Investigator’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s JFK fib

(First published in JFK Facts, January 30, 2013)

In his best-selling book Killing Kennedy, Bill O’Reilly tells a brief tale of an intrepid reporter — himself — chasing the historical truth of JFK’s assassination in south Florida. But the story itself is a fiction, as O’Reilly reveals here in his own voice.

JFK reality check for Bill O’Reilly

In the annals of the JFK assassination story, rife with CIA and FBI malfeasance, O’Reilly’s fanciful anecdote might seem trivial. It is not the saddest feature of his book, which manages to ignore all of the high-quality JFK assassination scholarship of the last two decades.

But as O’Reilly’s yarn is presented as fact in USA Today and the Fort-Worth Telegram; as his book dominates the best-seller charts; and as a credulous National Geographic embarks on making a documentary of Killing Kennedy, O’Reilly’s credibility matters.

In O’Reilly’s account, the dramatic incident happened on March 29, 1977. The Fox News talk show host was then a 28-year-old television reporter in Dallas seeking to make a name for himself by investigating a popular subject that other reporters disdained: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Working in Dallas at a time when Congress re-opened the JFK investigation in the mid-1970s, O’Reilly scored some real scoops, especially about a man named George de Mohrenschildt. A Russian emigre who moved in both European high society and the American underworld, de Mohrenschildt would have made a splendid character in a Graham Greene novel, except he was a real living CIA asset involved in the events that would culminate in JFK’s murder on Dallas on November 22,1963.

De Mohrenschildt was good copy. He was probably the only person on the planet on friendly terms with both the family of First Lady Jackie Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of killing her husband. De Mohrenschildt was not a paid CIA employee, but as JFK investigators closed in on him, he expected CIA assistance.

In September 1976, he wrote to CIA director George H.W. Bush seeking help for his “hopeless situation.” Bush, the only CIA director to become president, ignored him, while privately telling CIA colleagues they had a slight acquaintance. De Mohrenschildt’s testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations was expected to be explosive.

O’Reilly spins the story with third person modesty in Killing Kennedy (p. 300), calling himself “the reporter.” He wrote that he

“traced de Mohrenschildt to Palm Beach, Florida and travelled there to confront him. At the time de Mohrenschildt had been called to testify before a congressional committee looking into the events of November 1963. As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt’s daughter’s home, he heard the shotgun blast [Emphasis added] that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood.

“By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly.”

It’s a vivid story and well told. It’s also mostly imaginary. In fact, the reporter named Bill O’Reilly was in Dallas, Texas, on that day.

Where O’Reilly Really Was

Gaeton Fonzi
Investigator Gaeton Fonzi was a reliable source for an intrepid young reporter named Bill OReilly

The truth can be heard on a cassette tape made by Gaeton Fonzi, a congressional investigator who was O’Reilly’s most reliable source on the JFK story. Fonzi wrote about that day in his 1993 memoir, The Last Investigation:

“About 6:30 that evening I received a call from Bill O’Reilly, a friend who was then a television reporter in Dallas,” wrote Fonzi, who died in August 2012. In Fonzi’s account, O’Reilly told him that he had just received a tip that de Mohrenschildt had committed suicide.

A recording of three phone conversations between Fonzi and O’Reilly on March 29, 1977, confirms Fonzi’s account. Fonzi’s widow, Marie Fonzi, shared the tape with JFK Facts.

“Gaet liked O’Reilly and did lots to help him,” Marie Fonzi said in an email. “He hired him in the early ’70s when editor of Miami Magazine at $25 a month to write movie reviews. He wrote letters of reference for him and was instrumental in getting him his first TV shot.”

But she adds, “I know O’Reilly was in Dallas” on March 29, 1977. “There is no question about it.”

O’Reilly is right about one thing. He was indeed pursuing George de Mohrenschildt in March 1977, but he did not reach his doorstep in Palm Beach on March 29, 1977, and he certainly did not hear de Mohrenschildt’s demise with his own ears. When the fatal shot rang out, O’Reilly was in his office at the WFAA studios in Dallas, Texas, more than 1,200 miles away.

The confirmation comes from O’Reilly himself. Listen to him as he calls Fonzi to break the news.

“We just got a call from de Mohrenshildt’s lawyer saying he committed suicide in Miami today,” the caller  says — just as O’Reilly was quoted in Fonzi’s book.”You hear anything about it?”

Fonzi tells the caller (obviously someone he has a working relationship with) that he had tried to find de Mohrenschildt at a residence in Palm Beach at 11:30 that morning and was told he wasn’t home.

“So as far you know he’s still alive?” the reporter asks. Fonzi wants to know when the caller received the tip.

“We just got the call twenty minutes ago,” the caller says.

