Pat Speer

I tend to agree. A lot of time and effort has been put into proving this or that piece of evidence is fake, when this or that piece of evidence is often grounds to suspect a conspiracy, once properly interpreted. As far as Mexico City, I suspect John Newman will have a lot to say about Oswald's visit in years to come...

The false story to which Hoover alludes was almost certainly the story spread by Nicaraguan intelligence agent Gilberto Alvarado that Oswald had received money while in the Cuban consulate. If you are trying to imply that Hoover believed Oswald never traveled to Mexico City, you should point us to his saying so, or to an FBI investigation into where he really traveled.

Frazier and his sister both settled on 27" after comparing the replica bag to the seat and the way Oswald was holding it. He also said, multiple times, that it was about 6 inches wide. That's 162 sq in. The bag in the archives is roughly 38 by 8 1/2. That's 323 sq in, basically twice as large. This basic fact was concealed by the WC--that failed to publish the size of the bag--and ignored by those pushing the ridiculous bag story for roughly 40 years. Instead, they use the length of the estimates to make it seem like Frazier's recollection is close enough. It isn't. Could he be wrong? Of course. But a murder conviction based on someone's carrying a bazooka--when the only eyewitness said he was carrying a cane--is problematic, and deserves closer examination, to say the least.

Let's be clear. The bag described by Frazier is not in the "ballpark" of the bag later photographed. The bag he described was basically half the size of that bag.

That's a fine presentation of what amounts to "no conspiracy" thinking on this issue. But there is a hole in it, yes? The rifle is presumed to have been taken from the Paine's garage on the morning of the shooting wrapped in paper Oswald brought home on the 21st. Only... The WC had no evidence the rifle was in the Paine's garage in the weeks before the shooting. It was believed to have been there. But no one saw it there. And the blanket it was once enclosed in looked undisturbed. That's a problem. It could have been taken from the unlocked garage sometime over the previous weeks. Still, assuming it was there on the morning of the 22nd, the WC had no evidence indicating Oswald brought paper home on the 21st. Frazier insists this did not happen. That's a problem. Still, assuming he was mistaken, the WC had no evidence Oswald went out in the garage to wrap the rifle. It was a tiny house in which the movements of its occupants would be apparent to others. And yet, no one saw Oswald go out in the garage to wrap up the rifle. Mrs. Paine assumed he'd done so based upon a light being turned on in the garage. But there were a number of other people in the house, including herself and Marina, who could have left this light on. No one even asked the children if they'd been out in the garage. So, this is a problem. Still, assuming he snuck out to the garage without anyone's noticing, he had to get the rifle to the depository. And yet, both Frazier and his sister insisted the package they saw was too small to have held a rifle. Well, this is huge problem. But let's say he did. Then there's the problem of the DPD's supposed discovery of this package in a central location after going unnoticed by all those to first discover the sniper's nest. This is another huge problem. So... There are a number of holes in this story. And yet, even so, most LNs will state it as a fact that Oswald smuggled the rifle into the depository in a bag made from paper brought out to Irving on the 21st, and that Frazier and his sister were mistaken as to the size of the package they saw in Oswald's possession. This is sloppy thinking, at best. There are a number of ways the rifle could have made it into the depository. One should not be forced to follow the WC's thinking on this issue. So many maybes and could have's are required that one can invent a story from whole cloth that would make as much sense. Here's let's try. Oswald had a friend he never mentioned named Bruno. Bruno came out to the Paine's residence in the middle of the night disguised as Santa Claus in case anyone saw him. Oswald snuck out into the garage while everyone else was sleeping and handed Bruno the rifle. Bruno then took the rifle to the TSBD and snuck in while a security guard was inspecting a light that had been left on. After the shooting, Bruno hid on the seventh floor disguised as a Dallas Police officer. He ran down after the shots and escaped out the back door without anyone's noticing. Now, that is 100% fantasy. But there is no proof this did not happen. So...is it easier to believe a story for which there is no proof, or a story for which much of the evidence runs counter to the story? CTs would say the former. LNs would say the latter. Why? How is that more logical?

