Toward the decisive clarification of the JFK story in 2014

I had the honor of speaking at the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas on November 22, 2013, and I offered some thoughts about what I think we (meaning the American people and others interested in the assassination of President Kennedy 50 years ago) need to do in 2014.

In my remarks I dared to suggest that American civil society can achieve a decisive clarification of the JFK story in 2014. By “decisive clarification” I mean a deeper and more credible explanation of a great historic crime than we have yet achieved.

If such a breakthrough is possible it will require collective effort, disciplined scholarship and a sophisticated understanding of social media and the Internet.

Any and all reaction to this proposition is welcome.

I will publish the most constructive and interesting responses.

 

 

 

43 comments

  1. Jonathan says:

    Jeff,

    Your proposal for a “decisive clarification” is perfect.

    I recommend:

    (1) That the work you envision begin with a statement of and a fact-based critique of the Warren Report conclusions.

    (2) That the record be combed for items that would be admissible into evidence under the Rules of Evidence (e.g., Kennedy’s suit coat and shirt); and that items constituting inadmissible hearsay be so identified. This work will need to be done by one or more lawyers knowledgeable with the case. The point of this exercise is to develop the strongest arguments, whatever they are.

    (3) That the whole enterprise have the goal not of identifying the shooters but of (a) showing that the Warren conclusions are unsupportable and contrary to fact; and (b) showing that the cover-up, which began before the assassination, and was carried forward in the Bethesda autopsy morgue, is more alarming than the murder because of the persons implicated in the cover-up; and (c) showing that JFK’s assassination served many powerful interests.

    Count me as a volunteer to any and all work.

    • Lanny says:

      Your three recommendations in support of Jeff Morley’s “decisive clarification” of the JFK assassination story irrefutably present a self-incriminating indictment of one common particular approach to the conspiracy theorists’ “investigation” of the assassination.

      The first fallacy in this indictment is a singular obsession with discrediting various conclusions of the Warren Commission to the exclusion of a more holistic approach to the facts in evidence surrounding the assassination. The CT community’s unrelenting flogging of this deceased equine specimen is as potentially misguided as it is unseemly. There seems to be a CT assumption that deficient investigative procedures, of which the Warren Commission had many, necessarily yield an incorrect conclusion in every instance. While sloppy or inadequate investigatory methods have nothing by which to recommend themselves, it does not follow that a poorly reasoned answer is always wrong.

      Moreover, conscientious, in-depth examination of evidence by subsequent investigators who may nonetheless end up agreeing with Commission conclusions in certain respects should not be denigrated by inappropriate association with their predecessors. It is a character assassination attempt no more substantive than lone assassin adherents insisting that all conspiracy theorists wear the same tin foil helmets of the most rabid lunatics to be found at the extreme edges of their midst.

      Your second suggestion of separating and identifying the evidentiary record according to items which would be admissible under normal rules of evidence versus those that would be excluded sounds laudable on its face, but in fact imposes a condition largely meaningless at this point in history.

      Rules of evidence, like many requirements under the rules of criminal procedure, exist as much for the protection of the accused as they do to establish factual truth as it relates to the criminal allegation. In a case that has been deprived of an obvious defendant for the past 50 years, it is not clear whose rights would be protected by trying to guess what would or would not be admissible at this juncture. Additionally, which evidentiary rules would you propose we use? Those of the state of Texas, where the crime would have been adjudicated, or those within the United States Federal Code? Anyone attempting to determine the whole truth of President Kennedy’s assassination today, needs to accept or reject evidence on the basis of each item’s own strength and credibility, rather than the legal formulation that would govern if we were at trial.

      Your third suggestion, however, is most telling in its revelation of your motivations – not to find the truth of what may yet be hidden, but to affirm that which you already believe to be true; not to convict those who actually fired weapons and committed murder on 11/22/63, but to convict a long gone government panel whose efforts in analyzing the events of that day have been found by you and others to have been wanting.

      If we may take your advocacy seriously, and in many respects it rings quite harmoniously with elements of Jeff Morley’s keynote speech last November, the CT community stands poised to abandon the search for the killers of JFK for the more pedestrian goal of slandering and libeling those whom you believe to be accessories to a conspiracy as yet unproven and whose far more directly culpable members inexplicably no longer pique, much less hold, your interest.