“That’s 6:30 here,” Fonzi says, indicating that he understands the reporter is calling from a different time zone. Fonzi tells the reporter he’ll check out the story and get right back to him.

Fonzi then calls de Mohrenschildt’s house, and gets the runaround from a man answering the phone (a police investigator already called to the suicide scene). He hangs up.

The phone rings again.

“Bill?” Fonzi opens.

“Yeah,” the caller responds.

Fonzi tells Bill he cannot confirm de Mohrenschildt is dead. Like a good reporter, Bill says he has been trying to run down the story by telephone from Texas. “I checked every medical examiner from Satellite Beach to Key West,” he says, “and there’s no report on this.” He says he’s going to keep working on the story and he asks Fonzi to call him if he learns anything. He hangs up.

Fonzi makes a flurry of calls to his sources in Florida and confirms the story. Then O’Reilly calls for a third time.

“Gaeton,” the caller says. “Bill O’Reilly.” Fonzi shares some details of the story, and O’Reilly tells him his travel plans. “I’m coming down there tomorrow,” he says. “I’m coming to Florida.”

Fonzi tells him to get in contact when he arrives.

“I’m going to take a night flight if I can,” O’Reilly says, “but I may have to go tomorrow morning.”

O’Reilly’s utterances prove that he was not knocking on George Mohrenschildt’s doorstep as he now melodramatically claims. The truth is more prosaic. O’Reilly got a tip on a hot story, worked his sources to confirm it, and rushed to the scene. In making up this story for Killing Kennedy, he slighted the truth of his own professionalism.


AUDIO HIGHLIGHTS Bill O’Reilly explains where he was and what he was doing on March 29, 1977.

1.  “We just got a call from de Mohrenschildt’s lawyer”

2.  “I checked every medical examiner from Satellite Beach to Key West”

3.  “I’m coming down there tomorrow. I’m coming to Florida.”

4) All of Gaeton Fonzi’s phone calls that evening, including his three conversations with Bill O’Reilly.

MORE FROM JFK FACTS: Did Amazon block a challenge to O’Reilly’s lone gunman theory? What Has Bill O’Reilly Learned About JFK?

116 thoughts on “Investigator’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s JFK fib”

  1. Eusebio Delfin

    A Frank Sturgis and Bill O’Riley Question

    Did Bill O’Riley believe Frank Sturgis’s story after he interviewed him?

    O’Riley never mentioned anything about the interview or Frank Sturgis in his book Killing Kennedy.

    The fact that Bill O’Riley did not mention either in his book (the man Sturgis and the interview with him), does that mean O’Riley did not believe Sturgis’s story or did he not mention about it because it did not fit into the version of the story he (O’Riley) wanted to sell?


    1. Ronnie,

      I read Bob Sirkin’s version and it’s confusing to say the least. Why has he not gone public following the brouhaha, unless I’ve missed it. As you know, he doesn’t corroborate O’Reilly’s claim of being on the doorstep of the Tilton Mansion, but he does place into question whether or not O’Reilly phoned Gaeton Fonzi from Dallas. Most Dallasites I know would have used ‘get “over” there,’ rather than “down there” as O’Reilly did. But why hasn’t he clarified he was actually in FL, just not on the steps as shots were fired, particularly if he has Sirkin to back him up? Maybe he and Sirkin and Fox were just wild and crazy guys out on the town on the corporate payroll, they missed the scoop and they don’t want to own up to it? Seems a bit silly considering the stakes.

      According to Bill Minutaglio and Steven Davis in “Dallas 1963,” Stanley Marcus extended a cordial albeit unofficial invitation to Kennedy during his meeting along with Texas Instruments’ Erik Jonsson in the Oval Office in 1961; they were attempting to persuade the president to consider funding a federal center in Dallas. Early in November, 1963, during a business meeting Marcus blurted out, “I think we ought to see whether or not we can persuade President Kennedy to change his mind about visiting Dallas,” adding “I don’t think this city is safe for it.”

      Oddly enough, Erik Jonsson sat on Stanley’s board at Neiman Marcus in 1963, and was the president/chairman of the hosts of the Trade Mart luncheon, Dallas Citizens Council and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest. I wonder if Stanley expressed his concern to Jonsson?

    1. “Whitewash: gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.[1].”

      We know that is not the intention of the author, but it may well be the result.

  2. Incidentally, one thing about this I don’t think anyone has mentioned is that Gaeton Fonzi’s version of events, which I think can safely be assumed to be accurate, is to my way of thinking much more flattering to O’Reilly than the latter’s half-baked lie. In GF’s telling, O’Reilly comes off as an intrepid reporter working hard to chase down the truth of a rumor that he’s heard, concerned solely with whether or not it’s factual. In his own telling, he’s like someone who just happens to be standing on a street corner when a bus goes out of control, jumps a curb, and crashes into a building. He could just as well have been the Avon Lady, or the Fuller Brush Man.

