Joseph McBride

Here's the authoritative male voice of Ed Herlihy expounding what happened in Dallas:

Needing a male "voice of authority" to narrate a documentary is, to put it diplomatically, old-fashioned. We are not living in the 1950s anymore. And for those who think Whoopi Goldberg is "just" a comedian, she speaks out on social issues and gave a great dramatic performance in Spielberg's THE COLOR PURPLE. That and Ben Kingsley's performance in SCHINDLER'S LIST are the best in Spielberg's work.

Gil, as another veteran researcher, I always learn from you. Thanks for your careful and diligent research.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/McMillan Priscilla Johnson/Item 07.pdf Does someone have the original Nov. 24, 1963, FBI memo to post?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/cannes-2021-oliver-stone-interview-jfk-1234977892/

That was Daryl Gates. He played a role in the RFK assassination on the way up the ladder to LA police chief. He deliberately absented himself at a cocktail party during the crucial early hours of the clearly anticipated uprising over the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. I was recording a radio interview about my Frank Capra biography in an LA station when the verdict came down, and someone burst into the studio saying, "We're shifting into riot mode." Gates wasn't.

You wonder too what Harry got out of his involvement in framing Oswald or what they had on Harry to make him do it.

TESTIMONY OF WARREN CASTER The testimony of Warren Caster was taken at 2 p.m., on May 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas,. Tex. by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. BALL. Mr. Caster, would you please stand up and take the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. CASTER. I do. Mr. BALL. Will you state your full name, please? Mr. CASTER. Warren Caster. Mr. BALL. And where do you live? Mr. CASTER. 3338 Merrell. Mr. BALL. What is your business? Mr. CASTER. Textbook publishing. Mr. BALL. Are you with some company? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I am assistant manager for Southwestern Publishing Co. with offices at 411 Elm Street. Mr. BALL. You have offices in the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. CASTER. Yes. Mr. BALL. You rent those offices from the Texas School Book Depository? Mr. CASTER. The offices are furnished in connection with our work with the Depository. Mr. BALL. Will you tell me something about yourself, where you were born and where you were raised and educated? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I was born in New Mexico, educated in New Mexico, received my college degrees at New Mexico Highlands University at Las Vegas, N. Mex. I taught school in New Mexico from 1939 until I started to work with Southwestern Publishing Co. in 1952. There was a period of about 2 years that I spent in the U.S. Navy. Mr. BALL. And have you had your offices since 1952 in the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. CASTER. The offices have been in the Texas School Book Depository Building, but not in this particular building here. We have occupied three places since I have been with the Southwestern Publishing Co. Mr. BALL. Your office is on which floor? Mr. CASTER. Second floor. Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did. Mr. BALL. When? Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour. Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they? Mr. CASTER. They were my guns. Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they? Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser. Mr. BALL. Who owned them? Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day. Mr. BALL. Well, tell us about it---what were the circumstances of the purchase? Mr. CASTER. Well, I left the Depository during the noon hour and had lunch and, while out for the lunch hour, I stopped by Sanger-Harris sporting goods department to look for a rifle for my son's birthday---I beg your pardon, Christmas present--son's Christmas present, and while I was there I purchased the single-shot .22--single shot--and at the same time was looking at some deer rifles. I had, oh, for several years been thinking about buying a deer rifle and they happened to have one that I liked and I purchased the .30-06 while I was there. Mr. BALL. And did they box them up? Mr. CASTER. They were in cartons; yes. Mr. BALL. And then you went back to work, I guess? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I picked both rifles up in cartons just like they were, this was during the noon hour, and as I entered the Texas School Book Depository Building on my way up to the buying office, I stopped by Mr. Truly's office, and while I was there we examined the two rifles that I had purchased. Mr. BALL. Did you take them out of the carton? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did. Mr. BALL. Who was there besides you and Mr. Truly? Mr. CASTER. Well, I'm not really sure who was there. I think you were there, Bill, and Mr. Shelley was there---and Mr. Roy Truly. The only people that I know about, in any event, were there; there were workers there at the time, but I'm not quite sure how many. I couldn't even tell you their names. I don't know the Texas School Book Depository workers there in the shipping department Mr. BALL. In that office, though, Truly's office, how many were there? Mr. CASTER. We weren't in Mr. Truly's immediate office, we were just there over the counter. Mr. BALL. In the warehouse? Mr. CASTER. We were there in the hall--just right there over the counter in front of the warehouse; that's right. Mr. BALL. And did you take the guns out of the carton? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did. They were removed from the carton. Mr. BALL. Did you handle them? Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did. Mr. BALL. Did anybody else handle the guns? Mr. CASTER. Mr. Truly handled them and I'm not sure whether Mr. Shelley had the guns in his hands or not; I'm not positive. Mr. BALL. How long a time were you there with the guns, and by time, just estimate it. Mr. CASTER Well, it couldn't have been more than to minutes. Mr. BALL. What did you do with the guns after that? Mr. CASTER. I put them back in the carton and carried them up to my office. Mr. BALL. And what did you do with them after that? Mr. CASTER. I left at the end of the working day, oh, around 4 o'clock and took the guns in the cartons and carried them and put them in my car and carried them home. Mr. BALL. Did you ever have them back in the Texas School Book Depository Building thereafter? Mr. CASTER. They have never been back to the Texas School Book Depository Building since then. Mr. BALL. Where were those guns on November 22, 1963? Mr. CASTER. The guns were in my home, 3338 Merrell Road. Mr. BALL. I think that's all. This will be written up and you will be asked to come in and it will be submitted to you for signature and you can correct it if you wish. Mr. CASTER. That's all right. Mr. BALL. Any corrections you make, make them in pen and ink and initial it and sign it. I want to thank you very much for giving this testimony. Mr. CASTER. I thank you very much.