      Now that a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy has been established to your satisfaction in the abstract, you, Jeff and company have apparently deemed it appropriate that further investigation of the particulars give way to a broader “civil society movement” to curb government excesses real and imagined in the area of national security secrets and to move public opinion in whatever direction it presumably needs to be moved.

      Those of us who have waited the past five decades for the conspiracy community to present a unified, logical explanation of the planning and execution of John F. Kennedy’s murder will no doubt find this latest abdication of its responsibility to be grossly premature.

      • Jordan says:

        These are a few of my thoughts:

        I believe it would be a rather straighforward (although complex) matter to address the issues at hand using the principles of reasonableness simpliciter, rationality and irrationality.

        One cannot question the WC/HSCA et al vis-a-vis the jurisdictional question as they were appointed to perform their task, however there are logical, procedural and factual aspects that do not and cannot meet the ‘burden of proof’, or other ‘standard’ in regards to procedure and patent unreasonableness.

        YMMV….

      • leslie sharp says:

        Lanny,
        “Now that a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy has been established to your satisfaction in the abstract, you, Jeff and company have apparently deemed it appropriate that further investigation of the particulars give way to a broader “civil society movement” to curb government excesses real and imagined in the area of national security secrets and to move public opinion in whatever direction it presumably needs to be moved.”

        By no means am I aligned with your apparent (and correct me if I’m wrong) disdain for any who believe strongly, based on fact, that a conspiracy brought about the assassination of an elected president on 11/22/63; however, in good conscience I weigh in with your challenge.

        I read and reread the transcript of Jeff Morley’s Dallas 2013 speech, and came away with concerns similar to your comment that (paraphrasing) “the investigation is giving way to a civil society movement to curb excesses … in matters of national security…”

        This approach is not and never will be a substitute for determining who assassinated John Kennedy. Full transparency by the CIA or any other intelligence agencies should not be confused with resolving the murder of John Kennedy, nor should it be valued as some sort of consolation prize. In a democracy, the resolution of a crime is not a question of negotiation or consensus; in fact, juries are hung all of the time.

        No amount of spirited devotion to personalities representing either end of the spectrum – those who insist that Oswald was a lone assassin or those convinced that the CIA in its various permutations orchestrated the murder of their Commander in Chief – will serve justice. Americans must dig in their collective heels and demand a trial, albeit it in absentia. This is not a popularity contest, and I worry that Jeff Morley’s proposal contains hints of that dynamic.

        Vince Salandria warned against getting worn down by the detail of the investigation. I hope that reputable researchers do not opt for a self-imposed deadline (Morley’s proposal is I believe the anniversary of the Warren Commission Report) or collapse under the weight of the most pragmatic of issues: “what has this effort cost everyone?

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        “Those of us who have waited the past five decades for the conspiracy community to present a unified, logical explanation”

        That is impossible for two reasons:

        (a) Much of the evidence is destroyed or hidden.

        (b) The terms “community” and “unified” are to a large extent contradictory (unless we are talking about Cuba 1959+ or Germany 1930-40s).

      • Hugh says:

        It is very easy to reach unified conclusions when the preconceived conclusion is that the Warren Commission was right, no matter how many times it was found wanting. It is inevitable that separate investigations born to existence from the Warren Commission’s very own performance, will reach widely varying conclusions trying to fill in the blanks left by withheld information. Morley makes it clear he does not want to add to that problem, with another conclusion in the absence of that information and you respond by criticising him for avoiding that which you condemn.
        You describe his concentration on getting more information, rather than naming names without it, as an abdication of responsibility for finding JFK’s killers. On the contrary. Those who have no interest in seeking that information are responsible for that abdication, so that is one of the most laughable examples of the pot calling the kettle black you could have come up with.
        Again and again LN’s demand names, then pillory anybody who ventures one for slandering people without sufficient evidence. Here, you criticise Morley for giving obtaining evidence a higher priority, than naming names of the actual trigger pullers without it. We can be forgiven for thinking LN’s demonstrate more faces than a town clock with this sort of double standard in comments.

