Why we will never find out the truth about the death of JFK

[B. A. Copeland]

Mr Simkin, as far as the "JFK Assassination Debate" topics go, what is the goal of discussing and researching such topics and how does your answer relate to this topic itself? (honestly no sarcasm intended)

Edited March 17, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Pat Speer]

Bernice, when I looked at the overall picture, Ford's relationship with the FBI was less clear than it seems in the few memos you cited. I came to conclude he was sucking up to Hoover, and letting Hoover THINK he was his informant on the Commission, when he was really playing both sides against the middle.

From patspeer.com, chapter 1b:

Further evidence that Hoover was prematurely closing the case is contained within a 12-12-1963 memo from Hoover to his top assistants. Hoover wrote that he spoke to the Chief Counsel of the Warren Commission, J. Lee Rankin, and explained that even though the Justice Department had wanted the release of a statement saying Oswald had acted alone, that he and the President agreed that the FBI report should reach no conclusions. He stated further that he believed Oswald was the assassin but that he still had concerns that Oswald was working for Castro. (Yes, this was the same man who two weeks earlier was urging an immediate wrap-up of the case.) Hoover's memo asserted as well that the Justice Department had been leaking the contents of the FBI Report, that he had pressed them to get the report immediately to the Commission, and that he did not want any conclusions made in the letter of transmission of the report to the Commission.

What's wrong with this memo is that it's contradicted by most everything else in the record. According to both the Acting Attorney General Katzenbach (in his testimony before the HSCA) and one of the recipients of this memo, Assistant FBI Director William Sullivan, Hoover both wanted to close the case with the issue of the FBI's report and was the one who'd been making the leaks.

Sullivan actually went further than that. A memo on a 4-21-75 interview of Sullivan by the staff of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations reports "Sullivan offered that Hoover didn't like the Warren Commission because Hoover didn't want any organization going over the grounds that the FBI had already investigated in fear that the Warren Commission would discover something else that the FBI might have forgotten or ignored. In this connection, Sullivan said that Hoover had leaked the results of the FBI investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy to the press in December 1963, in order to preempt the Warren Commission's findings. Sullivan said that the leak to the press was done via Deloach, who gave the story to a cooperative news source at the Chicago Tribune and also the Washington Evening Star. Sullivan said that the allegation was then leaked that it was Acting Attorney General Katzenbach who had leaked the FBI's findings. Sullivan said that the Bureau personnel who would have been aware of the leak were Mohr, Tolson, Edward Clayton, and Belmont. Sullivan added that this was not an unusual practice of Hoover's." If Sullivan was telling the truth, as most believe, then Hoover's memo of 12-12 reflects his trying to cover his tracks whilst simultaneously alerting his assistants to his cover story. In any event, no matter who was responsible, over the next few weeks, much of the FBI's report became public knowledge, via leaks to the press, and the press returned the favor by convicting Oswald in the public eye. Typical articles in this time period include the 12-14-64 Saturday Evening Post's account of Oswald, entitled "The Assassin" (not the accused assassin) and the Newsweek article of 12-16-64, not too subtly entitled "Portrait of a Psychopath." These articles overlooked that Oswald was not particularly violent and had not officially been declared the President's assassin.

Another 12-12 FBI memo only adds to the intrigue. In this one DeLoach informed Hoover and others he'd had a secret meeting with Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford and that "Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the commission." Ford also told DeLoach that the other commissioners wanted to go along with Katzenbach's recommendation to release the FBI's findings but that he was "a minority of one" who would fight the issuance of a release "until the Commission had had a thorough opportunity to review and discuss the FBI report."

------

Hoover's leaking of his own report did not exactly go unnoticed.

From the transcript of the 12-16-63 Executive Session of the Warren Commission:

Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, gentleman, to be very frank about it, I have read that report two or three times and I have not seen anything in there yet that has not been in the press.

Senator Richard Russell: I couldn’t agree with that more. I have read it through once very carefully, and I went through it again at places I had marked, and practically everything in there has come out in the press at one time or another, a bit here and a bit there.

A short while later, Congressman Gerald Ford asked if the Commission should heed Acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach’s written request they release the FBI’s findings to the public. After they decided to hold off, Ford explained why he asked.

Congressman Gerald Ford: I was called by one of the top AP or UP people here, and he didn’t know that you had received the letter (from Katzenbach) and we had copies, but he was one of the top AP or UP people at Dallas at the time. He said “Jerry, I’m surprised that we got, and the other press services got, stories out the very same day.” In effect, he was saying what they have asked us to do. The minute he said that it led me to the belief that he was inferring that there had been a deliberate leak from some agency of the Federal Government, and now they wanted us to confirm by Commission action what had been leaked previously. Now, somebody had to give this information to both AP and UP in order for that to happen...

