Gerald McKnight

The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.

I couldn't agree more with you. Historians have been co-conspirators in their persistent avoidance of the question or, what is even worse to my mind, subscribing to the Posner "Case Closed" version without troubling to acquiant themselves with some of the facts in the case. My own personal experience was such that my colleagues at Hood College were supportive of my work with the assassination. Had I been at some mega-university I know I would have been regarded as some kind of crank. Until or unless the JFK assassination is regarded as a legitimate area of scholarship I dont see much reason to think things will change. Thanks for the kind words about "Breach." Thanks to the editor-in-chief (Mike Briggs) at Un. of Kansas Press for the opportunity of seeing that the ms became a book. The people out there are special. The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.

Concerning the Weisberg reference to the AEC test results back in 1964 on the Oswald rifle and the blowback that produced positive results on the cheeks of shooters in 10 out of ten test results. I did a little follow up on this and the results are in Weisberg's CA 78--1976 suit. He got results from ERDA in the 1970s. The problem is that ERDA dumped on his some 4 file drawers of documents. He have these at Hood but I will need to go through the entire collection to locate the requesite records. I plan on doing this at my convenience. If you want to come to Frederick and spend a day looking you are welcome. Otherwise, have patience and when I locate them I'll let you know. It is possible that I can short circuit this by locating them in FBI files, but that is over "theory" at this point.

Why do professional historians avoid the JFK case like the vampire avoids holy water? I am sure there are a congeries of reasons for this neglect. My own experience tells me that young members of the professoriate-those who are just starting out and are focused on tenure-do not want to get into this subject because they fear being labelled as "not serious," "conspiratorialists, etc.by senior professionals. I think there has been a cloud over this subject in academia largely because the "Who Killed JFK" seems to attract all kinds of people who think that history is all conspiracy. I don't subscribe to this view at all. I am convinced that, in time, professional historians, political scientists, and others with a serious interest in the history of this poor perishing republic will be forced one day to come to terms with Dallas. This is, to my mind, the beginning of America's slipping into the Dark Ages and if we want to make some sense about what brought about this decline and fall we will have to face up to the forces and motives responsible for the murder of JFK. Another factor that must be given weight is the sheer volume of the documentation. The NARA in College Park holds 4 to 5 million pages of documents. Not all are directly relevant, of course, but still this is a daunting challenge for any single researcher. Then there is the stuff that has never been turned over and has either been commited to the "memory hole" or is hidden away in "not to be filed files." I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

Why professional historians avoid the JFK case like the vampire avoids holy water. I am sure there are a congeries of reasons for this neglect. My own experience tells me that young members of the professoriate-those who are just starting out and are focused on tenure-do not want to get into this subject because they fear being labelled as "not serious," "conspiratorialists, etc.by senior professionals. I think there has been a cloud over this subject in academia largely because the "Who Killed JFK" seems to attract all kinds of people who think that history is all conspiracy. I don't subscribe to this view at all. I am convinced that, in time, professional historians, political scientists, and others with a serious interest in the history of this poor perishing republic will be forced one day to come to terms with Dallas. This is, to my mind, the beginning of America's slipping into the Dark Ages and if we want to make some sense about what brought about this decline and fall we will have to face up to the forces and motives responsible for the murder of JFK. Another factor that must be given weight is the sheer volume of the documentation. The NARA in College Park holds 4 to 5 million pages of documents. Not all are directly relevant, of course, but still this is a daunting challenge for any single researcher. Then there is the stuff that has never been turned over and has either been commited to the "memory hole" or is hidden away in "not to be filed files." I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it. As to the 2nd question about the negative paraffin tests on Oswald's right cheek and its exoneration of Oswald. I deal with this in "Breach" but did not cite the results your questioner did from Weisberg's P-M. I am preparing another ms on the Kennedy assassination and will deal with this in more detail. If you want to know where in Weisberg's Civil Action suit against the government this can be found might check David Wrone's recent (2004) book on the Zapruder film. Dave cites these same results but I am not sure if he cites PM or the government's own documents. This is of interest to me so if you check out Wrone with out satisfaction I'd be glad to take this request from there and see if I can locate the documents.

Why professional historians avoid the JFK case like the vampire avoids holy water. I am sure there are a congeries of reasons for this neglect. My own experience tells me that young members of the professoriate-those who are just starting out and are focused on tenure-do not want to get into this subject because they fear being labelled as "not serious," "conspiratorialists, etc.by senior professionals. I think there has been a cloud over this subject in academia largely because the "Who Killed JFK" seems to attract all kinds of people who think that history is all conspiracy. I don't subscribe to this view at all. I am convinced that, in time, professional historians, political scientists, and others with a serious interest in the history of this poor perishing republic will be forced one day to come to terms with Dallas. This is, to my mind, the beginning of America's slipping into the Dark Ages and if we want to make some sense about what brought about this decline and fall we will have to face up to the forces and motives responsible for the murder of JFK. Another factor that must be given weight is the sheer volume of the documentation. The NARA in College Park holds 4 to 5 million pages of documents. Not all are directly relevant, of course, but still this is a daunting challenge for any single researcher. Then there is the stuff that has never been turned over and has either been commited to the "memory hole" or is hidden away in "not to be filed files." I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

