Legendary investigative reporter Jack Anderson takes a look at JFK

Jack Anderson was one the most famous and best investigative journalists in Washington in the 1960s and 1970s. He was no conspiracy theorist, thank god, just a reporter. (H/T Gerald)

20 thoughts on “Legendary investigative reporter Jack Anderson takes a look at JFK”

  1. Ramon F Herrera

    “A good journalist”?

    “When reporters really worked”?

    Am I missing something? Did you folks watch the same documentary that I did?

    I watched it years ago, but last week I watched it again, specially the end.

    In short, that documentary seems to have been ordered and paid by professor G. Robert Blakey. Yes, the very same one that infuriated Gaeton Fonzi et al. so much.

    Just watch it from 1:15″ until the end.

    “I think Carlos Marcello is the key figure behind the assassination”.
    – David Scheim
    Hour 1:20″

    Their conclusion: It was the mafia. Alone.

    What about all those files that Jeff keeps on reminding us of, on a monthly basis?


    According to that documentary, David A Phillips, David Sanchez-Morales, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, William King Harvey, George Joannides, Allen Dulles, J Edgar Hoover, etc. are little angels, not to mention LBJ.

    Even worse: Judge Tunheim was right! There is nothing in the National Archives files! He saw all of them.

    The most ridiculous part begins at 1:15″ the mafia sends some shooters to kill Castro. They are caught, TORTURED and (since it is a well known fact that snipers are masochists) they fell in love with El Comandante, decided to turn around and killed Kennedy instead! (since it is a well known fact that the Cuban peso is so much stronger than the dollar and Cuba so much richer and a better place to live than the US).

    Pardon the cynicism.

    Perhaps, by 1970s standards, Mr. Anderson’s piece was that of a good journalist, but not with all the additional information we have today.

  2. If “Who Murdered JFK” is considered a cold case, then there are three possibilities: a) a sole perpetrator, b) an internal conspiracy (coup d’etat) or, c) an external conspiracy ( revenge or retaliation). Mr. Anderson examined the possible connection between the mob and Cuba (#c, above) Though the motive, means, & opportunity are there, the difficulty is in factoring in Oswald. Whatever his pre-assassination connections or actions were, post assassination, Oswald served in such a way that a full government ‘manhunt. was made impossible. Along this line of reasoning, it seems improbable that a simple mob/Cuba connection could have controlled an investigation into their plot, and the key linch pin would have been the individual or individuals who could have manipulated both the living Oswald and the Oswald’s ‘file” (and thus ‘directed’ the investigation). The interesting question to ask is: Given the animosity of so many in government against Communism and Cuba, why was Communist Cuba left alone after JFK’s assassination. The apparent LBJ reason was “fear of nuclear war”, but it is just as possible that the fear of where a real investigation would lead (back to the actual ‘internal’ coordinators) is just as possible. Mr. Anderson was right when he said the answer lies in the CIA files. The questions to ask are: Were Oswald’s files manipulated and who was responsible?

    1. LBJ had good reason to be afraid of a war with Russia. In October 1962 the two countries had come close to the brink. Moreover in 1964 a very popular book was Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August” which retold the story of how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28 1914 led to the outbreak of a general European war in August. Many people still alive in the early 60s would have remembered these event.

      If LBJ believed Castro was behind the murder of Kennedy he was right to bury the truth as far down as it would go. After all, from LBJ’s point of view, the death of Kennedy was not the end of the world was it?

  3. I can find no details of the 3M Comtel analysis that led to their conclusion of shot from the front. It appeared to be based on bodily reaction and spray pattern. That is puzzling because from the extant Zapruder film I can’t see that conclusion being drawn very convincingly.

    Can anyone provide the 3m Comtel report?

    1. Ramon F Herrera

      [Eddy:] “Can anyone provide the 3m Comtel report?”


      It has been withdrawn from public attention for good reasons:

      – The study is almost 30 years old, a lifetime in science and technology.

      – The Sixth Floor Museum can always hire a company like this


      and send Gary Mack’s replacement to tell us that: “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.”.


      Now more seriously: 21st. century science has made possible to prove in an incontrovertible, fail-safe, fool-proof manner the direction of the fatal bullet. There is a very enthusiastic discussion about it, with lots of new material, in the education forum, led by Jim Di Eugenio.




      Chapter 9: The Second Rifle in Dealey Plaza

      “Science is the ultimate test of truth. Lies and hypocrisy don’t live long in the arena of modern scientific inquiry. It is fitting that the space program that Kennedy championed should ultimately provide the methodology for resolving the riddle of his death: the physics of rocket science (*). With the identity of the murder weapon and the origin of the fatal shot established, the chances of unraveling the tangled threads of the Kennedy assassination, the Gordian knot of murder mysteries, increase exponentially. The law of nature is Alexander’s sword.”