Chief Justice Earl Warren: I read those dispatches.

Congressman Gerald Ford: : Didn’t that come to your mind?

Chief Justice Earl Warren: Surely did. I spoke to Katzenbach about it.

Senator Richard Russell: I mentioned that the first day we sat here.

Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes, you did. Senator Russell asked Katzenbach where it could have come from and he said there was only one source. (He means Hoover.)

Senator Richard Russell: Do you recall the first day I asked him that?

John McCloy: There were leaks long before we got the documents.

Congressman Hale Boggs: And after that, at the second meeting, there was the Evening Star with that whole thing.

Senator Richard Russell: Every day there was something.

Chief Justice Earl Warren; Yep, until it was all out and I tell you frankly I just didn’t find anything in that report that has not been leaked to the press.

-----

Also ironic is that, after raising the possibility in the 12-16 executive session that Hoover was behind all the leaks, Congressman Ford met the next day with the FBI's most wanted leaker, Cartha DeLoach. Despite his earlier promise to keep the FBI "thoroughly advised" on the workings of the commission, however, Ford decided to keep the confidence of his fellow commissioners and instead told DeLoach that, in DeLoach's words, "There was no criticism of the FBI at yesterday's meeting. There was no allegations by any one, including the Chief Justice, that the FBI had leaked portions of this report." Apparently, DeLoach figured out that Ford was onto him. His 12-17 memo on this conversation reflects that "I went over very carefully with Congressman Ford that the FBI had not had any "leaks" whatsoever. I told him we were well aware that the department had done considerable talking; furthermore, it now appeared somewhat obvious that members of the Commission were beginning to leak the report. I referred to this week's issue of "Newsweek" magazine which contains a rather clear analysis of the report. I told Congressman Ford that "Newsweek" was owned by the "Washington Post" and that apparently some one was trying to curry favor. I told him we, of course, did not get along very well with either the 'Washington Post" or "Newsweek." Even if he was telling the truth about the leaks to Newsweek, DeLoach knew full well the leaks began in the beginning of the month, before either the Justice Department or the Commission had come into possession of the FBI's report. As DeLoach and Hoover were too clever by half, it also makes sense that they would attempt to cut off speculation that they were the source of the leaks by leaking it through sources outside their usual pattern. It seems probable, then, that DeLoach was trying to blame the Commission for leaks that he himself had orchestrated.

------

On 12-20-63 Hoover aide Cartha Deloach wrote a second memo regarding the 12-16 executive session of the Warren Commission. Even though Congressman Ford had hid the commission's discussion of Hoover's leaks from DeLoach, this discussion was leaked right back to Hoover anyhow. Deloach wrote: "Pursuant to the Director's instructions, I met with Senator Richard B. Russell at 3:45 p.m. Inspector Jim Malley accompanied me. I told the Senator that the Director probably had the greatest respect for him than any other man on the Presidential Commission; consequently, the Director was most anxious that any misimpression which the Senator might have gotten, regarding leaks concerning the captioned matter, be straightened out immediately. I mentioned that the Director had maintained throughout that there should be no press release unless it emanated from either the President or either the Presidential Commission...I told him that there had been others who thought that a press release, based upon the FBI report, should be issued immediately. I reiterated that under no circumstances had we "leaked" any information...The Senator inquired as to the identity of the sources who had been "leaking" information. I told him it appeared quite obvious that considerable of the information came from the Dallas Police...I told him also that the (Justice) Department undoubtedly had "leaked" considerable information...Senator Russell told Mr. Malley and me that he was glad to hear an FBI denial in the matter...He (Russell) stated that Attorney General Katzenbach had directly implied that the "leaks" had come from the FBI. He quoted Katzenbach as telling the members of the Presidential Commission, "J. Edgar Hoover has chewed his men out for leaking information and they won't be doing any more of this." (Note: to this, Hoover added in his own handwriting, "This certainly shows Katzenbach's true colors.") DeLoach's memo, continued:"I told the Senator that Katzenbach was obviously lying in implying such action on the part of FBI representatives. The point was made that sometimes a person tries to cover up his own guilt by blaming others."

-----

[Paul Baker]

Aside from Marina's dubious allegations there is no evidence that Oswald fired a shot at Walker.

This simply isn't true. There was a handwritten note by Oswald, to Marina, giving her instructions as to what to do if he was caught. In addition photographs were found of Walker's house amongst Oswald's possessions after the assassination of JFK. I have little doubt that CT'ers will claim the photos were planted, but the note by itself is compelling evidence.

