (all detailed in the report) proclaimed the deed. Not Lee Harvey Oswald. All he said in public was that he didn’t do it. Of what he said to the Dallas police in private the Commission notes that not a word was recorded, but admits he persisted in his denial.

But if this assumption is not made, if the denials of the C.I.A. and F.B.I. are taken, as grown-ups surely should take them, with the head cocked just slightly to one side and a recollection of the number of times these bodies have been caught lying, framing and – in the case of the first – even assassinating; if, in other words, we admit even just the possibility that Oswald (who was certainly not innocent) was a fall-guy, small fry doing a job for one and/or the other, one of the many kept ripe and ready for convenient usage and here employed to put hounds off the scent – then there is no mystery whatever about his biography, the problem disappears.

The effort to blur this in connection with the State Department, whose actual records can less easily claim excuse for non-publication than can those of the two cloak-and-dagger institutions, brings on a veritable orgy of contortions on the part of the Commission. Oswald gets his passport to go to Russia, the first time, in six days, puts on an act at the U.S. Embassy insulting everyone and declaring his loyalty to U.S.S.R. When even this does not get him any job nearer the hub of affairs in Russia then relegation to the premises as a small craftsman, he applies to return with his wife and asks for cash to do so. The resentful Embassy staff at first says no, but then is overruled by superiors at home who stretch the regulations. The Commission says this was because the State Department regarded Oswald as ‘an unstable character whose actions are highly unpredictable,’ and therefore considered it in the best interests of U.S.A. to get him back and out of Russia as soon as possible. Nevertheless, when he applies to the State Department for a new passport to go to Cuba and to the U.S.S.R. again, the same department which has just subsidised him to come out of U.S.S.R. in the U.S. interest, grants it at once, this time in one day! Which, says the Commission, was just routine! The Commission admits that in such cases a ‘look-out card’ is made out, warning that such a man should not get a passport again without due consideration. It even has a witness who remembers making out such a card for Oswald, but it was not in his file and none can remember how it failed to get in (or got out).

A report so packed with facts cannot but include, however fantastic, illuminations of American life. It is by no means devoid of unintentional humour. One is when Oswald, whose letters and diary and other writings are abundantly quoted throughout and who cannot write one single sentence correctly and without misspellings, is solemnly recorded as having been interviewed for a job and assessed as being of ‘outstanding verbal-clerical potential’ (p.640). Another is when, with equal deadpan, we are told (p.361) that he baited his officers by leading ‘them into discussions of foreign affairs about which they often knew less than he did.’ (Heavens above, what must be the level of commissioned rank education in the U.S. marines!) But the whole ‘investigation’ rollicks into farce when it starts on the biography of Jack Ruby, the man who so conveniently shut the mouth of fall-guy Oswald.

‘Many former employers of Ruby,’ we learn, ‘stated that he was a pleasant or unobjectionable employer,’ ‘genuinely interested in their welfare and happiness. In a moment, however, it is explained that he also dominated them, publicly embarrassed them, frequently resorted to violence against them, sometimes attempted to cheat them of their pay, and delayed paying their salaries. He struck one on the head with a blackjack, kicked another – a guitarist – in the groin. His partner was given eight years for sodomy and he himself arrested eight times in a few years for violence and various violations of laws. His activities, the Commission quotes a friend as saying, were ‘shady but legitimate.’ Nevertheless this paragon was on excellent terms with the Dallas police. His ‘personal attachment’ to police affairs is demonstrated by reports that he attended the funeral of at least one policeman killed in action. Ruby regarded several officers as personal friends and others had worked for him. Finally, at least one policeman regularly dated and eventually married, one of the nightclub’s strippers. The Commission concludes that ‘the precise nature of his relationship to members of the Dallas Police Department is not susceptible to conclusive evaluation,’ but it hazards the guess that the Dallas’ police chief’s testimony that a maximum of 50 of his men were acquainted with Ruby is possibly an underestimation. Nobody noticed him about in police headquarters when he shot Oswald, they guess, because probably he was there only about 30 seconds.