  3. Schoolbook Repository

    I posted about this lie shortly after Billo’s “book” came out and was attacked by one “Gary Mack” via PM message.

    Good to see it’s made it to the mainstream.

    Thanks for your posts and hard work.

  4. A search of the National Archives JFK assassination database turns up a number of CIA records on George de Mohrenschildt that have partial redactions. This is an example of the withholding of relevant information that continues more than fifty years after the assassination.

  5. It is nice to see Old Bill freak out like this.I’ve always suspected that he doesn’t deal with pressure very well and is in his own little world.Now,Bill the infallible is being revealed as being a mere mortal after all.

    1. And Dershowitz has also been freaking out about the charges against him. I suspect in both cases that is guilt speaking. (I was going to say “a guilty conscience,” but I wonder if they have consciences.)

  6. [Morley:]

    “he slighted the truth of his own professionalism.”


    Somehow, glorious, beautiful truth managed to escape.

  7. Great story. Glad to see it help trigger some media awakening. Indeed Bill O’Reilly feasibly is to a JFK witness what Brian Williams was to helicopters. Hopefully this will draw new eyes to the JFK case as well long-term.

  8. Thanks for Posting my comment Jefferson! I did a Post on my Facebook page months ago and mentioned how I call O’Reilly’s series of “Killing Books” “Killing The Truth!” When his latest “Falklands Story” came out, I remembered immediately how You outed him after “Killing Kennedy” came out. I believe with the Evidence You’ve Provided that IS a Bigger Story than his Falklands escapades! I hope Shane McBride is wrong and they run with that one too!But I know Shane and so many other decent people are with US in righting the wrongs in America. Journalism should be just like my Late World War II. Hero and Police Captain Dad taught me. The Story (Or Prosecution) is not supposed to be about You. It’s supposed to be about the Victims and Their Loved Ones. I’ve seen that as a Major Problem in The Mainstream Press for quite some time. So many of them, (and I’ve dealt with some of the Biggest Names Privately), elevate themselves above the True Stories. Keep Up The great work Jefferson!

  9. I would certainly not discourage anyone from looking further into O’Reilly’s misdeeds or outright lies… He certainly deserves the heat after the decades long deceptive punditry he has performed, whether you agree with his politics or not.

    I feel the bigger issue here is that there is a huge game being played in the media field which is somewhat typical for a pre-election year, where the chess pieces get rearranged in preparation for whatever ideology, trend, social engineering “they” want to push in order to achieve the desired outcome in the next presidential elections. So, I would argue that this ain’t no spontaneous witch hunt that got triggered by the Brian Williams affair. (Two quick and obvious examples come to mind: Dan Rather and Keith Olberman)

    Number one reason for this reasoning is the hypothesis that, just like in politics, from local governing bodies all the way to the president, irrespective of their political views or actions, anyone who does not have any skeletons in their closet, and therefore not blackmail-able, is simply not allowed to climb up the ladders of fame and wealth and power. The powerful simply don’t tolerate any ticking time bombs amongst their ranks, and therefore, they always have a fail-safe switch to discard anyone who becomes undesirable, or who has exhausted their usefulness.

    The second main indication to a planned reshuffling of the chessboard is the taste of the main stream media pudding. As the post above clearly shows, his lie about where he was when Von Mohrenschildt was suicided was already exposed back in 2013′ and was certainly known to at least him, his ghost writer, and whatever associations the ghost writer had… It’d be fair to say that, a lie like that, published in his own book nonetheless, is countless folds larger than the issue about where he was during the Falklands war… But, nobody, cared, nobody reported on it, and he confidently carried on spewing his agenda on the airwaves, repeating his lie in interviews about his Killing Kennedy book, which was a new installment of his “Killing ……. For Dummies” series.

    Lastly… I suppose it is clear that bill will not survive this… If the Von Mohrenschildt lie doesn’t do it, there must be quite a few more lined up to hit him until he starts considering “spending more time with his family” to avoid being tarred and feathered out of the limelight in total disgrace. I would suspect his questionable sexual practices would be the ultimate “eject” button for poor old bill… (No, I don’t think he is poor… He is a sinister, duplicitous and immoral dickhead who was instrumental in dragging the U.S. and the whole world in to decades of war and killing)

    Third main point is that, with the Williams and O’Reilly revelations, all the top media people are now peeing in their pants and, at the very least, reconsidering their alliances and affiliations. During the hot days right after the Williams revelations, Joe Scarborough can be seen literally freaking out on air, clearly shaken by what was happening to Williams, and throwing out outright threats which I could summarize as “I know things, so you’d bettr not f***k with me”… (Will post link when I find the clip online)

    As for the chessboard… If you are into reading tea leaves, it’ll be quite interesting and revealing to see first who else will be discarded, and then who will replace them and what these new people are trumpeting… Could give some valuable insight in to what the powers that be desire for the post-Obama world.