Anybody ever come up with Cyrus Vance Papers. What I have in mind is the fact that Vance was Sec. of the Army at time of the JFK assassination. Vance was known to take very detailed notes at all meetings. There is reason to believe that over the weekend of the assasination that there was an emergency meeting of the Jopint Chiefs and that Vance was present. Vance's Papers are at Yale and I have made a cursory effort to see if he left anything in his collection reflecting that nature of that meeting. I did it from a distance-over email and guesstimation of what files hold his record of the meeting but came up blank. Has anybody done anything on this that they might be willing to share? Or is this all new territory. My push on this came from Dick Whalen who has his own sources. But at the time he had not explored the Vance Papers. Just thought I would make a pitch.

All of this was new to me. I know McCone pushed the "Red Plot" business with Oswald in Mexico City, even after he was aware that the Alvarado Story was bogus. He also allowed Helms to take the lead in convincing the WC that Oswald was never an Agency operative or source. There is also the incident when Bobby went to him, as DCI, and asked him point blank whether the CIA had anything to do with Dallas. McCone, of course, assured him it did not.

Some thoughts on ignored or manipulated physical evidence related to Bill Kelly's proposal. None are developed at any length. I just wanted to note them and pass them on for later development: * The contemporaneous notes taken by the Bethesada prosectors that were alleged to have informed the JFK official autopsy are missing. What the WC alleges as the basis of the report (CD #397, as I recall) cannot possibly underwrite the medical forensic facts in the autopsy report. Where are they? Did Humes destroy all of the notes? * A strong and convincing case can be made that the 3 cartridges found on 6th floor of the TSBD were planted; they were never used in any shooting. This argument rests on the dents found on each of the spent shells. Argues that they were simply fired from Oswald's alleged rifle after the gun powder and bullets were removed. Had they been discharged as whole ammo the dents would have vanished as the propulsion power of the explosion would have flattened out the dents. A bit complicated but it can be supported. * Oswald's paraffin tests on right cheek was negative. No matter how you spin this it exonerates him. * The WC and FBI are never able to produce a chain-of-custody case for the so-called "magic bullet." The only one who was involved in handling this bullet and swore that it came from Connally's stretcher was SA Elmer Todd. None of the others Wright Rowley, Johnsen were able to swear that the WC identified CE399 was the one that came from Connally's carriage at Parkland. Only Todd made this identification. He was the agent who got the bullet from Johnsen (SS) who got it from O.P. Wright. Todd then brought it to FBI Lab in WDC. The problem is that the so-called "MB" at NARA does not have Todd's mark on it. If Todd marked the JFK bullet it is not the one that now rests in the archives. This, of course, is the bullet in question that the WC used to tie Oswald's rifle to the assasination. It was the only thing that ties him to the "original sin." * The same case can be made for the so-called Walker bullet. This bullet was not a 6.5 mm bullet. I have some of this in Breach of Trust and will develop the whole Walker shooting at greater length in a ms I am working on now.

Friends of mine have broached this in general conversation over the past year or two. There certaintly something more than the regular cycling of a JFK seminar or symposium every other year, etc. These are interesting but when all go home there is very little or no follow up. Some of us, taking a leaf from the lunnies who propogate "Intelligence Design" to slip religion via the back door into the classroom,. have proposed that we do what Kelly' proposes and insist that textbooks now give equal time to the soundly reasoned arguments that Oswald did not shot JFK. Places to begin this might best be with Texas boards of education and the California school systems.

My five top choices: Weisberg's Post-Mortem ibid Never Again (a little partial because I provided the title.) ibid his unedited ms that was published under the title "Case Open," the antidote to Posner's apologia for the official story. (Like Max Holland remarked to Prof. Kutler: McKnight is a Weisberg disciple but he writes better. That was Max's withering appraisal of BOT. Max gets nervous, I think, when somebody actually cites the government's own records.) Dave Wrone's book on the Zapruder film. Howard Roffman, Presumed Guity I'd have to add Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation Barbie Zelizer, Covering the Body (I think is a much overlooked little classic).

As far as Angleton is concerned his own self-entrapment with Golitsyn and his rapid paranoia about the Russians might have led him to believe that there was a KGB/Castro plot. My take on this, for whatever its worth, is that Angleton and Hoover were to an extent soul-mates and looked out for each other. This despite the CIA/FBI fearsome rivalry. I think they both agreed to divert there respective agencies away from the Oswald in Mexico angle in the case and focus on the Soviets, probably realizing that it was a nonstarter deadend and therefore safe. I have some of this in the book. But look at the appropriate section in the Appendix (p.364) under "D." Indicates that Hoover pulled all his Cuban inspectors and investigators off the case because he was afraid of what they might come up with if he probed into the Mexican labyrinth.