From gay to grave: perhaps the most sinister part of the Report is the last chapter. It goes over all the actions and failures of the security organs that were charged with Kennedy’s safety. ‘Errors,’ it characterises them. The remedy? A committee to think up something and meanwhile more of the same. More Secret Service. More money and men for J. Edgar Hoover. More ‘Liaison with local Law Enforcement Agencies’ (i.e., such as the Dallas police). And, we may suppose, if he is bumped off, more enquiries packed with enemies. The warning is clear: like a Sultan surrounded by his Mamelukes, the titular ruler of U.S.A. is to continue to know he must not go too far.

[Guest John Gillespie]

_______________________________________

From a John Simkin posting:

"Buchanan claims that JFK was killed by two gunman. One fired from the railroad bridge. Another fired from the Texas School Book Depository. He wore a Dallas Police uniform. Oswald was aware of the conspiracy but did not fire any shots. Oswald believed that Tippit was going to help him escape. However, his real job was to kill him “while resisting arrest”. Oswald, realised what was happening and fired first."

[Guest John Gillespie]

"I looked through all the bibliographies of the books that I have on the JFK assassination. I have a large collection and was surprised that I could find no reference to the book. "

___________________________

As a service to The Forum, here is a nice compilation/list off a web page that refers to Mr. R.B. Cutler, a Professor who taught an Investigative Reporting course at the University of Hartford called "Who was Jack Ruby." He is also the author of "Mr. Chairman: Evidence of Conspiracy" from, I believe, the late seventies or early eighties. I listened to him on a radio talk show here in Boston about 20 - 25 years ago and he was compelling (Sorry, but this list came as the result of a tangential search and is unattributed. But not a bad list, eh? I want that "Umbrella Man" R.B. Cutler tome):

http://www.wf.net/~biles/jfk/cornejo.txt

Edited August 28, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Paul Rigby]

An interesting piece and very much on target for so soon after the WC was out.....! 'Funny' how no one in the NYT, for example, could grasp any of the points mentioned, let alone all of them.....those who look critically at the nation can usually see when the emperor is without his clothes....as can children....all the others are too busy or worried with the 'mortgage' et al.

Peter,

A lovely phrase, don't you think, "a real bucket of brainwash"?! And how much more accurate than the vast tracts of sycophantic bilge emanating from the NYT, WaPo, et al...

A further thought: Whatever the limitations of their political philosophy, there is no gainsaying the clarity of their analysis of JFK's murder.

Paul

[John Simkin]

Message from a friend of Tom Buchanan:

John, I have been reading some of your commentary on Tom Buchanan's book, "Who Killed Kennedy?" I knew Tom for the last ten years of his life in France. After he died, Tom's wife gave me the typewritter he used to write. I don't know answers to the questions you ask. Tom always protected me from knowing too much, the same he did with his children. What I do know is that Tom's book comes close enough to the "truth" that it bothered a lot of people. They discredited him in any way they could. The easiest way was because of his past membership in the Communist Party. He never recovered from that treatment. He was a serious author which is why his book on Kennedy is rarely taken seriously. In fact, I encouraged him to ask for his FBI file under Carter's administration which he did. The effects were devastating. He went on to write a book in French, loosely translated as, "My life reviewed and rewritten by the FBI." That was his last book.

[Michael Hogan]

Message from a friend of Tom Buchanan:

John, I have been reading some of your commentary on Tom Buchanan's book, "Who Killed Kennedy?" I knew Tom for the last ten years of his life in France. After he died, Tom's wife gave me the typewritter he used to write. I don't know answers to the questions you ask. Tom always protected me from knowing too much, the same he did with his children. What I do know is that Tom's book comes close enough to the "truth" that it bothered a lot of people. They discredited him in any way they could. The easiest way was because of his past membership in the Communist Party. He never recovered from that treatment. He was a serious author which is why his book on Kennedy is rarely taken seriously. In fact, I encouraged him to ask for his FBI file under Carter's administration which he did. The effects were devastating. He went on to write a book in French, loosely translated as, "My life reviewed and rewritten by the FBI." That was his last book.