    • John Kirsch says:

      I’m ambivalent about your first recommendation regarding the Warren Commission. On one hand, I think that, after 50 years, we have good reason to doubt the value of the commission’s investigation. (And contrary to Lanny’s statement, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to mistrust the conclusions of a flawed investigation. Garbage in, garbage out.)
      On the other hand, you have the fact that most Americans, to their credit, have never accepted the commission’s “Oswald did it alone” conclusion. In other words, only a minority of Americans accept that finding. So who are you speaking to when you critique the WC? The WC fundamentalists who cling to the report like a faith healer clutching his Bible? You’ll never change their minds so don’t waste time trying.
      I disagree with your recommendation that the new investigation, if that’s the right word for what you envision, not try to identify the shooters.
      I think the shooter or shooters do need to be identified. One of the key weaknesses that critics of the WC have had to contend with is the fact that, even now, we have not been able to convincingly respond when the WC fundamentalists trot out their “Oswald did it” story. If we say Oswald didn’t do it, that begs the question of who did. We need to be able to answer that question.
      After 50 years it’s tempting to try and clarify 11/22 but we shouldn’t let that divert us from trying to uncover the entire story.

      • Lanny says:

        Clearly you have misunderstood my comments with regard to the Warren Commission. My point is simply this: In the final analysis, the investigation that every conspiracy theorist loves to hate did not undermine or impeach the evidence it collected. It may be justly criticized for some evidence it DID NOT collect or various witnesses it DID NOT call and questions it DID NOT ask, but the credibility of the witnesses who did testify and the veracity of their individual stories stand or fall on their own or when placed in the context of other well established evidence. The fact that the evidence was entered into the overall record through the Warren Commission does not determine the truth or untruth of the evidence itself.

        As one example, the overwhelming number of witnesses who testified that no more than three and no less than two shots were fired at the motorcade has effectively reduced the number of stories of an entire battalion of assassin peppering Dealey Plaza with automatic gunfire from every conceivable direction. Unfortunately, it hasn’t eliminated such fantasies in their entirety, but the fact remains that there are facts in evidence that came through the Warren Commission portal that not even the most hard-boiled CT would dispute. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for conspiracy theorists to cite Commission evidence or eye-witness testimony when it supports their case, as one would naturally expect anyone to do.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Lanny,
          A number of your points are valid, specifically that those who advocate that a conspiracy was behind the assassination often reference Warren Commission testimony in support of that assertion. Clearly, no one can with any integrity cherry pick the evidence presented to and by the commission in order to suit a particular argument. The WC Report was either credible or it was not; the effectiveness of that report is sadly measured by this 50 year old debate. Had members of the commission done their job, would we be here today? They must have known that their rush to judgment would not serve the cause of justice but merely buy time.

          • Lanny says:

            You have, perhaps without realizing it, highlighted the essence of my “disdain” to which you previously referred.

            It is not that the “effectiveness of the Warren Report” is measured by a 50-year-old debate. To the extent that it is is perfectly reasonable, of course.

            The problem is that far too many in the conspiracy community have held the deficiencies of the Warren Report as probative evidence of the fallacy of the lone assassin generally.

            And that simply is not necessarily true.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Lanny,

            “. . . far too many in the conspiracy community have held the deficiencies of the Warren Report as probative evidence of the fallacy of the lone assassin generally. . . ‘

            I believe they/we have done so because members of the commission – some of whom held significant power within and over our government – failed to set the record straight when gaps began to surface, and facts they presented as proof of a lone assassin began to crumble under close scrutiny. These were not simply deficiencies. From there, a natural suspicion evolved that in fact the Warren Commission was hiding something on behalf of someone.

        • John Kirsch says:

          I’m afraid your Jan. 7 attempt to clarify your comments didn’t work for me.
          Again, I mean no disrespect. It’s just that what you are saying doesn’t add up to me (sort of like the official story itself).
          You said of the WC, in part, in your Jan. 4 comment, “It may be justly criticized for some evidence it DID NOT collect or various witnesses it DID NOT call and questions it DID NOT ask …”
          To me, that is precisely the point — that the commission’s investigation was, in some ways, at least, incomplete, and therefore flawed, thus calling the conclusions based on that investigation into question?
          The evidence it did not collect and witnesses it did not call and the questions it did not ask — if the WC HAD done those things, its conclusions might have been more convincing to the American people, who continue to reject the commission’s “Oswald did it alone” conclusion.