I have agreed that this animation can be used for propaganda purposes. What I meant by that is that it can be used by CTs or CT-friendly media to counter Dale Myers' nonsense. My concern is that its presentation of JFK's and JBC's relative positions is in error. By having JFK in the wrong position it supports Myers' cartoon as opposed to refuting it. By having JBC in the wrong position it supports Myers in that he can now claim the animation is incorrect and that if only JBC was in the correct position everything would align, etc. It's just not true.

FWIW, I accept the majority of the "official" story. But there are huge holes that should be acknowledged by the Oswald-did-it crowd that strangely, are not. Here's one. Oswald's rifle was found in the building. Okay, I can accept that. Three shells from this rifle were found on the floor. Okay, I can accept that. So how did he get the rifle in the building? One witness said he carried a package that was far too small to hold the rifle. Another said he saw him come in the building and he didn't have a package at all. That's weird. Well, okay, wrapping paper was found on the sixth floor. But was it? Several members of the DPD claimed to find it, and they claimed to find it in different locations. And not only that, none of the first men on the scene saw it. Bizarre. Well, Oswald's prints were found on this wrapping paper. But, hold on, the WC lied about the location of these prints to sell that Oswald left these prints while carrying the bag into the building. Hmmm... Around this point, reasonable people should smell a rat, IMO. But it gets worse. Oswald is purported to have told Frazier the package he had held curtain rods. Okay. And the package Frazier described was exactly the size of a package of curtain rods. Okay. And Frazier's sister confirmed this when the package was re-created and shown her by the FBI. Okay. And Oswald's rooming house had a damaged curtain rod on the afternoon of the shooting, that the WC never looked into. Wait, huh? And Ruth and Michael Paine believed they had a package of curtain rods, that was missing when they checked their garage months later, which led them to claim they'd been mistaken and that there was no package of curtain rods in their garage, only loose curtain rods. Okay. And then it turns out that the SS gave some curtain rods to the DPD to be checked for fingerprints BEFORE the loose curtain rods were retrieved from the Paine's garage. So that's a hole, right? The inability of most LNs to acknowledge obvious holes in the case against Oswald is a problem, IMO, to the extent even that they have no business complaining about "conspiracy logic". I mean, if "no conspiracy" logic is just as biased and addled as "conspiracy logic", what's the point?

Not that Gil needs help defending himself, but I'm confused as to your point. Very few researchers of whom I am aware doubt Brennan saw someone in the window. But his belated ID of Oswald, at the urging of the FBI, after Oswald was dead and gone, is not credible. The WC as a whole, in its report, made clear they didn't exactly trust him. But Gerry Ford, in Life Magazine, made out that Brennan was the key witness. And this was garbage. The fact is, and shall remain, that the WC in particular and LNs in general, chose and continue to choose to believe certain witnesses (such as Brennan, Givens and Bledsoe) while disbelieving others (such as Adams, Piper, Rowland, Dougherty, et al) not based on their credibility, but on whether they liked what the witnesses had told them. This bias is common on both sides to this issue. Is this really in dispute?

FWIW, I saw a screening of Max's film several years back, at a conference. I thought it was fair to Ruth Paine in that it let her defend herself. It left me on the fence. I was kinda saddened by the response of some of those in attendance, however, who felt that Max had really nailed her, or exposed her, etc. I didn't get that all. It would be a shame, IMO, if she felt she should sue, or if others have convinced her she should sue. One not already pre-disposed to hate her could very well come away with an understanding of why she is controversial, and not that she's a witch who should be burned. Now, this is assuming the film as released is the film I saw at the screening. It remains possible Max re-edited the film to make it more pleasing to those hoping it would be a hit piece. If this is so, well, that's disappointing.

A decision was made early on that no one should be blamed but Oswald. The Secret Service was not to be blamed for staying out all night drinking. Baker was not to be blamed for letting Oswald go inside the building. And no one was to be blamed for Oswald's escape from the building. It must have dawned on Ball and Belin that the west entrance/exit through the loading dock was open and unwatched for some time after the shooting. If they tried to make a big deal about the front entrance being shut down, it would have opened up that can of worms. I suspect then they made a conscious decision not to look into how Oswald escaped, and whether or not he would have been seen by Shelley. If they established that Shelley was by the front entrance when they thought Oswald left the building, after all, it would have cut it into their plan to use Shelley to shut down Adams, whose statements and testimony had called into question Oswald's guilt. Better to let everyone think Oswald just walked out the front without being noticed than to have that.