William Turner, earlier in this thread wrote:

In my opinion Thomas G. Buchanan was the ghost writer of "Farewell America." He fits the profile given to me by Herve Lamarre, the French intelligence agent who fronted the Farewell project. Buchanan was far from a Communist. He was a World War II veteran, an Ivy Leaguer and a correspondent for L'Express, for whom he covered the Jack Ruby trial.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I have recently been investigating the Dorothy Kilgallen case. I was especially interested in finding out details of her contact within the Warren Commission and the private interview she had with Jack Ruby after the assassination. With this is mind I borrowed a book from the university library by a couple of journalists, John Kaplan and Jon Waltz, called The Trial of Jack Ruby. The book was extremely poor and was just an attempt to substantiate the idea that Ruby killed Oswald because he did not want Jackie to experience the pain of a trial.

It was the last chapter in the book that caught my attention. The authors included a brief attack on a book written by an American called Thomas G. Buchanan. It included the following sentence: Buchanan asserted that the assassination had been the work of Texas oil interests who felt that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, once elevated to the presidency, would protect their favourable percentage depletion tax treatment more vigorously than the Kennedy administration. As members will know, this is very much my position. However, I did not know of the existence of this book, let alone have I read it. The other thing that struck me was that Kaplan and Waltzs book was published in 1965. Buchanans book must have been published earlier than that.

I looked through all the bibliographies of the books that I have on the JFK assassination. I have a large collection and was surprised that I could find no reference to the book. The only book that did refer to it was Michael Bensons Whos Who in the JFK Assassination. His entry for Buchanan is just over two lines. It gave the title, publisher (Secker & Warburg, London) and date (1964) plus the claim that Jack Ruby was very impressed with the book.

I then did a search of the Abe Books database of second-hand books. Apparently the worlds bookshops have 191 copies of this book and I was able to buy a first edition for less than a fiver.

It came yesterday. I read it in a couple of hours. The book is mind-blowing. The book jacket includes a photograph and brief biography of Buchanan. It says he was born in the Deep South. For many years he worked as a freelance writer for magazines in Europe and Asia but was now living in Paris.

The publication date of the book was interesting. It was May 1964. In fact, it was based on a series of articles that appeared in LExpress in March, 1964. As you can see, this was before the publication of the Warren Report.

In the preface Buchanan writes that the reason he had written the articles was because he had been contacted by a staff member of the Warren Commission. This person had put him in contact with Ted Kennedy. He in turn had arranged for Buchanan to meet Nicholas Katzenbach to whom Attorney-General Robert F. Kennedy had delegated responsibility in recent months. Buchanan therefore implies that the Kennedy brothers were behind this book. Buchanan goes on to explain that he has been informed that what he has said in these articles will be supported by Warren Commission Report when it is published.

What appears to have happened is that someone on the Warren Commission realised that a cover-up was about to take place. Therefore, they had decided to leak what the WC had really found out to a journalist. I suspect this is the same person also leaked information about Jack Ruby to Dorothy Kilgallen. Buchanan claims that the commission discovered that Ruby knew Oswald. In fact, Ruby lent him money to pay back the State Department for the $435.71 the U.S. had loaned Oswald when he returned from Russia. This happened soon after Oswald arrived back in the U.S. Ruby continued to lend Oswald money until shortly before the assassination of JFK. Buchanan claims that this information was already in the public domain as it had been published in an article by Serge Groussard in LAurore.

Buchanan is an excellent writer. He logically and clearly explains the whole conspiracy. He is extremely well-informed. For example, he knows about the secret meetings that were taking place on behalf of JFK in Cuba. I assume this information came from Jean Daniel, the foreign editor of LExpress. Daniel, along with Lisa Howard, had been carrying messages from JFK to Castro during 1963. In fact, Daniel was with Castro when he heard the news that JFK had been assassinated. I have for a long time believed that Daniel was in a position to know about the assassination of JFK. Whatever happened to Daniel? Whatever happened to Buchanan?

Buchanan explains that Kennedy was not the conspirators first victim. In October, 1962, they arranged the killing of a prominent Italian politician called Enrico Mattei. This is a complicated story and I will tell it in a future posting.