          • Lanny says:

            I totally understand your objections to the incomplete and/or flawed investigation of the Warren Commission with regard to President Kennedy’s autopsy.

            What I don’t understand are your objections to the findings of the forensic pathology panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations with regard to President Kennedy’s autopsy.

            I would be interested in hearing those.

        • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

          I find the whole arguement in defense of the Warren Commission absurd. Where is it lawful to get a free pass to evade the Constitutional right of “Trial by Jury”? Who amended the Constitution in that regards? Why do “LN’s” support a false unconstitutional body subverting the rights of American citizens? Why do you evade that simple truth? Who are you to decide that Americans surrender those rights? Subversion, evasion or manipulation of evidence by government agencies is not Justice…it is corruption. Discussing what the WC may or may not have found does not negate the illegitimacy of that body. In a court of law people are sworn to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”….tell that to the CIA, tell it to the ONI…and tell it to those that hid evidence.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I’ve read your comments several times and in all honesty I can’t think of what to say because your argument makes no sense to me. You seem to concede that the Warren Commission may have done a poor job in some respects but yet you also seem to say that doesn’t necessarily mean we should reject its findings.
        That makes no sense to me. If the investigation was deficient in some way and there is good reason to believe it was, how can that do anything other than put a question mark over the findings?
        I don’t think the WC’s defects prove that a conspiracy did or didn’t exist. I just think those defects mean the commission did a bad job.

        • John Kirsch says:

          I should add that I meant no disrespect in saying I don’t understand your comments. It’s just that you seem to be contradicting yourself.
          I would add that it would be a huge mistake to stop looking for the killer or killers. That would be like saying you completed a murder investigation without finding the killer. What’s the point? But that is the direction I see gaining momentum here.

          • Lanny says:

            Let me see if I can clarify the contradiction which you believe I am creating.

            The forensic pathology panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations was composed of nine medical doctors specializing in forensic pathology, the vast majority of whom served as medical examiners in various jurisdictions throughout the country. Two members were directly involved in the instruction of forensic science.

            The cumulative expertise of the panel and the meticulous review it gave President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital was far in excess of any comparable study the Warren Commission could have brought to bear on the same subject. Additionally, the panel had access to the original autopsy photos and x-rays which the Warren Commission did not.

            Despite the obvious contrast in available forensic expertise of the two investigations, the HSCA panel endorsed or found “evidence consistent with” the following Warren Commission findings:

            1. Only two wounds to President Kennedy, both fired from the rear. (para. 463)

            2. Only one wound to JFK’s head. (para. 472, 481-485)

            3. The “Single Bullet Theory” (para. 486-487)

            The forensic panel’s position on a single wound to the President’s head was so strong that when the committee at large later accepted the acoustic evidence indicating a shot from the grassy knoll, it could only conclude that the shot had obviously missed in light of the lack of forensic evidence indicating a second head strike.

            This is the best example I can think of how a superior examination can arrive at the same conclusions of an inferior study.

            Even if you do not accept the conclusions of the HSCA forensics panel, I don’t see how anyone can argue that its investigative expertise and approach were not superior to that of the Warren Commission.

          • John Kirsch says:

            It’s getting hard to follow the thread here. I just wanted to say that I don’t necessarily think the defects in the WC’s investigation invalidate the commission’s conclusions, only that the defects raise more questions about the soundness of the conclusions.
            To me this only makes sense. The conclusions were the result of the investigation. You can’t disconnect the two. If one element is suspect, then the other is too.

  2. Alan Dale says:

    A transcript of this Keynote address may be read and downloaded here: http://www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?topic=201.0

    Jeff Morley’s careful approach to this investigation has resulted in measurable progress resting upon solid ground (read Our Man In Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA). He deserves our gratitude and support.

    I’m hopeful this address will be widely circulated and discussed.

  3. Shane McBryde says:

    Bravo!