    1. “‘Killing …… For Dummies’ series”

      That’s priceless!

      What’s interesting about all this lying is that they do it about so much. Williams has also told some tall tale about looking down from his French Quarter hotel room and seeing a corpse float by in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the French Quarter is one of the highest areas in the city and didn’t get flooded. O’Reilly is also being taken to task for having claimed to have played varsity football while at Marist College. Marist had a club football team at the time, and didn’t field an NCAA level varsity team until long after he’d graduated. There’s also been some talk about him claiming to have had a tryout with the New York Mets, a team he claims he loved passionately, when he was 21, and being hugely impressed by very hard throwing young hurler he didn’t recognize at the same session, who turned out to be — Tom Seaver! Except that O’Reilly turned 21 in 1970, by which time Seaver was one of the biggest stars in baseball.

      1. At face value, the lies in question can be considered white lies with no actual harm to anyone. At the same time, all of these lies are merely distraction or misdirection form the actual, extremely harmful, sinister and unpardonable lies (sometimes simply by omission) both Wiliams and O’Reilly, as well as countless news people, have told the world.

        I think it’d be a huge mistake to put any weight to the disclosed lies… They are character flaws at best, opportunistic lies at worst, when compared to the criminal deception these people have been engaging in for decades.

        Just like we should not believe our president was impeached for lying about some presidential booty call, or that Patreus was removed from his post as the Director of CIA for a stupid sexcapade… All of which is hardly any different than locking up a serial killer for a week for public urination.

        1. Inventing stories about being in a helicopter that was shot down, seeing a dead body float by on a street that didn’t even get flooded (Brian Williams), being present when a man commits suicide (actually hearing the gunshot that takes his life!), and claiming you were in a combat zone when in fact you were over 1,000 miles away in Buenos Aires (O’Reilly), are not white lies. And since we know the latter has lied about great matters, even the Walter Mittyesque tall tales about his athletic exploits would seem to be evidence of just how deeply this compulsion to lie is ingrained in O’Reilly’s psyche. The man can’t be trusted about anything.

          1. Let me, just for the sake of the argument, accept that these are not white lies… Fine.

            I would be very curious to know which one of the many pundit and “news” personalities in the main stream media you feel ARE trustworthy. And what shade you feel O’Reilly’s and Williams’ lies are within the spectrum of 50 shades of lies we were told over the past few decades.

          2. David Hazan:

            “I would be very curious to know which one of the many pundit and ‘news’ personalities in the main stream media you feel ARE trustworthy.”

            These days, just about none. Which is why when I read/hear/see news stories about which I have doubts, I look at all sorts of alternative media, keeping in mind one of the words of Claud Cockburn, “Believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”

            As to your other request, ranking the dissemblings/misremembrances/lies of Williams and O’Reilly against others of the past (say those of Walter Duranty) is irrelevant. By their acts, they have shown themselves to be completely unworthy of anyone’s trust. That’s the only thing that matters.

          3. Greetings, Marie.

            An online biography of Bill O’Reilly says he taught high school from 1971-1973. So he lasted two years.

            It’s nice to see you commenting on this thread.

          4. Thanks for your reply, Fearfaxer.

            it was not my intention to antagonize you.

            One would need to go no further than the Daily Show archives to find the criminal level deceptive commentary and outright lies that O’reilly has indulged in, from 9/11 to the War on Terrrriirizm…. I would even go as far as saying that there is really very little in O’Reilly that is honest, and that includes his political views and public stance.

            In my original comment about the topic, I tried to point out that these seemingly harmless secrets, or sexual deviancies render these very public figures totally compromised, and serve as a leash for their blackmailers to tug on at will and say “Hey Bill.. Tell the people about WMD!!!”… And Bill goes “woof woof”

            And you may be right about the De Mohrenschildt lie not being a white one. From what i am reading, at the time of his “suicide”, De Mohrenschildt was in the house with two maids… Neither one of whom heard the gunshot. So, it might have been a clumsy and self-serving attempt to provide a “witness report” to an otherwise questionable suicide that no one can confirm actually happened.