Baker didn't see the rifle. He said many times he thought something had happened on the roof of the TSBD or Dal-Tex, and he ran up there to get a better look. IOW, he would have looked pretty foolish if he'd raced in there and shut down the building and it turned out the sounds he'd heard had been backfires. It seems possible, moreover, that he talked to Truly as they ran in, and Truly placed Shelley at the front door and Piper at the back, to stop anyone from running out. This is but one of the many areas avoided by Ball and Belin.

It's not a matter of measurements. It's using one's eyes. Kennedy jerks off the side of the limo before going behind the sign in the film. This animation aligns itself with Myers' nonsense by presenting Kennedy calmly hunched over the side when the single-bullet struck. It's nonsense. While it gets much correct, in that the trajectories as demonstrated for decades have been confirmed, it is not an accurate presentation.

I feel much the same way. I was contacted by Russian media before the 50th anniversary in 2013. When I told them I would gladly discuss problems with the investigations, if the article was purely about what happened, and not presented as a symbol of American evil, etc, they never responded. It was clear to me they didn't care what happened. They only wanted to use the JFKA as a tool in their ongoing effort to de-legitimize the U.S., and legitimize Putin's thugocracy.

I'm not so sure. But the notion of a dark and mysterious conspiracy--that only a select few can recognize--has a certain attraction. But it's a double-edged sword. Those thinking they've studied the case and it's obviously Oswald and all CT's are loons have fallen prey to this same seduction. "I'm cool. Those guys are tools. Ha-ha!"

I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but I skipped to the demonstration of the SBT, and there's a problem. A big one. While it verifies what has been demonstrated for decades--that the trajectories don't align--it is yet another cartoon, reverse engineered to demonstrate what its creators wish to demonstrate. The positions of JFK and JBC in the cartoon are not their positions as demonstrated in the Zapruder film. While I suppose it could prove useful for propaganda purposes, it's hard to see its forensic value.

What frame is this supposed to be? If they're saying this is 224 or some such thing, they are full of crap. Dale Myers redux.

The realization history is not what we've been told can be unnerving. Unfortunately, the road from "some of it is wrong" to "it's all a lie" perpetuated by "them" is a slippery slope.

I don't remember who, but one of those who looked into this mused that Oswald had a companion alongside him in the available photos, and that the CIA decided to just pretend there were no photos, as opposed to revealing he'd had someone with him, whereby the KGB could cross-reference their own photos and figure out who it was.

There is almost no evidence for Oswald's getting on a bus in New Orleans. I don't think he was on that bus. When I was first researching this stuff, I read all I could about his late night phone call to Horace Twiford in Houston. He made out that he could visit Twiford at his home. As a consequence, I think Oswald was coming to Houston from somewhere else, and that someone was driving him to Houston. There is this "throw every thing at the wall and see if it sticks" attitude amongst too many researchers, IMO. Oswald was in Mexico? Oh not he wasn't! An M/C rifle was found in the school book depository? Oh, no, one wasn't! And on and on... In order to embrace this "everything is fake" thesis, one must throw out the statements of dozens of witnesses--many of which are largely supportive of Oswald's innocence. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO. And I'm not alone. I've discussed the case with a number of the top researchers re the JFKA "spook stuff". And they largely agree Oswald went to Mexico, but was impersonated while he was down there. I mean, think about it. It would be pretty stupid if they impersonated him in Mexico City while he was at home with Marina and Junie, or was at an ACLU meeting with Michael Paine, or was debating Bringuier on TV in New Orleans. They must have known where he was, and that no proof would emerge he was elsewhere. So why not just have him go down to Mexico City, expenses paid, in the name of testing security, etc?

I talked to Hemming on the phone once for well over an hour. He loved to name-drop and toss out stuff like it was a fact, but when you pressed him it was almost always what he'd theorized, or what he'd been told, as opposed to what he knew. I was also once involved in a project where I was to interview him on camera. In preparation for this I studied his official testimony and compared it against what he'd subsequently told writers and researchers and posted on this forum. And it was hard not to conclude he was mostly blowing smoke. And yet, even so, he had a substantial FBI file, and was undoubtedly involved in some nefarious activities. So you couldn't just dismiss all he said.