  4. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Excellent. Wish I could afford to have been there. As Neil Young said Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World. FREE THE FILES!!!

  5. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve wondered about an associated theme the last few months Mr. Morley alluded to. Can the research community, the 60-80% who don’t believe the Warren Fairy Tale, the various websites and other media unite in support of Mr. Morley’s suit for the 1100+ CIA files relating to the assassination?
    It is the one issue that at the moment can shed more light on the Truth about the big picture of what happened than any other.
    I feel it would be a big step if some of the Major Researcher’s, the websites like marry ferrell, lancer, jfkforum, ctka, copa, and more could come together and focus their combined influence on this one issue for the benefit of all concerned.

  6. JSA says:

    Nice and inspiring speech, Jeff.

    I like the idea of a citizen-sponsored information base to be published on September 30 of this year. I think your laser-like focus on the relationship of Oswald to intelligence agencies is a good approach, and could be key to unlocking much of this case to historians and to the general public. I agree with your assessment that an agency (CIA) capable of murdering thousands of civilians and lying about those murders is capable of murdering a US president and lying about it. I would add that cynicism is just as much a part of the American saga as paranoia has been (to borrow from Richard Hofstader). After all, when this republic was founded, power was carefully divided so as not to “corrupt absolutely” as it can do when concentrated in one place. Since WW2 however, as the executive branch and particular agencies of government took much of the power away from Congress, the potential for abuse by concentration of power again began to grow. This happened before Kennedy became president, and even JFK was part of this concentration. He was a fan of Richard Neustadt, who wrote an influential book on this topic in 1960. Today with Homeland Security bloated way beyond what is healthy for a democratic society, and with Congress nothing more than a gerrymandered, money-collection machine for the biggest and richest corporations, I still remain hopeful that our government can work again. I haven’t given up on the idea of a progressive, “do-gooder” national government, one that helps boost the middle class and the poor with the power of collective strength. So although I share the cynicism of many JFK conspiracy folks, I have to side with FDR-style (or Teddy Roosevelt-style) strong national government as a force for good in our society, even though I think I see where the flaws and cracks in our system are. If we take away government, the citizens have nothing. We go back to feudalism and anarchy. We need the strong federal government, but one that is checked by and owned by the citizens, not by the trusts or the powerful special interests. A tall order, but one I think JFK also believed in.

    • Jonathan says:

      Large corporations sometimes do evil things. The U.S. government, whose uniform I wore proudly as an army officer in Viet Nam, has done far more evil things. Strong national government gives us the CIA and the NSA and other tyrannies I needn’t relate.

      I’m all for checks and balances and ceding power to the citizenry.

      • JSA says:

        Government is supposed to be you and me, We the People. The anti-government cynicism took a strong hold AFTER JFK was assassinated. Prior to that, most Americans thought their government was mostly an institution for good. I believe that Vietnam did a lot of damage to our credibility, and was a stupid war. But the men who served in it should be honored for their service. They are not to blame—I blame Lyndon Johnson and the military-intelligence-Versailles on the Potomac for that involvement. Kennedy inherited Laos from IKE, but he wisely chose to keep it scaled back as far as possible, and intended to draw down our presence there. We were far more effective at fighting communism with our Peace Corps and with positive US aid overseas, not with bayonets and gunboat diplomacy. Although I admire Teddy Roosevelt for standing up for parks and against the special interests, I disagree with his weird obsession with gunboat diplomacy. The military should only be used as a last resort. We’ve forgotten that. War is the stupidest thing people can do, besides ruin the planet with global warming.

        Anyway, I trace most cynical anti-government mass movements to the post-JFK era, starting with his assassination.

      • JSA says:

        Jonathan,

        Thank you for your service to this country. Even though I was opposed to the war in Vietnam, I appreciate the sacrifices our servicemen made.

        Although I share your concern about CIA and NSA getting too big and dangerously powerful, I also believe (as I think JFK did) that we need a strong federal government to ensure that our schools are top notch, our infrastructure is kept up, our scientific programs are well funded at all of the think tanks, our land grant colleges continue to provide alternative choices to those who have lower income but want a higher education, and that our country take a national leadership role in health care, in regulating for food and drug safety, and in stewardship of the environment, to name a few key things. Let’s face it—decentralized, “Jeffersonian” states rights small government lost in the Civil War. The North, with it’s standardization and better organized infrastructure, won. We need to regain the trust in our government which boomers seem to have lost, and that younger generations never had—which began to erode when Kennedy was assassinated.