Page 1 of note here.

Page 2 of note here.

Translation can be found here.

Paul.

[Greg Parker]

Aside from Marina's dubious allegations there is no evidence that Oswald fired a shot at Walker.

This simply isn't true. There was a handwritten note by Oswald, to Marina, giving her instructions as to what to do if he was caught. In addition photographs were found of Walker's house amongst Oswald's possessions after the assassination of JFK. I have little doubt that CT'ers will claim the photos were planted, but the note by itself is compelling evidence.

Page 1 of note here.

Page 2 of note here.

Translation can be found here.

Paul.

Sorry Paul, but nowhere does it mention Walker.

The note, imo, (assuming it is the real thing) was more likely in regard to his pro Fidel picketing.

He expected to be, and was, arrested for similar activities a few months later in New Orleans. One might even expect to be shot in Dallas in 1963 for such activities.

The Walker episode was straight from the Snidley Whiplash Evil Plans file. It was naught but an exercise in publicity, and Walker hammed it up like the best of the silent actors, theatrically brushing "debris" from his hair upon the arrival of reporters.

Bottom line: tying this to the Walker shooting relies upon Marina and assumptions about when it was written - assumptions, which even if true, still mean nothing in and of themselves.

One might also rightly ask how the note was missed by all the police searches...

Martin was right. This gets laughed out of court.

[Paul Baker]

The note, imo, was more likely in regard to his pro Fidel picketing.

Pro-Fidel picketing? Given point 11 in his note, I don't think that idea holds water ...

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located

at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going

to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing

the bridge).

Paul.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The note, imo, was more likely in regard to his pro Fidel picketing.

Pro-Fidel picketing? Given point 11 in his note, I don't think that idea holds water ...

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located

at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going

to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing

the bridge).

Paul.

Yes Paul, I have always found that a damning statement.

[Michael Hogan]

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK. I think in time, probably in about 2063, the US government will appoint a respected historian to examine the classified documents related to the case. They will then report that a conspiracy and a cover-up did take place but the available evidence makes it impossible to identify those responsible for these events.

I think it was reasonable to reach that conclusion soon after the release of the Warren Report

and the overwhelming acceptance by the mainstream media at that time. Americans were told

they might not see the release of certain records in their lifetime.

Each succeeding year brought a modicum of hope. Kelin's book chronicles the first years when the

critics destroyed the tenets of the official position and raised basic questions, many of which remain

unanswered to this day. Hope was high in many circles that, having exposed official lies at many levels,

the case could be cracked.

However, each succeeding year brought bitter disappointments. Guarded calls for a new investigation

were ignored. Garrison's inquiry, which seemed to hold such great promise, crashed and burned.

Garrison arrested Shaw in March of 1967. Two long and agonizing years later, Shaw was acquitted.

During those two years Kennedy's brother and Martin King met their death by bullet.

It was a full six years later when again, there was hope. Vietnam and Watergate changed the way

many Americans viewed their government. In 1975 the world and a horrified nation saw the Zapruder film

for the first time. Anger and shock led to the HSCA, which was ultimately another failure and again hope

was delayed, if not extinguished. Fonzi referred to it as the Last Investigation.

Lifton's book, a national bestseller, stirred little action. It should have been, but was not, a game changer.

Tony Summers did some remarkable research. A decade later, Stone's JFK and the ARRB might have been the last gasp.

Since then, many notable books appeared. McKnight, Hancock, Horne, Fetzer, and many others have made strides

by accessing released records that were limited in what they revealed. The ultimate truth remained elusive, if not impossible to know.

In January of 1964, Eric Norden wrote that President Kennedy was killed by a war state apparatus and that his death likely would

never be adequately investigated. Unfortunately, he was right. It was a military style operation, carefully crafted on a need to know basis.

I don't believe the year 2013 will result in anything different. Kennedy's death will be commemorated, discussed, debated,

and ultimately resigned to a false, incomplete and disputed historical record.

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed.

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear

the longer I study it.

But that's just me.

I subscribe to William Kelly's "proof in the propaganda" view: JFK's killers were the guys

who immediately started pushing the Oswald-as-Commie-agent meme. Names in bold:

Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg. 13:

Immediately following the assassination, FBI and CIA informant Richard Cain

(an associate of Sam Giancana and participant in the very early Roselli organized

attempts against Castro) began aggressively reporting that Lee Oswald had been

associated with a FPCC group in Chicago that had held secret meetings in the

spring of 1963 planning the assassination of President Kennedy...