Buchanan argues that the assassination was funded by a Texas oilman. He does not name him but includes the clue that he was a well-known gambler. The one oilmen that I know who liked gambling was Clint Murchison (this was something he liked to do with his old mate, J. Edgar Hoover). The only oilman Buchanan names is Morgan Davis, the chairman of Humble Oil. This could be a clue but I have never seen Davis linked to the assassination. Maybe other members could help me with this one.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdavisM.htm

Buchanan claims that JFK was killed by two gunman. One fired from the railroad bridge. Another fired from the Texas School Book Depository. He wore a Dallas Police uniform. Oswald was aware of the conspiracy but did not fire any shots. Oswald believed that Tippit was going to help him escape. However, his real job was to kill him while resisting arrest. Oswald, realised what was happening and fired first.

Buchanan claims that Oswald had accomplices from within the Dallas Police Department. They helped him escape from the Texas School Book Depository and helped Ruby kill Oswald.

Buchanans account of the political situation in 1963 is masterly. So also his analysis of the Texas economy and the reasons why JFK had to die.

Who Killed Kennedy? by Thomas G. Buchanan is the best book I have read about the assassination. However, that is no doubt been influenced by the fact that I agree with almost every word in the book. If I am right, then we have one of the greatest ironies in history. The mystery was solved by the very first book published on the assassination.

Did Thomas Buchanan solve the JFK assassination in real time in 1964 with this book that was published 100 days after the 1963 Coup d'Etat?

I hope folks don't mind if I scream my answer in all capitalizaition: YES! YES! YES! THOMAS BUCHANAN SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN REAL TIME IN 1963-1964. AND BY FINGERING TEXAS OIL BARONS AS CRITICAL HE HIT IT RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! CLINT MURCHISON, SR, LYNDON JOHNSON'S BENEFACTOR WAS AT THE HEART AND CENTER OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION.

There, I got it off my chest. Bingo for Thomas Buchanan for a spectacular performance for truth in the JFK assassination.

Read the book Brothers by David Talbot, pp. 260-262 and p. 281 to read about the establishment's campaign to discredit Thomas Buchanan. Washington Post columist Chalmers Roberts (NEED I MENTION CFR MEMBER?) pulled the ole red baiting card in an attempt to discredit Buchanan.

But Ben Bradlee, old JFK friend, called Bobby Kennedy's office and urged him to meet with Thomas Buchanan.

Why was Clint Murchison, Sr. so critical to the murder of John Kennedy? Clint Murchison was far more important in Dallas than H.L. Hunt. Hunt may have been the richest man in the world, and a far right red neck, and also a Lyndon Johnson supporter and JFK-hater, but it was Clint Murchison, Sr. who was the politician and the REAL leader in Dallas.

Clint Murchison, Sr. was the one with longstanding PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS with perpetrator Lyndon Johnson; he used to throw parties for "Bulldog" J. Edgar Hoover, and entertain Hoover at his Del Charro Hotel in California. Murchison as the leader of the Texans, had working relationships with Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, John J. McCloy - 3 men were at the white hot inner core of US intelligence for decades. Certainly all three of those men were key players in the cover up of the Coup of 1963. I do think Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller were also involved in plotting and the killing of John Kennedy as well.

Look at Clint Murchison, Sr. and I see LBJ, CIA and FBI at the highest levels. And that is who murdered and covered up John Kennedy.

Col. Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak identified CIA General Edward Lansdale as present at TSBD on 11/22/63 (in a photo taken of the 3 tramps, with Lansdale walking in front of them in a business suit in the opposite direction.)

Lansdale was close to Allen Dulles and I think Ed Lansdale was running field operations for the JFK Assassination in Dallas on 11/22/63. And Lansdale MAY have had some help from a George Herbert Walker Bush - who was supported by the SAME military and oil interests as Lyndon Johnson.

Buchanan knew about Oswald being a US intelligence agent. He knew about JFK's back channel negotiations with Cuba - which is absolutely critical information and something that no doubt would have enraged the CIA.

Of all the JFK assassination researchers I respect, I probably respect Thomas Buchanan the most for getting it right and getting it right in real time.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Michael Hogan]

Did Thomas Buchanan solve the JFK assassination in real time in 1964 with this book that was published 100 days after the 1963 Coup d'Etat?

I hope folks don't mind if I scream my answer in all capitalizaition: YES! YES! YES! THOMAS BUCHANAN SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN REAL TIME IN 1963-1964. AND BY FINGERING TEXAS OIL BARONS AS CRITICAL HE HIT IT RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! CLINT MURCHISON, SR, LYNDON JOHNSON'S BENEFACTOR WAS AT THE HEART AND CENTER OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION.