        And I fully agree that we need progressive checks and balances to keep power as open and transparent as possible. I just don’t buy into the “government all bad” dialog that got enormously popular in the last 40-50 years. The government is supposed to be you and me, We the People. Freeing the hidden CIA files would be a great start toward gaining the trust of Americans in their government again.

  7. John Kirsch says:

    I was pleased that Morley noted the public’s consistent refusal to accept the official story. I hope we do reach a decisive clarification. We can’t continue to be burdened with this tattered official story, complete with an assassin with no motive, a magic bullet and a defendant murdered in the police station. As John Cassidy said recently in The New Yorker, there are too many aspects of the official story that simply defy belief. To be honest, it says something bad about Americans that they haven’t risen up in unison to force the government to tell the truth.
    Yes, as Morley said, there is a movement to do that, but it is not the sort of mass movement that might actually intimidate Washington into coming clean.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Yes, you are right. “We The People” have not risen up in force. We are taught from an early age to have faith in, believe in, and fight for Democracy, not to question it. That’s what Jeff is doing along with others. Fighting for it by questioning it. Freedom of speech is THE most important right we have. Part of that teaching is to believe what we are told by Our Government, to trust our honorable officials that we have elected.
      What we are told of the government by the corporately owned mass media is a sham. If 60-80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy that is newsworthy. If the information we see coming out in the last 20 years was on the nightly news or in the Sunday paper on a regular basis I believe we the people would have gotten sick of it long ago, as sort of happened after the movie JFK with the ARRB.
      That is changing as Mr. Morley emphasized. Twenty five years ago he could write an article that could be published in a major newspaper or magazine, with the editor/owners approval. Today he, you and I can speak our mind (with his/Rex approval, or we could start our own blog) for much of the world to read or ignore of their own choice.
      The internet has given us choice in our sources of information. Websites, chatrooms, youtube, myspace and so many more aspects have opened the world to new information (and disinformation). The possibilities for opening minds to the fact that the warren commission was a crock and beyond are a reality with today’s technology.
      IMHO. Off soap box. With respect to the great majority of the research community, thank you for the opportunity to open my mind through your efforts.

  8. TOM ROSSLEY says:

    start prosecuting those who we can prove lied . startig with dan rather he will lead us to others (ie who solicited him?)

  9. John Kirsch says:

    One thing I’ve wondered is why this site hardly ever mentions Jim Garrison. I know that name is a controversial one among researchers. If memory serves, Jeff referred once to Garrison’s “scattershot” prosecution of Clay Shaw, which, of course, did not convince the jury.
    Do researchers ignore Garrison because he used “truth serum” on witnesses or because he failed to convict Clay Shaw? I’m just wondering.
    It does seem to me that the government did try to derail his investigation.
    Are researchers saying with their silence that they believe Garrison produced nothing of value? At least he brought the Zapruder film to the public’s attention.

    • Jordan says:

      To me, Garrison is not controversial, and nor was he wrong in identifying Shaw as part of a plan. Mr. Garrison could not have known the actual role of Mr. Shaw or what the Trade Mart actually was, and the CIA made sure the dots remainded un-connected.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I am not a Garrison advocate or critic. I just think it’s frankly a little odd that a website dedicated to research on the Kennedy assassination never mentions him.
        No matter what you think of him, he did use (some would say misuse) the powers of his office to bring an actual case to trial about 11/22. The fact that the jury quickly dismissed the case does not mean that Garrison did no good. And there is reason to believe the government undermined his efforts.
        He’s like one of those old Bolsheviks that Stalin had airbrushed out of photos after he had them shot.
        Or LBJ, who is an unmentionable person for Democrats, even though he was the greatest reform president since FDR. I know that’s because of Vietnam, a huge mistake. Nevertheless, LBJ declared war on poverty and established Medicaid. But Democrats, who profess to care about those issues, never mention him.