  10. Well Done Jefferson Morley!I posted a comment about the fact that O’Reilly fabricated the Baron’s Demise story on Facebook today at a friends site, giving you the credit for exposing that myth.I tried to deal with O’Reilly years ago, and though he came to my house in Southern New Jersey, refused to even do an off the cuff interview and took off. In his book Killing Patton he also tells a tall tale how Josef Stalin had Gen. Patton murdered, when in fact “Wild Bill” Donovan and his OSS Assassins did the job. The Late Great OSS/CIA Officer; Douglas Bazata was our source on that. He admitted how Donovan offered him and everyone involved $10,000.00 to kill the Great General. Douglas refused but Donovan came back after the fact and bragged how they killed “Old Guts and Glory” on their 3rd attempt in the Hospital. Larry Abraham provided the confession to a High Ranking Military friend of mine in the early 90’s. Who then gave it to me. It was later stolen from my house during a break in! But can possibly still be seen in The Spotlight News” of 1991 where Agent; Bazata’s account is given word for word in the news story Larry wrote. Maybe that confession that Douglas gave is still available.??????? Fox News has known this for many years, and even ran Ollie North’s “War Stories” show to falsely pin the blame on Agent; Bazata a few years back. That is a Typical Cover Story for the CIA, which every Mainstream Press Agency Serves, along with British MI6. “Operation Mockingbird!” Thanks for Outing O’Reilly. I truly believe this outing of Brian Williams and O’Reilly could start a dismantling of The MI6/CIA controlled agents in the press. Which has been long overdue. Sincerely, “The Specialist” I’m on Facebook in El Paso, Texas P.S. And I’m really There! Lol!

    1. Truman disbanded the OSS in September 1945, and Donovan returned to civilian life at that point. General Patton had his car accident on Dec. 9, 1945 and died on Dec. 21, 1945. If your story is true, I guess it shows how much power Donovan retained over the “intelligence community” even as a civilian.

      1. Donovan retained power because the infrastructure he built within the OSS was directly related to his civilian life, and he returned to Donovan Leisure law firm, his wife’s financial connections and anything related.

        Dulles, a protegee of Donovan retained a significant level of power following his abrupt firing from the CIA because the same infrastructure remained in place that would defer to the power of his civilian world – Sullivan Cromwell, United Fruit and the extraordinary international connections the Dulles family had amassed over the decades.

        Donovan was at Nuremberg; lower level attorneys during the trials included Robert G. Storey and Robert Stewart, both from Dallas who would return to civilian life and attain relative power and influence in Dallas. Storey would serve as liaison between DA Henry Wade’s office and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles. It is reasonable to assume that Storey and Stewart knew, or knew of Allen Dulles through their experience with Donovan at Nuremberg.

        This is where the power lies and this is how it is perpetuated; not within our elected government but through the exclusionary web of personal, familial, ideological and financial realms.


  11. O’Reilly pursued the conspiracy angle of the JFK assassination until it became more lucrative for him to tow the corporate line. He has sponsors to please and ratings to preserve both of which would be adversely impacted if he did not now follow the Oswald did it alone theory.

    @Louis–No one figured Oswald for Walker because he didnt try to kill him. There is no admissible evidence pointing to him. the bullets could not be matched to his rifle to the exclusion of all others. no one saw him riding a bus with a rifle either to or from the scene (the only way he could travel). and the guy who supposedly accomplished what few trained snipers could achieve was unable to hit the stationary Walker who was effectively at point blank range?

    Those who believe in a conspiracy are often dismissed as folks who cant accept that a “low life” could have killed a president. But it is the lone gunman believers who actually suffer from a deeper affliction. This is demonstrated-remarkably-in Vincent Bugliosi’s book. Why he is such an ardent defender of the WC. Look at pages 986-988 and page 1011. The answer is there for all to see. Its all about what this would mean about our beloved America. We are not a “banana republic.” The idea of a conspiracy is “repellant” to him and the institutions of our country. They are the ones who are not living in reality…..

    1. Field Marshall von Manstein famously refused to take part in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler because “Prussian officers do not mutiny” and, if they did, that would make Germany a “Bananenrepublik”.

    2. “The answer is there for all to see. Its all about what this would mean about our beloved America. We are not a “banana republic.” The idea of a conspiracy is “repellant” to him and the institutions of our country. They are the ones who are not living in reality…..”

      Good one Larry!

      Those who have a more nuanced and sophisticated historical worldview know that the USA wasn’t founded in a vacuum by builders of “a shining city on a hill.” It had good and bad people, often a mix within people (like Thomas Jefferson), and awful deeds done to the original inhabitants, slavery as an institution, a war with Mexico in which we literally stole Texas, but also many good things in our history as well. If you look at the JFK assassination within the context of a more sophisticated historical worldview, it doesn’t seem so farfetched. It fits a pattern of ugliness that got mixed in with the good things about our country. I think the people who believe in the “no wrong CIA” view are like Stalinists who could see no wrong in their leader, even when Krushchev came to power and revealed the purges and mass killings that Stalin was responsible for. These Stalinists can’t see the corruption out of blind, no questions asked patriotism.