From Roy Truly's May 14, 1964, testimony to the Warren Commission: Mr. BALL. Your testimony is filed in volume 28, I believe, of the Commission here. There are certain matters which have come to the attention of the Commission since then that I would like to inquire about, and that's the reason we are taking your deposition, which will be in addition to the testimony you have already given.Do you recall anytime that you saw any guns in the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. TRULY. Yes; I did. Mr. BALL. Prior to November 22, 1963? Mr. TRULY. Yes; I saw two guns on November 20. Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they? Mr. TRULY. They belonged to Mr. Warren Caster. [He was assistant manager for Southwest Publishing at the TSBD.]Mr. BALL. Now, before inquiring into the circumstances of seeing two guns that belonged to Mr. Warren Caster on November 20, 1963, I'll ask you whether or not you ever at anytime before that time or after that time saw guns in the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. TRULY. Never before. Mr. BALL. Never before, and between that date Wednesday, November 20, and Friday, November 22, did you ever see any guns in the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. TRULY. I did see guns in there after the assassination. . . . Mr. BALL. On November 20, 1963, you saw two guns owned by Mr. Warren Caster, can you tell me where and when and the circumstances under which you saw these guns? Mr. TRULY. It was during the lunch period or right at the end of the lunch period on November 20. Mr. Caster came in the door from the first floor and spoke to me and showed me two rifles that he had just purchased. I looked at these and picked up the larger one of the two and examined it and handed it back to Mr. Caster, with the remark that it was really a handsome rifle or words to that effect, at which time Mr. Caster explained to me that he had bought himself a rifle to go deer hunting with, and he hadn't had one and he had been intending to buy one for a long time, and that he had also bought a .22 rifle for his boy. Mr. BALL. Did you handle the .22 rifle? Mr. TRULY. Not that I recall. Mr. BALL. You did see it, though? Mr. TRULY. I did see it. Mr. BALL. Was it out of the carton? Mr. TRULY. The carton was open, I believe, and I saw it. I don't recall picking it up or taking it out of the carton, but I could see it lying in the bottom part of the carton. Mr. BALL. And you did take the large rifle out? Mr. TRULY. And raised it to my shoulder and go through the motion of it, but not cocking it---just looking at it. Mr. BALL. Who else was there besides you and Mr. Caster? Mr. TRULY. Well, the only person I can recall being there was Mr. Shelley. Mr. BALL. And what is his position with the Texas School Book Depository? Mr. TRULY. He is manager of the miscellaneous department. Mr. BALL. Was this in the open warehouse? Mr. TRULY. Yes; right at the front. Mr. Caster had placed the cartons on the counter near the front door and that's where the rifles were when I them, and I picked one up out of the cartons. Mr. BALL. And were they employees of the Texas School Book company on the first floor at that time? Mr. TRULY. Yes; they were---as I recall the time that the boys had ably gone back to work and could have been walking around before they went in the shipping department. Mr. BALL. That would have been about what time of the day? Mr. TRULY. I'd say around 1 o'clock--very close to it. It could have a little after or a little before. The boys go back to lunch at 12:45, so I'm not too clear. Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr. Caster got during the noon hour? Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them. Mr. BALL. Did you ever see them again? Mr. TRULY. Never--never. Mr. BALL. Did you ever see from that day until Friday, November 22, did you ever see those guns in the School Book Depository Building? Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I never did.