There, I got it off my chest. Bingo for Thomas Buchanan for a spectacular performance for truth in the JFK assassination....

....Of all the JFK assassination researchers I respect, I probably respect Thomas Buchanan the most for getting it right and getting it right in real time.

From page 188 of Who Killed Kennedy:

That Lyndon Johnson is, in any way, involved in Mr. X's plot would be, of course, fantastic. No such implication is intended.

Andrew Johnson did not know of Booth's plot, either; he was even an intended victim. Chester A. Arthur did not know of

Guiteau's plot to murder Garfield; and, like both of the Johnsons, would have been completely horrified that any man should

wish him to attain the Presidency over Garfield's body.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Did Thomas Buchanan solve the JFK assassination in real time in 1964 with this book that was published 100 days after the 1963 Coup d'Etat?

I hope folks don't mind if I scream my answer in all capitalization: YES! YES! YES! THOMAS BUCHANAN SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN REAL TIME IN 1963-1964. AND BY FINGERING TEXAS OIL BARONS AS CRITICAL HE HIT IT RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! CLINT MURCHISON, SR, LYNDON JOHNSON'S BENEFACTOR WAS AT THE HEART AND CENTER OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION.

There, I got it off my chest. Bingo for Thomas Buchanan for a spectacular performance for truth in the JFK assassination....

....Of all the JFK assassination researchers I respect, I probably respect Thomas Buchanan the most for getting it right and getting it right in real time.

From page 188 of Who Killed Kennedy:

That Lyndon Johnson is, in any way, involved in Mr. X's plot would be, of course, fantastic. No such implication is intended.

Andrew Johnson did not know of Booth's plot, either; he was even an intended victim. Chester A. Arthur did not know of

Guiteau's plot to murder Garfield; and, like both of the Johnsons, would have been completely horrified that any man should

wish him to attain the Presidency over Garfield's body.

Excellent post, Michael! Of course Thomas Buchanan in January of 1964 did not have access to all the things that we know 47 years later. Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billie Sol Estes, and Barr McClellan did not starting talking until the 1980's, about 10 years after the death of the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson. Not to mention longtime CIA man E. Howard Hunt fingering both Lyndon Johnson and the CIA in the JFK assassination.

All in all, Thomas Buchanan turned in a spectacular performance on solving the JFK assassination in real time in early 1964. Buchanan could only get this stuff printed in the foreign press and I think his book was printed overseas as well. There was an almost totalitarian atmosphere in the USA in the early days regarding US government and media propaganda on the JFK assassination, as the complete emphasis of the CIA controlled US media was framing the patsy US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald. So pointing a finger directly at Lyndon Johnson was a leap that even Buchanan did not make... Btw, Lyndon Johnson then the new president of the USA, by that time had a LONG record of murdering people who threatened to expose him.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

What Lyndon Johnson did not tell Madeleine was that Texas Oil (read Clint Murchison, Sr, H.L. Hunt) and the CIA (especially the Gen Ed Lansdale, Operation 40/Operation Mongoose crowd) were murdering John Kennedy with the full knowledge, approval and participation of VP Lyndon Johnson.

Two extremely important books to read:

1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010) by Phillip Nelson which references Madeleine Brown several times. http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

2) JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (2008) by James Douglass. These 2 books read together are potent and very informative. Review: http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Edited December 19, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Michael Hogan]

Did Thomas Buchanan solve the JFK assassination in real time in 1964 with this book that was published 100 days after the 1963 Coup d'Etat?

I hope folks don't mind if I scream my answer in all capitalization: YES! YES! YES! THOMAS BUCHANAN SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN REAL TIME IN 1963-1964. AND BY FINGERING TEXAS OIL BARONS AS CRITICAL HE HIT IT RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! CLINT MURCHISON, SR, LYNDON JOHNSON'S BENEFACTOR WAS AT THE HEART AND CENTER OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION.

There, I got it off my chest. Bingo for Thomas Buchanan for a spectacular performance for truth in the JFK assassination....

....Of all the JFK assassination researchers I respect, I probably respect Thomas Buchanan the most for getting it right and getting it right in real time.