Following the assassination, John Martino and Frank Fiorini/Sturgis of Miami,

and Carlos Bringuier of New Orleans, all began telling the same story about Oswald

visiting Cuba and being a personal tool of Fidel Castro. Strangely enough, on

the afternoon of November 22 after Oswald's arrest, J. Edgar Hoover also related

that the FBI had monitored Oswald on visits to Cuba.

Hoover wrote in a 4:01 PM EST on November 22: "Oswald...went to Cuba on

several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for." Hoover

repeated this information again an hour later in a memo of 5:15 PM EST.

ibid, pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas Assistant D.A. William Alexander prepared a formal

set of charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged Oswald with murdering the

President "(in furtherance of) an International Communist Conspiracy."

William Kelly, the "Black Propaganda Ops" thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=11191&hl=

7) In Miami, shortly after the assassination, Dr. Jose Ignorzio, the

chief of clinical psychology for the Catholic Welfare Services, contacted the

White House to inform the new administration that Oswald had met directly

with Cuban ambassador Armas in Mexico.

8) In Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips of the CIA debriefed a Nicaraguan

intelligence officer, code named "D," who claimed to have seen Oswald

take money from a Cuban at the Cuban embassy. [see: Alvarado Story]

9) In New Zealand, U.S.A.F. Col. Fletcher Prouty read complete biographies

of Oswald in the local papers hours after the assassination, indicating to him

that a bio of Oswald was pre-prepared.

10) Brothers Jerry and James Buchanan, CIA propaganda assets, began

promoting the Castro-did-it theme immediately. According to Donald Freed

and Jeff Cohen (in Liberation Magazine), the source of the Buchanan's tales

was the leader of the CIA supported International Anti-Communist Brigade (IAB).

"Back in Miami," they wrote, "a high powered propaganda machine was cranking

out stories that Oswald was a Cuban agent…" Sturgis is quoted in the Pampara

Beach Sun-Sentinel as saying that Oswald had talked with Cuban G-2 agents

and fracassed with IAB members in Miami in 1962.

To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter: "It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you

need to catch them, these men you seek..."

Or so my hobby has led me to conclude.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed.

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

Cliff, I'm disappointed that you think that even approximates what I meant by the truth. I don't think that's what John Simkin meant either.

As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear the longer I study it.

But that's just me.

I agree with you there.

I subscribe to William Kelly's "proof in the propaganda" view: JFK's killers were the guys

who immediately started pushing the Oswald-as-Commie-agent meme. Names in bold:

Richard Cain

Sam Giancana

John Martino

Frank Fiorini/Sturgis

J. Edgar Hoover

Dr. Jose Ignorzio

David Atlee Phillips

Jerry and James Buchanan

With Hoover, you might be on to something. The rest of those guys lived too long. They might have been

black op pawns, fallback patsies, unwitting stooges, or simply in the wrong places at the wrong times.

I find it hard to believe that they planned, executed, or covered up President Kennedy's murder.

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to

as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter: "It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you

need to catch them, these men you seek..."

Or so my hobby has led me to conclude.

More power to you.

(And by the way Cliff, although I don't agree with you on some items, I find you one of the well-informed and likeable people on this Forum)

[John Simkin]

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to

as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

I believe that Hoover was involved in the cover-up but not the assassination. I suspect that of the list, only John Martino, Frank Fiorini/Sturgis and David Atlee Phillips had anything to do with the assassination.

[Michael Hogan]

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to

as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

I believe that Hoover was involved in the cover-up but not the assassination.

I think you have a lot of company there.

I suspect that of the list, only John Martino, Frank Fiorini/Sturgis and David Atlee Phillips had anything to do with the assassination.

Just for the record, I would like to include the accompanying paragraph to my quote:

With Hoover, you might be on to something. The rest of those guys

(Martino, Sturgis, Phillips, et al)

lived too long.

They might have been black op pawns, fallback patsies, unwitting stooges, or simply in the wrong places at the wrong times.

I find it hard to believe that they planned, executed, or covered up President Kennedy's murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed.

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

Cliff, I'm disappointed that you think that even approximates what I meant by the truth. I don't think that's what John Simkin meant either.

Fair enough. In that case the truth is known, imo. It was known in large

part the night of the assassination.

Immediately after the autopsy, right before the cover-up enveloped them

completely, the autopsists huddled together with the 2 FBI guys and came

to the "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood/water soluble rounds.

This conclusion is supported by the neck x-ray which shows a bruised

lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an

air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit wound, no major damage, no

bullet recovered.

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds.

Close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis describe JFK

as "grasping" or "clutching" his throat, just as we see in the Zap.