I have long considered Peter Dale Scott one of the most astute historians on the case. He has a long track record of excellent work with solid documentation. He has a deep and wide knowledge of US foreign policy and history and of the assassination. His analysis is often profound and draws meaningful connections that have influenced me and other researchers. I don't see any reason to doubt his bona fides. BTW, I am not a "UCB" colleague of his. Scott is a professor emeritus of English at UC Berkeley. I live in Berkeley but teach in the School of Cinema at San Francisco State University. (Speaking of Calvin, I agree with Paul that we welcome him to the site with his questions and comments. People who are relatively new to the case but are seriously interested should not be driven away or called "trolls.")

Prescott Bush worked for the Nazis (promoting their eugenics program in the 1930s and even after the US entered the war with his oil dealings, an act of treason FDR stopped but let go) and was largely responsible for giving Nixon his start in politics after the war.

Reagan said to Jerry Parr, the agent who saved him, "You son of a bitch, you broke my rib!" Parr pushed him into the car and landed on top of him. But unlike Connally, who suffered massive and obvious hits, Reagan was hit by a small flattened piece of metal the bullet had turned into when it hit the side of the car and ricocheted into his armpit, coming close to his heart. The doctors had a hard time finding the entrance hole and the flattened bullet in the hospital as he lost half his blood. Parr had used his training to ascertain that Reagan was shot when frothy blood came out of his mouth, indicating a chest wound. He redirected the car from the White House to the hospital. The White House initially denied Reagan had been hit. Though they soon admitted it, they gave unduly rosy reports. It took months before we learned (in a book on Jim Brady) just how serious Reagan's condition had been. I was surprised when I talked with Reagan's friend James Stewart soon after the shooting, and Stewart seemed distraught. It seemed somewhat excessive given the press reports, but Stewart obviously had inside knowledge.

Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, of course, the bullet is a plant, but measuring the fragments in his body and adding that weight to what was recovered from him at Parkland would help show that 399 is false evidence and further discredit the SBT.

It's a shame the Connally family wouldn't let the remaining fragments of bullet in his body be removed before he was buried. Some of us tried to get that to happen.

Andy may just have been lying. Crafard split town in a hurry.

Will this film (two versions) cue new attacks by the MSM on their bête noire, Oliver Stone? I recall that when I did some sympathetic interviews with Stone during the fallout from JFK, I was surprised he was actually shocked by the negative attacks. Granted, they were so extreme that their viciousness would have shocked anybody, but I thought he hadn't fully prepared himself for what could have been expected as an onslaught. You have to do that with a controversial film, especially on this subject. He later realized he should have put out the annotated script of JFK day-and-date with the film, as he later did with NIXON, which helped preempt some of his critics.