    3. Yes Larry,
      There truly is a ‘Conspiracy of Psychology Theories’:
      Design masquerading as Diagnosis – social engineering in the guise of social analysis, ie; psychologism and scientism, a cultist pretense to science. In essence, a theology.

      The derogatory term “Conspiracy Theorist” seems to have entered the popular vocabulary by a conspiracy itself, put forth in this document: “CIA Dispatch 1035-960” from 1967.

      New generations of this cult of coincidence theorists pretending at “Psychology” can be found being hatched here:

  12. Pingback: There’s something magical about 1200 miles - Atheist Boutique

  13. Frank DeBenedictis

    I’d like to see O’Reilly explain more on this.I know some don’t like Bill O’Reilly because of his political punditry, but I think this aspect of the story makes his involvement in the overall investigation into the JFK story more interesting. As for David Corn, he has contributed nothing to this debate. I went to the NATION office when he worked with them, and he wouldn’t even look up to talk. He wasn’t much better when he went to an event at Politics and Prose.

  14. I respect those who have doubts about the Warren Commission, and admire anyone who seeks the truth about the murder of JFK.
    And I’m repulsed by liars, a**holes, and buffoons like O’Reilly.
    Among those who have sincerely studied all the available information, is there any general agreement? Will the actual story ever be unveiled ?

  15. I would like put on the record for any “new eyes” readers of JFK Facts that Bill “O’Reilly’s book on the JFK assassination, “Killing Kennedy,” is an absolutely inexcusable lone nutter mess that just simply ignores 52 years of JFK research that prove that Kennedy’s death was a high level domestic American political murder.

    LBJ Did It. But one good critique of O’Reilly is from Jim DiEugenio in 2012 when “Killing Kennedy” came out:

      1. I agree with James, and I think Morrow does too, if you read his blog posts. There’s a key which you can find in LBJ’s past: His ties to Brown & Root, and to Big Oil. Those are some powerful special interests to be tied to, to say the least. Barry Goldwater seemed to see the connection, as Morrow points out, in his October 1973 statement about LBJ. Historian Caro alludes to it, but doesn’t connect all the dots, in his treatise on LBJ. I think connecting these dots helps to explain why LBJ was not really a liberal, but a cold-blooded calculating oil man, not as far apart from Murchison and the Hunt brothers as surface skimmer historians would have us believe. And finally, because LBJ was connected to these groups, who I think are also tied to conservative foreign policy-makers in intelligence and in the military, the dirty little secret of a banana republic styled domestic coup is just too nasty for the media to admit to. Uncovering this mess is still viewed as too dangerous and damaging to the USA, so nobody can open up the JFK assassination as a result, even today. That seems to explain why most of the blow hards defending the lone nut position are conservatives or sheep dipped liberals tied to the old Brown & Root special interests. To come clean on this mess will require a level of honesty and soul searching like what happened in apartheid South Africa, or the Germans after the holocaust.

      2. LBJ very well have been in on the plot with the CIA. But the CIA had its own reasons for wanting to eliminate JFK. And they wouldn’t have done so just because the Vice President told them to. They were perfectly capable of not going along even with the President.

        Which is not just shown by what they did to JFK. When Nixon wanted them to do things they did not want to do, the result was that they brought him down with Watergate.

        1. CIA had Gerald Ford in the Veep slot ready to help once Nixon went down. Then when Ford became president, he installed Rockefeller as the new Veep. It sounds like CIA develops working relationships with pols, and needs them to be on their side, if Frank Church v. Dick Helms is to be followed. Next, after the “barren years” when Carter was president (but not sophisticated enough to know how to handle CIA), George Bush came in as Veep under Reagan, and the teamwork resumed. Am I missing something? Or do I read things correctly? ; |

        2. lysias,
          Who specifically do you mean when you say,”the CIA?” Not everyone working for that agency or other intel agencies at the time had reasons for wanting JFK eliminated. I’m wondering if you think, “they” were a “collective mind set” or was it not made up of individuals operating under the guise of their agency’s credentials but in fact reporting to other forces? I think it’s incumbent on the next generation of researchers to drop the terminology ‘THE” CIA. FBI, MI, MI-C, OIL, ANTI-CASTRO, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ET AL, and begin naming names.

          I lean toward the supposition that Watergate was a set up because I believe the Executive Branch has been under attack from 1963. However, suggesting that,”the CIA” was responsible does nothing to progress the argument; qualifying the accusation to “individuals who used their credentials with the agency (or perhaps another agency) to hire and maneuver contract agents who had also been involved at the very least on the periphery in the 1963 coup” narrows the scope and makes it more real.

