How Oliver Stone prompted Warren Commission staffers to favor full disclosure — 30 years later

via “Book Excerpt: the Hearing With Oliver Stone: A Heroic Moment for Our Protagonist” —

“Stone’s movie, [David] Belin’s speech, and the likelihood of congressional action prompted several commission lawyers to discuss how we might best respond to the movie and support legislation making assassination records public ….”

Oliver Stone

Oliver Stone on the set of “JFK.”

“… Burt Griffin recalled that he, [Wesley] Liebeler, and a few others met with me in Washington, and we also communicated with [Richard] Mosk in Los Angeles and [Norman] Redlich in New York. In early 1992, more than a dozen staff members signed a letter to the National Archives urging release of all Warren Commission materials, emphasizing the commission’s (and our) desire back in 1964 to make all of our records available for public inspection, except those with a national security classification. In an accompanying press statement, we reaffirmed our confidence in the commission’s conclusions about Oswald and the lack of any credible evidence of a conspiracy.”

via “Book Excerpt: the Hearing With Oliver Stone: A Heroic Moment for Our Protagonist” —


  1. Jonathan says:

    The W.C. staff lawyers convinced themselves they did a thorough job.

    I don’t know how they defined their job. If it was to produce a convincing work that would stand the test of time, they failed. Failed right out of the box, as shown by Lane, Meagher, and Weisberg.

    Perhaps the staff lawyers except Rankin worked in tight compartments. This would explain their lack of comprehension of how flawed the Warren Commission procedures were. And how flawed the Report’s conclusions are.

    There ought to be a book written by a wise psychiatrist that examines the peculiarities of being a staff lawyer for the Warren Commission. I imagine the writer of such a book would say the attorneys gave all for the team.

  2. Dan says:

    I guess we still await those national security materials.

  3. Gerry Simone says:

    I tried to leave a first comment to Mr. Willens but the comments feature doesn’t seem to work.

    This is what I wanted to write:

    With all due respect Mr. Willens, the official version is called into question based on the original facts since day one. One need not introduce new evidence (as is implied – which is a straw man argument). CE399 as one example, raises plenty of doubt, but I don’t have space here to write a book.

    P.S. I did buy your book from the Sixth Floor Museum at last November’s 50th anniversary.

    If you find this comments feature working, please let me know. Thank you.

  4. I didn’t read Belin’s speech, but that man certainly was rough with many of the witnesses during the hearings. I’m surprised Belin has now apparently done a “180”.

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, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.