The Oliver Stone/Jim DiEugenio documentary, JFK REVISITED: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, will premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in the "Cannes Premiere" section. The festival runs July 6-17. Congratulations on this much-anticipated film. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/cannes-2021-lineup-full-list-1234962434/

Thank you, Calvin.

Calvin, could you please post the rest of that document? That website link seems iffy. And what is the provenance and context of the affidavit?

I find it credible. Why don't you think so?

Thanks, George, I am glad you like it and my comments. Another terrific documentary by the same people is CRISIS: BEHIND A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT.

A problem with the sketch is the insert of a guy who wasn't shooting doing the shooting.

And more from Fred Camper: Joseph, thank you very much. I don't believe in some "objective" concept of "objectivity," in film or anywhere else, but I don't think it's an irrelevant question either. In a way you verified that; looking for pretty young woman to edit in while they looked at Kennedy would certainly be the opposite of any reasonable idea of objective balance. The low angles, which I remember well, would be another example. There are one or two cuts in the film that might be the opposite too, such as from an uninspired Humphrey to Kennedy talking in grand terms about the free world, or something like that. I certainly remember the white gloves shot, a good inclusion in that it shows Jackie as less than perfect. I do agree with your descriptions of how the candidates and their wives come across in the film. I asked partly because I have used this film often in classes, and thought it would be great to have the testimony of a cinema expert who was also there at the time, and admired one of the film's subjects in a significant way. Some of your information will doubtless make its way into future classes. I was 12 in 1960, but very aware of politics. I certainly wanted Kennedy to win over Nixon. I remember the Wisconsin primary being considered crucial for Kennedy. Some moments of the film are going to seem obscure to most today. When Humphrey talks about the contempt of people in big cities for concerns of farmers, I assume he is really talking about keeping food prices high via government mandated price supports? That would be a way of describing the policy that might not seem so appealing to city dwellers, if they understood what was involved. Thanks again for writing. And my reply to the above: Thanks, Fred, good thoughts. I think a documentary or a book is better when it has a strong point of view. But as I tell students, in the law there is no such a thing as a right or wrong opinion; what counts is how you back it up and prove it. PRIMARY gathered its POV empirically and then was more and more shot and edited to support the POV the filmmakers discovered. Watch the series of shots of the particularly attractive young woman advancing in the line toward Kennedy flirtatiously, and seemingly intelligently, intercut as he shakes hands. I couple PRIMARY with Norman Mailer's insightful November 1960 article from Esquire about Kennedy having movie-star appeal, although in truth TR was the first move-star president, and JFK was the first TV-star presdent. But Mailer's point was that we were electing an actor in the role, which would have a profound effect on his presidency and our politics, as it did. There is a particularly abrupt jump cut you may be referring to from Humphrey on TV talking about farm issues to JFK talking about foreign policy, which conveys what I felt about Kennedy talking straight to us about the big issues. And his climactic, often-quoted speech is about the central role of the president in world affairs; Leacock later observed that it in retrospect he was declaring war in Vietnam, though that went over my head at the time. Yes, government price supports for farmers was a big issue at the time that I should have cared about more than I did, though Humphrey seems patronizing when he talks about it, and his rural listeners seem less than enthralled by his rhetoric. It's revealing when he complains about the coverage Kennedy is getting in the national media and about the Kennedy money machine.

I took a closeup photograph (too large to post here, unforunately) as JFK shook hands and signed autographs after his April 3 speech. I blew off a flashbulb in my Brownie camera three feet from his face, which is why the photo is out of focus. I was immediately embarrassed as he flinched but quickly recovered and smiled. That and my close contact with him at a small rally four days before, "Kids for Kennedy" in Wauwatosa, which my mother arranged, made me aware of his vulnerability and led me to write a short story about his assassination, "The Plot Against a Country," in October 1961 for my freshman English class at Marquette University High School.