  16. Whatever the merits of Oswald’s background, connections, actions and aim on November 22, 1963, the latest evidence points to Secret Service agent George Hickey’s rifle firing (from the car directly behind the presidential limo) as he removed the safety and turned to shoot at Oswald. Tragically, Hickey’s finger squeezed prematurely and JFK took the random bullet to the back of the head. It is theorized this is the real reason the Secret Service acted so suspiciously on that day and helped “cover-up” negligence at the highest levels of presidential security.
    To this day, JFK’s brain, wherever it rests, may contain bullet fragments of Hickey’s service rifle.
    Be well.

    1. socrates2,

      I would say that your theory of Hickey accidentally shooting Kennedy falls in the same category of screwball theories such as Greer turning around and shooting Kennedy with a pistol, or Jackie shooting him with a derringer… yea both of these assertions have been made.

    2. Anonymous Contributor

      You’ve fallen for a hoax, Socrates, old chap. The ‘Secret Service agent shot JFK by accident’ theory is not ‘the latest evidence’. It first came out twenty years ago, and was quickly demolished back then.

      None of the closest witnesses reported a shot coming from the Secret Service car, and the Charles Bronson film shows that George Hickey’s gun is not visible at the time of the shooting. The Secret Service certainly played a part in the cover-up, but that doesn’t imply that they did so because one of their members killed JFK. More information here:

      Pat Speer has written an excellent critique of the ludicrous TV show that you presumably got your information from:

      1. Actually it is misleading to call it a hoax. The authors of this theory genuinely believe/d in the possibility that this took place. Much of the evidence that could determine whether this theory has any merit has been been eliminated/covered up by the CIA (the removal of the firearm from service and from assessment; the lack of cooperation re investigation of the firearm, the absence of the brain evidence, the shoddy assessment of ballistic evidence in the presidential vehicle …). The theory is also based on ballistic evidence. Opponents of this theory over-dismiss this with language that suggests that there was impropriety in respect of the efforts of those who investigated accidental shot theory.
        The many witness accounts behind the presidents vehicle at ground level of smelling gunpowder after the fatal shot, is not adequately explained by other theories. The eyewitness testimonies of Secret Service and other witnesses’s also corroborates the possibility the said firearm was raised and perhaps shot at the time of the fatal shot.

        1. Anonymous Contributor

          Mariano writes: “The many witness accounts behind the presidents vehicle at ground level of smelling gunpowder after the fatal shot, is not adequately explained by other theories.”

          The smell of gunpowder at street level is explained perfectly well by other theories. It is consistent with a shot from anywhere close to the street, such as the grassy knoll.

          Mariano also writes: “The eyewitness testimonies of Secret Service and other witnesses’s also corroborates the possibility the said firearm was raised and perhaps shot at the time of the fatal shot.”

          There is no such possibility. The Bronson film shows that George Hickey’s gun was not raised at the time of the fatal shot. If the gun was not raised, Hickey could not have shot JFK. There is a photograph which does show him holding his gun in the air, but that photograph was taken further down the road, when the car had reached the other side of the Triple Underpass, something like half a minute after the shooting.

          1. The Bronson film does not show unequivocally that the gun was not raised.
            At the instant of the fatal shot follow up car is not in the frame.
            I have seen no film that displays the follow up car at the instant of the fatal shot, however there are witness statements that suggest the firearm was raised, including a statement by a SS agent.

      2. There were many reports of the smell of gun powder around the President’s vehicle, especially behind the vehicle.

    1. Hi Cassandra

      Welcome! Wish you hadn’t waited so long to comment. We always need more smart women on here. 🙂

      Just a word of warning, you’ll need the patience of Job, the forbearance of Ghandi and the ability to go into a zen state of denial to stop yourself from swearing at certain posters.

      And don’t worry about Photon. He doesn’t play nicely with anyone in Jeff’s sandbox. We’ve being trying to socialise him but to not much effect. What can I say? He’s a biter.

  17. I am just now reading Andreas von Buelow’s book Die Deutschen Katastrophen, about Germany and the world wars. Buelow claims Walter von Mohrenschildt, a Baltic German noble who was a member of the SA, was one of the people involved in setting the Reichstag Fire. According to his Wikipedia entry, this involvement is controversial among historians. But his membership in the SA is in no dispute at all.

    I wonder how, if at all, he was related to George de Mohrenschildt.

    1. The Reichstag Fire, by the way, had its own designated patsy, who was accused of being the lone nut solely responsible for setting the fire. He was named Marinus van der Lubbe. He was convicted of setting the fire at the time, and executed. Orthodox history today still apparently accepts the lone nut account of this event.

      As I learn from von Buelow’s book, the German for “designated patsy” is Suendenbock.