I don't remember his name but a book was written by the American who went to Russia and signed Nechiporenko and Nosenko etc to book deals. I believe he spoke at the 2013 Wecht conference. As I recall I sat with John Judge during the presentation. So, yeah, they had a motive to gussy up their statements. I don't think this is true for the writer of ZR/Rifle however. That book was written with the participation and encouragement of Cuban intelligence, which has always held that Oswald was a patsy. And yet, even so, this book presented evidence for Oswald's traveling to Mexico City.

Yes, Oswald went to Mexico. There's a ton of evidence supporting as much. And yet, even so, the photographs a low-level CIA employee thought were of him were of someone else, quite possibly someone impersonating him. Why? Because he wasn't where the CIA said he was when they said he was there. And the higher-ups couldn't reveal this without revealing an ongoing operation. Because some muckety-mucks thought there was a mole within the agency with access to secret records and were thereby hiding from where certain information had been received. When they received intelligence from spies within the embassy, they would pretend they got the info from a wiretap, etc. They would have someone pretending to be that person make a phone call and leave a message revealing the nature of the info obtained from the spy. "Hi, my name is Oswald, and I like Russia and I thought I would come into the embassy and reveal national secrets", whatever. To admit this impersonation to the WC would have been both embarrassing and damaging to national security. We can suspect the CIA had photos of Oswald in Mexico in their possession in the days after the assassination. It was just that the timing of these photos was in conflict with the phony timeline they'd invented. So they tossed them in the burn bin.

Thanks. When I began my journey down the rabbit hole, I wished that there was a website comprising all the witness statements, from before, during, and after the WC investigation, and a step by step description of the WC investigation of the shooting itself, as opposed to Oswald's and Ruby's backgrounds, etc. I then realized that the best way for me to repay the likes of Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, and Rex Bradford for their contributions was to create such a website myself. It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated.