From page 188 of Who Killed Kennedy:

That Lyndon Johnson is, in any way, involved in Mr. X's plot would be, of course, fantastic. No such implication is intended.

Andrew Johnson did not know of Booth's plot, either; he was even an intended victim. Chester A. Arthur did not know of

Guiteau's plot to murder Garfield; and, like both of the Johnsons, would have been completely horrified that any man should

wish him to attain the Presidency over Garfield's body.

Excellent post, Michael! Of course Thomas Buchanan in January of 1964 did not have access to all the things that we know 47 years later. Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billie Sol Estes, and Barr McClellan did not starting talking until the 1980's, about 10 years after the death of the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson. Not to mention longtime CIA man E. Howard Hunt fingering both Lyndon Johnson and the CIA in the JFK assassination.

All in all, Thomas Buchanan turned in a spectacular performance on solving the JFK assassination in real time in early 1964. Buchanan could only get this stuff printed in the foreign press and I think his book was printed overseas as well. There was an almost totalitarian atmosphere in the USA in the early days regarding US government and media propaganda on the JFK assassination, as the complete emphasis of the CIA controlled US media was framing the patsy US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald. So pointing a finger directly at Lyndon Johnson was a leap that even Buchanan did not make... Btw, Lyndon Johnson then the new president of the USA, by that time had a LONG record of murdering people who threatened to expose him.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book...

You claim that Thomas Buchanan solved the JFK assassination, then when shown where he absolved your mastermind, tiptoe all around it by making speculative rationalizations about what he wrote.

It's the same form of selective critical thinking that allows you to believe Judyth Baker's story.

And cutting and pasting your Madeleine Brown stuff from another thread and making it appear as if you just wrote it is weak. Madeleine Brown has nothing to do with what Thomas Buchanan wrote about Lyndon Johnson.

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on 12/31/63 ... that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy.

Given your penchant for recommending books to EF members, you might try relying less on Google and more on getting some of your 200+ books off the shelf and actually reading them.

And by the way, I see you're now citing Talbot's Brothers by page number. You're welcome.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Thank-you, Michael. You have been a big help on both counts: 1) finding that RFK quote in support of the Warren Report (of course, Robert Kennedy was lying and did not believe a bit of it) 2) Thomas Buchanan quote on Lyndon Johnson.

I don't own the Thomas Buchanan book, but I will soon. I just have read accounts of what he was saying back in EARLY 1964 and in his book. He was spot on. I just ordered his book today off Amazon. There is one more copy there and it is pretty cheap for those folks who want to grab it.

Also, I do want to recommend that spectacular book Brothers by David Talbott. Read that and it will help you a lot to understand the JFK assassination and cover up:

http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Hidden-History-Kennedy-Years/dp/0743269195/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292802075&sr=1-1

[Kathleen Collins]

John,

For me, I found it interesting that the location of the second gunman was on the overpass, left of where the traditional knoll gunman was believed to be. This got me thinking...

I've been reviewing the Z-film and comparing it with Don R.'s fantastic diagrams. I didn't quite realize that JFK was facing as far to the left. This exposes a larger area of the right side of his head to the "left gunman" than I ever realized. I've always felt that the kill shot "ran shallow", raking front to back (or back to front) just inside the skull. An inch or so to the right and it would have missed.

The TSBD has always struck me as being too elevated for this shot to *not* damage the right eye orbital. I've always preferred the Dal-Tex lower floor option for this reason.

I've been pondering Al Carrier's theory that the headshot in Z313 came from the left (not from the traditional grassy-knoll location, but from the "other" knoll, or overpass) for quite some time. I had never quite understood the roots of this theory nor its plausibility. However, this article has me thinking again about Al's ideas...

The pool of blood on Don's map has always puzzled me (NorthEast of Cupola #4). However, if the head shot came from the south knoll/overpass, this is a *very likely* location for someone to have been hit with a fragment. In the excitement, adrenalin could have kicked in and they might not even realize that they were struck with something or were cut/bleeding.

The key question becomes -- who was there that might have been cut by a bullet fragment? Personally, I'm going to spend a lot more time considering the south knoll shooter and the implications thereof.

Regards.