I posted an item on Facebook about JFK's birthday (May 29; he would have been 104) and commented on the landmark documentary PRIMARY. I was an extra in that film while serving as a volunteer in JFK's 1960 Wisconsin presidential primary campaign. I mentioned the climactic rally of the campaign that I attended in Milwaukee on April 3, 1960, was the moment when politics in America irretrievably blended with show business, for better and worse. My friend and fellow film critic Fred Camper posted this: Hmm, as someone who is there and who knows cinema and the film "Primary" well, any comments on the film? Objectivity? Is Jackie seen more than Mrs. Humphrey because she was more present in the campaign, for example? In other word, to elements of the film that might read as bias simply reflect the nature of both campaigns? And I responded: I don't believe in the concept of "objectivity," and I don't think the filmmakers do either. Do you? PRIMARY clearly shows admiration for Kennedy and pity for Humphrey. Ricky Leacock and I did a q&a on the film. He said that aside from Robert Drew, who initiated the project and was a Kennedy admirer (his talking Kennedy into doing it, which made it happen), the other filmmakers tended to be on Humphrey's side at the beginning, because they were leftists or liberals and suspected Kennedy's liberal bona fides (as did Eleanor Roosevelt, for example). But as the filming progressed, the filmmakers all became enamored of Kennedy and disenchanted with Humphrey, as the film shows in many ways. This mirrors the attitude of many voters (Kennedy carried the Milwaukee and Madison city areas, though he lost many rural areas; Kennedy only won six of ten districts, which disappointed him and made him believe the primary was inconclusive). Democrats in Wisconsin had regarded HHH as our "third senator," since we had two Republican senators for a long time (including Joe McCarthy), and we would go to Humphrey next door for help. But my mother, Marian McBride, who became state vice chairman the following year, and state chairman Pat Lucey came out early for Kennedy, and Kennedy proved more dynamic and appealing in the campaign. Kennedy told Lucey after the election that he would not have become president except for his support in helping win the Wisconsin primary, which if he lost (as he says in the film) would have ruined his chances. Humphrey in the film comes off like an oldtime pol, pathetically begging for votes like Willy Loman and speaking down to the voters, while Kennedy comes off as a glamorous rock star. He had a "cool" style that seemed somewhat detached from the undignified aspects of campaigning, which appealed to me in contrast not only to Humphrey but also to Nixon and Eisenhower (Kennedy, for example, made a point of never waving his hands over head as Nixon and Ike liked to do and which Kennedy found vulgar). I also found it impressive that Kennedy talked about foreign policy while Humphrey talked about local issues more, for example. I should have been more attentive to farm issues, which Humphrey talked a lot about, but those left me cold at the time, since I was from a city. Kennedy seemed to treat the voters with more intellectual respect .I liked how Kennedy talked fast and was so intelligent; Humphrey came off as plodding. The way Kennedy is shot from low ("heroic") angles and with crowds of kids chasing him around, and with attractive women intercut smiling at him, reflects how the filmmakers saw him. Leacock told me when they cut the film in a Minneapolis hotel room, they make a point of finding shots of pretty young women to show them looking admiringly at Kennedy. Jacqueline Kennedy comes off as glamorous, though one of the best shots in the film is of her white-gloved hands nervously twisting behind her back as she speaks to the big crowd. She hated campaigning. Leacock asked her how she felt about it, and she said, "How would you like to smile a thousand times a day?" He said she would often sit in a corner, aloof, reading Proust or the memoirs of Saint-Simon in French. Muriel Humphrey could not complete with Jacqueline's glamour. The ending shot of a Model T Ford driving away with a Humphrey sign as his blaring campaign song plays is emblematic. I find the penultimate sequence of him exiting the Milwaukee Journal lobby in defeat (with the song beginning to play) quite poignant. I spent many days walking through that lobby to go visit my Dad at work after I finished school.