As far as Angleton is concerned his own self-entrapment with Golitsyn and his rapid paranoia about the Russians might have led him to believe that there was a KGB/Castro plot. My take on this, for whatever its worth, is that Angleton and Hoover were to an extent soul-mates and looked out for each other. This despite the CIA/FBI fearsome rivalry. I think they both agreed to divert there respective agencies away from the Oswald in Mexico angle in the case and focus on the Soviets, probably realizing that it was a nonstarter deadend and therefore safe. I have some of this in the book. But look at the appropriate section in the Appendix (p.364) under "D." Indicates that Hoover pulled all his Cuban inspectors and investigators off the case because he was afraid of what they might come up with if he probed into the Mexican labyrinth.

The FBI was the investigative arm of the WC. The Dallas FO Index is the Rosetta stone, to this investigation. Some 50,000 entries of the names of witnesses that FBI questions; books on the assassination; evidence; newspaper stories, etc. Essentially everything the FBI called upon during its investigation can be found in this indispensable data base. The point I made and still make is that as far as I know "Breach" is the first book to cite the Index as a research tool. My point is that any book on the Commission and the official investigation into the JFK assassination should be aware of the Index.

(5) Sullivan/Angleton alliance was to make sure that both the FBI and CIA were on the same page when it came to the question from the Commission: "Was Oswald affiliated in any way with your agency, etc" That either or both had insight or info into who was behind Dallas I cannot say. Its likely they may have had their suspicions. It is almost certain that both knew that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. Of that you can be certain. All old hands in the FBI and the CIA suspected that Dallas was the result of a conspiracy; no lone shooter could have carried out the assassination. I don’t hold much with whatever Sullivan had to say. I have a very low opinion of him. He was the architect of the FBI's cointelpros (dirtiest of the dirty tricks department in the FBI). I doubt if he knew anything beyond that re: the assassination. That's also true of his boss, Hoover. Hoover knew it was a conspiracy but did everything in his power to avoid probing for the truth. Now while I suspect that the intelligence community carried out secret investigation(s) into Kennedy's murder I do not believe that the Hoover FBI did the same. Angleton could have sincerely believed that Oswald was a KGB agent. Angleton was unbalanced when it came to the Soviet "threat." Most of you know how he virtually tore the CIA apart re: the Nosenko affair.

(4) The WC was totally beholden to the CIA, especially in the matter of Oswald in Mexico. The Commission simply took without questioning almost everything the CIA said about Oswald in Mexico. The Commission's conclusions that Oswald's trip to Mexico was irrelevant to the investigation was essentially dictated to the WC by the CIA. See the WC's Slawson/Coleman report on Oswald in Mexico. The report was virtually dictated to the two WC lawyers and then submitted as the low down on Oswald's 7 days in Mexico City. Why? Because I think the key to Oswald and what he was about lies in his trip to Mexico just a few months before the JFK assassination.

(3) My comments on the ONI film and Hemmings was just to make the point that these files were purged after the assassination. The ONI had to have sensitive material on Oswald. It had to have satisfied itself that Oswald did not give anything away to the Soviets that would compromise several of its tightly held secrets, especially in radar electronics, etc. That is, if Oswald was a legitimate defector. I do not believe that Oswald was a legitimate defector. I believe he was a low level "plant" US intelligence placed in the SU. Without question the ONI files on Oswald were purged; probably over the weekend following the assassination. One of the areas sanitized was Oswald's classifications while in the marines, plus any indication that he was under the handling of the CIA.

(1) The thing I am most proud of with "Breach" is its transparency. That is, most of the documentation comes from the government's own documents. If you disgree with my interpretations, etc., you can check my sources, etc. . . . . 2. I never saw a Commission document that indicated it ever was familiar with the NPIC results of the Z film examination. A month or two after the WC Report became public the CIA requested from theFBI a loan of the Z film so the agency could use it for training purposes. I think this was to cover the fact that the CIA had made copies of the film borrowed from the Secret Service over the weekend following the assassation. The FBi request was just ass-covering scheme. I might point out that the FBI's analyis of the Z film also concluded that the first shot came before Z 210, that is at about Z170, before a shooter in 6th floor had access to JFK. I think we'll come to a time when it will be agreed that there were at least 6 shots fired that day. Probably three shots fired just before Altgens famous photo. My source on the Z film is Dave Wrone's seminal work. I am looking forward to Richard Trask's work on the Zapruder film to be released soon. The title I think is "National Nightmare. . . . .something"

Gerald D. McKnight is professor of history at Hood College, where he is chair of the History and Political Science Department. He is an expert on the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. McKnight is also the author of the books, The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI and the Poor People's Campaign (1998) and Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (2005).