I see some musing as to who was really running the commission. As far as the one responsible for the overall arc of the commission and its final findings, Earl Warren is 100% responsible. As far as the day to day instruction to the junior members--who did almost all the work--J. Lee Rankin was the man, with key assistance from Redlich (who was largely responsible for the report) and Willens (who was involved in the hiring of the junior staff and served as the man in the middle between the commission and the justice department, FBI and CIA). Over the years, many a historian and researcher has provided cover for Warren, and made out that he was just an old man who didn't know what he was doing. This is humbug. From patspeer.com, chapter 3c: The year 2013 marked the 50th anniversary of the assassination. Two books on the Warren Commission--one by New York Times reporter Philip Shenon and one by Warren Commission attorney Howard Willens--were pushed upon the public. Although Shenon's book held out that Oswald may have been put in motion by some Cubans he met in Mexico, both were essentially Oswald-did-it books. Still, the release of these books exposed some startling facts...that only added to what we'd already come to know... As a compliment to Willens' book, he released a number of documents, some of which have been previously discussed. One document which we have not discussed, however, is a memo created by Willens, in which he reported the number of days worked by the key members of the commission's staff. Here, then, is a re-listing of these key employees, along with the number of days they worked, according to Willens. Area 1: Francis Adams (16 days, 5 hours) and Arlen Specter (145 days, 5 hours) were charged with establishing the "basic facts of the assassination." (162 days, 2 hours) Area 2: Joseph Ball (91 days) and David Belin (125 days) were charged with establishing the "identity of the assassin." (216 days) Area 3: Albert Jenner (203 days) and J. Wesley Liebeler (219 days, 4 hours) were charged with establishing "Oswald's background." (422 days, 4 hours) Area 4: William Coleman (64 days) and W. David Slawson (211 days) were charged with investigating "possible conspiratorial relationships." They were thus tasked with investigating Oswald's actions in Russia and Mexico. (275 days) Area 5: Leon Hubert (115 days, 5 hours) and Burt Griffin (225 days, 4 hours) were charged with investigating "Oswald's death," and establishing both whether Ruby knew Oswald, and if Ruby had help in killing Oswald. (341 days, 1 hour) Area 6: Samuel Stern was charged with researching the history of Presidential protection, so that the commission could make appropriate recommendations. (149 days) Norman Redlich (186 days) was charged with supervising the investigations of all these areas, and with the subsequent writing of their report. His assistant--the man directly overseeing much of the investigation--was Melvin Eisenberg (167 days). And, of course, the whole she-bang was overseen by J. Lee Rankin (308 days) and Howard Willens (an approximate of 250 days). So, let's break this down. The Warren Commission's top staff (Rankin, Willens, Redlich, and Eisenberg) spent over 900 work-days supervising its investigation, co-ordinating its investigation with the commissioners, and editing and re-writing the commission's report. While, at the same time, the commission's investigators spent over 1,000 work-days investigating and writing about Oswald's life and death--separate from his role in the assassination. While, at the same time, the commission's investigators spent less than 400 work-days investigating what happened on the day of the shooting, and who pulled the trigger... Well, this seems a bit backwards, correct? When one looks at the timing of these man-hours, this ratio seems even more out-of-whack. The investigation lasted, basically, 8 months, from late January to late September. Adams, Specter, Ball, and Belin (the investigators for Areas 1 and 2) worked 378 days, 2 hours, between them. But only 73 days, 1 hour of this was in the last three months of the commission's investigation. Well, this suggests that the commission's investigation into what happened and who did it was essentially over by June, and not September. And that the rest was just putting lipstick on a pig. I mean, seriously, Burt Griffin worked 91 of the last 96 days trying to understand why and how mobster wannabe Jack Ruby came to kill the supposedly lone-nut Oswald, and David Slawson worked 83 of the last 96 days trying to understand what the supposedly lone-nut Oswald was doing in Mexico City, meeting with Cubans and Russians. And that's not even to mention that Albert Jenner and Wesley Liebeler worked 81 days and 90 days, respectively, of the last 96 days of the commission, while trying to understand why in the heck Oswald would kill a President he claimed to admire. All four of these men, individually, worked more days in the last three months of the commission's investigation than the four men who'd worked in areas 1 and 2, COMBINED. Well, this supports what seemed clear from the beginning of the commission's investigation--that the commission was ready to claim Oswald did it without doing much digging, but was concerned this wouldn't fly if they didn't offer the public a mountain of reasons to believe Oswald was nothing but a nut, who acted alone. But that's not all we learned from the release of Shenon's and Willens' books. When one read between the lines, one discovered an awful reality--that liberal icon Earl Warren was not the simple bumpkin many had presumed, and that he was instead a one-man wrecking crew, committed to making sure his commission went nowhere and learned nothing. Here, then, is a partial list of Warren "no-no"s, as we now know them. 1. Chief Justice Warren was determined from the outset that the commission investigating President Kennedy's death limit its scope to the investigations already performed by the Dallas Police, Secret Service and FBI. Yes, unbelievably, the transcript of the commission's first conference reflects that Warren wanted the commission to have no investigators of its own, no subpoena power, and no public hearings. 2. When the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, persisted in his plan to convene a Texas Court of Inquiry, a public hearing at which much of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald would be presented, Warren convinced him to cancel his plan by assuring him the commission would be "fair to Texas." No record was made of this meeting. 3. Not long thereafter, the commission became privy to the rumor Oswald had been an intelligence asset. Although commissioner and former CIA chief Allen Dulles assured Warren and his fellow commissioners the FBI and CIA would lie about this, he also told them the only way to get to the bottom of it was to ask President Johnson to personally tell the heads of the FBI and CIA not to lie. Warren did not do this. And the transcript of the hearing in which this rumor was first discussed was destroyed, undoubtedly at Warren's direction. 