  10. John Kirsch says:

    The irony is that Garrison believed the CIA was behind a conspiracy to kill JFK because the agency (or “the Company,” in the words of one of the frequent commenters on this site) feared he wanted to shut down the Cold War, which would have meant that all those gung-ho Cold Warriors in the national security state would have been kicked off the gravy train.
    And that idea, that the CIA was involved in 11/22 because it feared JFK wanted to rachet down tensions with the Soviets, appears to be the view of many people who comment on this site but who never mention Garrison.

  11. John Kirsch says:

    Not to take anything away from what Jeff said, but I would also recommend “The State of the JFK case: 50 Years Out”
    by James DiEugenio on the CTKA site.

  12. George Simmons says:

    Great speech by Morley.
    “We need, I think, a civil society response to the Warren Commission. We need another report on the assassination of the President, not one compiled by four lawyers working at the mercy of the FBI and the CIA and the White House, but by civil society”

    This is so true. Only when an independent panel can sit down and have the power to review ALL documents will we have a chance of knowing the truth.
    This aspect reminds me of the Hillsborough disaster in England. The truth only came out 23 years later, when the Hillsborough Independent Panel was formed with the power to view all the documents. A police cover up was revealed, where 164 witness statements had been altered and 116 statements removed. And this after there had been a government inquiry 13 years earlier which upheld the original conclusions in 1989 and stated there was no need for any further investigation.

  13. Kennedy63 says:

    I submit this commentary as an African American who lived through the dark history, yet hidden, written in the blood of our leaders – those who stood up to tel the truth and sought to change the narrow focus of our governments across the United States; stood up for inclusion and urged Americans to be the best they could be: a shining beacon of light in a dark world suffocated with tyranny, despair, poverty, disease, ignorance, and the yoke of oppressive regimes sponsored and supported by the clandestine security apparatuses of Western (and USSR and CHINA) governments engaged in an insane arms race and endless wars of attrition and expenditures of billions of dollars on death and destruction (of human lives and our planet).
    We need healing through truth. We need closure through disclosure of the facts regarding the coup d’etat on November 22, 1963. I am willing to lend my time, effort, abilities and more, to this noble effort and exercise of true citizenship. I applaud and acknowledge all those who made contribution to shedding light on this “darkness of history.”

    • Jonathan says:

      Please try to find the Black couple who witnessed the assassination from the right of Marilyn Sitzman. Thanks.

  14. Larry Schnapf says:

    an eloquent presentation that JFK would have be proud to have heard

  15. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Hear ye! Hear ye! From a “white boy” (old man) raised in the South.
    “We need closure though disclosure of the facts…”
    FREE THE FILES

  16. Marcus Hanson says:

    Commendable humility,acknowledging the words of support , and equally commendable self-deprecating humour!
    I do not agree with all Jeff says – not by a long shot – but I believe he is on the right track about intelligence agencies concealing greater pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald than has been,thus far,admitted.
    And I am on the LN side of the debate.

  17. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    The key finding of WC is a lone gunman shooting a magic bullet. The latter is in evidence and ballistic tests have proven that no bullet can exit so after passing through two human bodies. The lone nut is also inconsistent with the charades of both “Leftist Lee at Work” in New Orleans and Castroit Oswald in Mexico City, where he was at least telephonically impersonated.
    That´s enough for dismissing the WC report as the best explanation. Just add that the CIA has provided neither a tape nor a photo of LHO, in spite of his five visits to Cuban and Soviet diplomatic compounds and five CIA-tapped phone calls related to him.
    For finding better explanation than WC and HSCA, transparency is the key. The government should release everything it has.

    • Dave says:

      Is there still a classified HSCA document being withheld that specifically examined Oswald’s relationship to the CIA?

  18. Jonathan says:

    Re: JFK’s head wounds.

    Humes testified to the ARRB there was an ENTRANCE wound in the EOP. And a defect in the occipital region lateral and right to the EOP about 2 cm squared of scalp and bone.

    Hume’s entrance wound testimony was based on late-arriving skull fragments that showed beveling.

    Humes was saying a bullet hit JFK’s skull in the eop region. But also that there was an occipital-parietal blow out to his right skull.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more