Frank

Try Google Earth Street View. Type in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, TX. Or Elm and Houston. You can scour that area very much. You can go over to the South Knoll and see how Elm was a bit of a hill and turned in such a way. These aren't live like webcams, but the photos are supposedly re-shot every 3 years.

Kathy C

[Robert Howard]

Put me on the list of people who don't find Thomas Buchanan a fraud. And I also believe that this thread hasn't exactly worked.

Tim's point/counterpoint debates with John ruined the first part of the thread, despite John Simkin's best efforts.

Ken Rahn can be summed up in one sentence, everybody on the left, in the 1963 through 1970's advocating conspiracy are considered "extremists," while not considering Billy James Hargis, an extremist, sums up his view of being dispassionate, in regards to the assassination.

And the rest of the thread, I believe is a little more balanced, although I heartily disagree with William Turner that Buchanan was also the writer for Farewell America, because?

Both books approach the assassination in different styles, that, is to say, that the phrase comparing apples to oranges comes to mind.

There are a couple of key points that should be made.

First, not only did Buchanan write his book, but he also covered the assassination aftermath in Dallas. Which, gave him access to information obviously, that someone really looking for answers, would at least, had a chance to obtain. That also unfortunately, works both ways. Remember Bill Boxley

in 1967 and onwards. He did more for disinformation than a lot of people combined.

Second, for the most part, if one has the ability to be completely dispassionate,

it could be said that, one can only offer opinions as to the quality, bias or lack thereof or credibility of the "first generation" researchers, excepting the financing for certain books,while that point has been raised earlier in this thread, I still believe that it is very possible that Who Killed Kennedy is not the same dynamic as Khrushchev Killed Kennedy by Michael Eddowes and the H.L Hunt connection. Why? Because no-one can divine the thoughts of another person infallibly.

Which leads me to my most important point, and is the main reason why I decided to make this post in the first place. I take a different approach, apparently to the methodology used in an honest appraisal of, especially, controversial books.

Which is, in this case, withholding judgement as to the bona fides, and being a little more detail oriented, specifically if sources are referenced that can be fact-checked then the case for credibility, is either cemented, discredited or somewhere in between. Example, Buchanan makes some scintillating allegations. In this case, an allegation attributed to Jim Lehrer and The Dallas Times Herald (Dec. 20, 1963) that "Ruby had made five reservations on a plane leaving

for Mexico." [pp 105] I also stumbled across several, (in light of what I know) passages, I believe it is incumbent to determine whether credible or not.

On page 124, .......A U.P.I. dispatch dated November 25th quotes custom officer William M. Kline at Laredo, Texas as declaring that "a Federal agency in Washington," asked to be notified when Oswald crossed the border......[into Mexico.]

Pages 91-92 mention something about the Dallas Morning News building in conjunction with Ruby that is another one of those areas that is fascinating, if true.

The subject concerns Jack Ruby at the Dallas Morning News, and Donald Campbell

and John Newman, who, along with others who worked there stated that Ruby was there after the shooting took place.....In that context, the topic merges with speculation about what direction a particular gunman took after the assassination.

......He (Ruby) was still there when John Newman entered at about 12:45, a quarter of an hour after the assassination. Although all police cars in a radius of many miles had been converging,with their sirens wailing, on the book depository--

which Ruby could have seen, down Houston Street, by looking out the window--Ruby did not ask John Newman what happened. It appears to have been someone else who told him. The French paper Liberation, in its issue of November

27th, quoted Newman as having told reporters: I heard someone shout, "The President has been shot!" They think the man who fired at him is hiding in this building!" At this news, said Newman, Ruby seemed "extremely upset."

While I wouldn't go as far as some who say Buchanan, nails it, [i believe the foreign policy aspects of the assassination have not been, and were not, at the time Buchanan wrote his book, adequately understood, as to the who, what, when

where, why et cetera, until the last decade] I certainly believe he may have formulated the general idea excepting the intelligence related areas, but I couldn't say until I know whether certain claims check out.

I do however believe that he focuses on all the right questions and areas, which for me is decidedly in favor of his credibility.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Robert Howard

[John Simkin]

A few months ago someone posted details of the death of Thomas G. Buchanan. I cannot find the posting. Does anyone know what thread it was on?