  4. I am highly disappointed that Jeff Morley would post this inaccurate documentary that once more claims that “Castro did it.” Many excellent researches have written books pointing to the probility that the CIA used the Mafia and Anti- Castro Cubans to assassinate JFK. Read David Lifton, Jim DiEugenio, and James Douglass for better information. It is certainly a tragedy that this site would sponsor this disinformation and praise Jack Anderson for not being a “conspiracy theorist.”

    1. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

      I agree. Is it the goal of this site to perpetuate myths in order to preserve the idea that we can never make progress on the CIA coup of 1963?

      1. “Is it the goal of this site to perpetuate…” I’ve just discovered this site few days ago. And I am reading it since. I’m surprised I haven not found any mention of Israel yet. When one consider that there was a confluence of motives for the conspiracy, Israel and its development of nuclear weapons and JFK opposition to it was one of the motives

    2. I don’t think Anderson in his report claimed “Castro did it”. Anderson, in my opinion, was much more focused on Roselli and the mob. The context of the Cold War, where the CIA hired the mob to kill Castro is a historical fact. It’s impossible to intelligently discuss the JFK murder without this context. That is partly why Oliver Stone’s movie flopped, because Stone is blinded by politics, and can’t get the context right.

      Anderson didnt solve the mystery, but he reframed it away from the Warren Commission’s false narrative. Now, if Anderson had lived, and could have pursued what Angleton and Helms were up to, well, maybe he could have moved the ball even farther. But that documentary was darn good, in my opinion.

      1. David, I agree that Oliver Stone missed the big picture (pardon the pun) by focusing on New Orleans and Garrison and ignoring the mob/Roselli connection.
        It is clear that the Castro assassination plots, the CIA and the mafia were all complicit in what happened on 11/22 and the subsequent cover up.
        But to say that Stone’s film “flopped” is not accurate.
        “JFK” earned $205 million in box office, was nominated for 8 academy awards (including “Best Picture,”) and won 2 Oscars.
        Most directors would kill (pardon another pun) for a flop like that.

        1. Ramon F Herrera

          [ed connor:] “I agree that Oliver Stone missed the big picture (pardon the pun) by focusing on New Orleans and Garrison and ignoring the mob/Roselli connection.”


          So you are saying that instead of “On the Trail of the Assassins” by Garrison, Oliver Stone should have used this book?


          The ones who dropped the ball, in any event, were the Attorneys General of Chicago and Miami, for failing to bring a case against the capos, and write their best sellers afterward. Only then would Stone had be able to use those books for his movie.

          IOW: Oliver Stone is not a book author or investigator. He worked with the best material out there. We may disagree with his choice of Mars’ book but the Garrison achievement is the paragon.

  5. Wonderful documentary. Yes, dated, but still wonderful. Anderson does a fabulous job with the larger context of the Cold War with Castro & Kruschev in the early 60s.

    The only flaw is the hagiography of Kennedy in the opening, which is standard narrative propaganda, that we’ve come to expect. I enjoyed, for example, hearing Senator McGovern accurately explain that in the 1960 campaign, Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon, arguing that Ike and him had been soft on Communism in general, and soft on Castro in particular. This had 2 terrible effects: (1) it pushed Ike/Nixon to make plans to kill or topple Castro, hopefully before the election and (2) it pinned JFK to his campaign theme to execute such a plan, resulting in the the Bay of Pigs. The fault lies entirely with Kennedy. He should have cancelled it (and taken political heat as a hypocrite) or given the needed air support to prevail, if in fact, that was even possible.

    JFK was no liberal martyr. However, that fact doesn’t justify his murder. Jack Anderson’s documentary comes closer to the most plausible scenario, much more so than any ABC or 60 Mins narrative. Now, if Anderson could have gotten Angleton on record, it would have been a Grand Slam. I wonder how Photon or McAdams would view this video.

    1. Eisenhower and Nixon didn’t need any prompting from anybody to go after Castro. They’d already started trying to depose him by early autumn of 1959 at the latest. And the operation that ended up being the Bay of Pigs landing was originally to have happened in late October/early November of 1960. Planning for it was well underway before it was known who the Democratic nominee would be. You also have to realize that prior to the first televised debate, few if any people on the Republican side thought Nixon would not end up President. They were stunned by the public’s response to that encounter, and never regained their equilibrium.

    2. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

      The fault lies entirely in CIA DP Richard Bissell, who blatantly lied to both Esterline (Task Force Chief) and Hawkins (Chief of the paramilitary troops) about the political restrictions that were making impossible Operation Pluto.

Leave a Comment

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

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

Scroll to Top