Prior to the assassination the CIA had tested blood soluble flechettes which

paralyzed the victim in two seconds.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Steve Kober researched Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 and found a

match with the weapon Wilson described in A Deeper, Darker Truth:

a weapon that fires blood soluble rounds. Coincidence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

In 1963 the universe of people with access to this technology had to

be very small: Richard Helms, William Colby, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles

Senseney and Mitchell WerBell III.

I'd add WerBell, and very possibly Richard Helms, to my perp list.

Richard Cain

Sam Giancana

John Martino

Frank Fiorini/Sturgis

J. Edgar Hoover

Richard Helms

Mitchell WerBell III

William Alexander

Carlos Bringuier

Dr. Jose Ignorzio

David Atlee Phillips

Jerry and James Buchanan

I think it reasonable to consign John Martino to a minor courier role as discussed

in Someone Would Have Talked; Dr. Ignorzio was a nobody; the Buchanan

brothers were likely bit players in the initial Castro-did-it cover-up; Carlos Bringuier

likely a bit player in the sheep-dipping of Oswald.

Here's a revised list of serious perps/accessories.

Richard Helms

J. Edgar Hoover

Sam Giancana

Mitchell WerBell III

David Atlee Phillips

Richard Cain

Frank Sturgis

William Alexander

I find this list a reasonable conclusion derived directly from the historical record.

Not a complete list, but a good start...imho...

With Hoover, you might be on to something. The rest of those guys lived too long.

I don't find longevity dispositive of innocence.

They might have been black op pawns, fallback patsies, unwitting stooges, or simply in

the wrong places at the wrong times.

I think we can eliminate Martino, Ignorzio, the Buchanans, and Bringuier on this

basis -- bit players.

I find it hard to believe that they planned, executed, or covered up President Kennedy's murder.

These guys?

Richard Helms

J. Edgar Hoover

Sam Giancana

Mitchell WerBell III

David Atlee Phillips

Richard Cain

Frank Sturgis

William Alexander

I'd find it hard to believe they weren't involved in the planning, execution, and

(attempted) Castro-did-it cover-up.

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to

as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

I'm not trying to compile a complete list, but draw conclusions based on the historical record.

(And by the way Cliff, although I don't agree with you on some items, I find you one of the well-informed and likeable people on this Forum)

Thank you, Michael! Your views always carry weight with me, sir!

[Pat Speer]

The note, imo, was more likely in regard to his pro Fidel picketing.

Pro-Fidel picketing? Given point 11 in his note, I don't think that idea holds water ...

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located

at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going

to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing

the bridge).

Paul.

Yes Paul, I have always found that a damning statement.

Does anyone here read Russian? I never thought about it before, but if Oswald wrote "taken prisoner" and not "arrested" it implies he was afraid of being arrested for political reasons, not criminal reasons. Now, one might make the argument that this was reflective of his delusional thinking, but it would be obvious to most everyone that someone held for shooting a public figure was someone who'd been arrested for committing a crime, and not simply taken prisoner. Nelson Mandela was taken prisoner. Charles Manson was arrested. Correct?

[Kathleen Collins]

I'm sure you've seen the documentary, Beyond Consipiracy, in which Robert Oswald gives us a useful insight into his brother's personality. Robert is convinced that his kid brother killed the President, and acted alone. That's about as close to the horse's mouth we can get, thanks to one Mr Rubenstein.

Paul.

Robert Oswald is a xxxx. He should take a blood test for DNA and compare it to one of his "nieces,'" Marina's 2 daughters by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Kathy C

[William Kelly]

I agree that we'll never discover the truth about the assassination of JFK, for one simple, pedantic reason. We already have.

'

Paul, even those who think they "know" Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy, should be able to recognize the unique aspect of this case--that NO ONE can honestly say they know why he did it, or if anyone else put him up to it.

The question of motive even haunted the Warren Commission...

I'm not sure if 'haunted' is the right word, Pat. It's not neccesary to establish motive in order to prove guilit, as I'm sure you're aware, but naturally it is something that demanded attention. The attempted murder of General Walker is a significant waymarker. Lee had no qualms about killing somebody, and in a sneaky, cowardly way. Months later, when Lee learnt that the president was going to pass right by his workplace, the temptation was too much. Here was an opportunity. Who knows, really, what was going on in his tiny mind? I'm not even sure it would be that interesting.

I'm sure you've seen the documentary, Beyond Consipiracy, in which Robert Oswald gives us a useful insight into his brother's personality. Robert is convinced that his kid brother killed the President, and acted alone. That's about as close to the horse's mouth we can get, thanks to one Mr Rubenstein.

Paul.

NO, Paul, Thanks to the Dallas Police Department.

Bill Kelly