4. The commission's staff had questions about the medical evidence. They were particularly concerned about the location of Kennedy's back wound, which may have been too low to support the single-bullet theory deemed necessary to the commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone. Even so, Warren personally prevented Dr. James J. Humes from reviewing the autopsy photos he'd had taken, and wished to review. 5. The commission's staff had questions about Oswald's trip to Mexico. What did he say to those he spoke to? What did he do at night? Did he actually go to the Cuban consulate and Russian embassy on the days the CIA said he'd visited the consulate and embassy? And yet, despite the commission's staff's fervid desire they be allowed to interview Sylvia Duran, a Mexican woman employed by the Cuban consulate, who'd handled Oswald's request he be allowed to visit Cuba, (and who, it turns out, was rumored to have entertained Oswald at night), Chief Justice Warren personally prevented them from doing so, telling commission counsel David Slawson that "You just can't believe a Communist...We don't talk to Communists. You cannot trust a dedicated Communist to tell us the truth, so what's the point?" 6. The commission's staff had questions about Russia's involvement in the assassination. Oswald, of course, had lived in Russia. His wife was Russian. While in Mexico, he'd met with a KGB agent named Kostikov, who was believed to have been the KGB's point man on assassinations for the western hemisphere. Shortly after the assassination, a KGB officer named Yuri Nosenkodefected to the west. Nosenko told his handlers he'd reviewed Oswald's file, and that Oswald was not a Russian agent. The timing of Nosenko's defection, however, convinced some within the CIA that Nosenko's defection was a set-up. The commission's staff hoped to talk to Nosenko, and judge for themselves if his word meant anything. The CIA (er, rather, The CIA's Assistant Director of Plans--its master of dirty tricks) Richard Helms, on the other hand, asked the commission to not only not talk to Nosenko, but to avoid any mention of him within their report. Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting alone, agreed to this request. He later admitted "I was adamant that we should not in any way base our findings on the testimony of a Russian defector." 7. The commission's staff had questions about Jack Ruby's motive in killing Oswald. Strangely, however, the commission's staff charged with investigating Ruby and his background were not allowed to interview him. Instead, the interview of Ruby was performed by, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Despite Ruby's telling Warren such things as "unless you get me to Washington, you can’t get a fair shake out of me...I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it here. I can’t tell it here…this isn’t the place for me to tell what I want to tell…” Warren refused to bring Ruby to Washington so he could provide the details he so clearly wanted to provide. 8. The commission's staff had even more questions about how Ruby came to kill Oswald. It was hard to believe he'd just walked down a ramp and shot Oswald, as claimed. As Ruby had many buddies within the Dallas Police, for that matter, it was reasonable to investigate the possibility one or more of the officers responsible for Oswald's protection had provided Ruby access to the basement. Commission counsel Burt Griffin even found a suspect: Sgt Patrick Dean. In the middle of Dean's testimony in Dallas, in which Dean said Ruby had told him he'd gained access to the garage by walking down the ramp, Griffin let Dean know he didn't believe him, and gave him a chance to change his testimony. Dean was outraged and called Dallas DA Henry Wade, who in turn called Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin. Dean then asked that he be allowed to testify against Griffin in Washington. Not only was he allowed to do so, he received what amounted to an apology from, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren told Dean "No member of our staff has a right to tell any witness that he is lying or that he is testifying falsely. That is not his business. It is the business of this Commission to appraise the testimony of all the witnesses, and, at the time you are talking about, and up to the present time, this Commission has never appraised your testimony or fully appraised the testimony of any other witness, and furthermore, I want to say to you that no member of our staff has any power to help or injure any witness." It was later revealed that Dean had failed a lie detector test designed to test his truthfulness regarding Ruby, and that the Dallas Police had kept the results of this test from the Warren Commission. If Griffin had been allowed to pursue Dean, this could have all come out in 1964. But no, Warren made Griffin back down, and the probability Dean lied was swept under the rug. (None of this is mentioned in Willens' book, of course.) 9. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted all the evidence viewed by the commission to be made available to the public, he (along with commissioners McCloy and Dulles) came to a decision on April 30, 1964, that the testimony before the commission would not be published along with the commission's report. (This decision was over-turned after the other commissioners--the four elected officials on the commission, and thereby the only ones accountable to the public--objected.) 10. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted the public to trust the commission's decisions, he wanted to shred or incinerate all the commission's internal files, so no one would know how the commission came to its decisions. (This decision was over-turned after commission historian Alfred Goldberg sent word of Warren's intentions to Senator Richard Russell, and Russell intervened.) 11. Although Warren was purported to have worked himself day and night in order to give the President the most thorough report possible, he actually flew off on a fishing trip that lasted from July 6 to August 1, 1964, while testimony was still being taken, and the commission's report still being polished. 12. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and felt the commission's work should speak for itself, he (according to Howard Willens' diary) asked the National Archives to hold up the release of assassination-related documents that were not used in the commission's hearings, so that said documents could not be used by critics to undermine the commission's findings. So let's review. The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, demanded that testimony before the commission be done in secret, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions. Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is?

Yes, thanks. I read that back in the day but forgot about the reference to a written dissent found in Russell's papers. Here is the actual dissent as viewed in the Weisberg archives. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Russell Richard B Memorial Library/Item 05.pdf