    2. German lawyer Hans Bernd Gisevius worked for the Gestapo in its early months in 1933. He developed a fascination with the Reichstag Fire, and conducted his own investigation of it. He became convinced the Nazis were responsible for it. His account of the fire can be found in his book Bis zum Bitteren Ende.

      Gisevius became a friend of Allen Dulles’s during the war, as he had occasion to visit Switzerland several times during the war, and kept Allen Dulles informed of developments having to do with the German resistance and the plot to kill Hitler. After the war, he spent several years in the United States, where he became a friend of Prescott Bush and was involved in the early years of the CIA.

  18. Two things always stood out to me. (One): Everyone pointing at the Grassy Knoll, not the depository building. I was in the military back in the 40s and know the buzz of a bullet whizzing by close enough to hear it. (Two): Some footage from the day of Kennedy’s death showed a young man with a wife & child (or children)facing the road toward Kennedy. He ducked and pulled his loved ones down, then looked back and up toward the knoll. He was a veteran. He later said he heard a shot from behind, and heard the buzz of a bullet pass his ear, coming from behind him (not from his left). It’s a sound you don’t forget.

    1. BTW, I don’t watch O’Riley. I don’t care for his demeanor or views at times. When I first read of “Killing Kennedy” and the conclusion it comes to I figured it was a sham.

    1. He probably won’t. His poorly researched “Killing” books should have already exposed his awful tendency to exaggerate and bloviate, plus his total LIE about his earlier JFK assassination reporting raises serious red flags about this man’s poor character. The wing nuts who watch FOX don’t want to hear dissenting facts. They want to feel from the heart, like people in church. Reason checks out the door and ‘touchy-feely’ emotion takes over. The people who love Bill O’Reilly are not going to change their minds. If anything, they will just harden their support for the guy. Brian Williams doesn’t have that kind of fan base. His audience is more middle of the road, not the kind of whacked out fans who will support him no matter what. So Williams goes down, O’Reilly gets a “hail Caesar” and stays on.

  19. I doubt O’Reilly has the integrity to admit that he was wrong, and that what he did was wrong. Assuming the management at Fox News has the courage, does anyone on this planet believe they would compel O’Reilly to suffer any sanction, vis a vis Brian Williams?

        1. When I first watched FoxNews, I saw two things that immediately told me what this network was all about. First, the news reporter YELLING the news to his listeners, next were two reporters LAUGHING at the news they had just reported(I think it was about Democrats). Can you imagine Cronkite, Huntley, or Brinkley acting in those manners as they report the news? They did it the right way. FoxNews? No.

  20. I found OReilly’s claim quite incredible and don’t doubt he is capable of “embellishing” the truth. I suspect he has been telling this account for many years without anyone complaining. His book seems more like a basic introduction to Kennedy and does not make any real effort to present any theories. It is a very easy read but offers nothing new.

    For myself, I accept Oswald as the lone gunman and believe he was fully capable and self motivated to commit the assassination. But I also believe there could be much more to be known. IMHO the FBI certainly at a minimum failed to protect Kennedy and the Warren Commission treaded lightly with regards to the FBI’s handling of Oswald’s files! Not surprising since the commission’s members were picked by LBJ and Hoover. Oswald’s attempt on General Walker together with George De Morhenschildt’s awareness of Oswald’s feelings towards Walker and knowledge of the scoped rifle are concerning. For me it is more plausible that Oswald’s attempt on General Walker was passed on to the CIA or FBI by George De Morhenschildt and reached Hoover who decided to keep it from the Dallas police with the hope that Oswald, on his own initiative, would kill the President. Hoover was facing mandatory retirement and JFK did not intend to allow him to stay on. An LBJ presidency would ensure Hoover retaining his most powerful position as director of his beloved Bureau. Hoover might even have rationalized it as necessary for national security that he remain at the helm of the FBI. He was arguably the most powerful man in Washington, in a position to control access to information and was certainly willing to use it to his advantage. Despite the Warren Commission’s attempt to minimize it, the FBI’s failure to consider Oswald a suspect in the Walker incident was either a colossal incompetence or intentional. It seems absurd that De Morhenschildt, after learning of Oswald’s scoped rifle on April 14th,would not have thought Oswald may have shot at Walker 4 days prior. It immediatly entered his mind since he joked about it while at the Oswald’s. De Morhenschildt’s anti communist background, intelligence connections and involvement with the Dallas Russian community would have made him a likely informer. The FBI employed thousands of such “assets” at the time. It seems reasonable to presume he would have at least passed this info regarding Oswald’s rifle on to “someone”. That it never came to the attention of the Dallas police is disturbing and perhaps even telling. Recall the purported exchange between FBI agent Hosty and Dallas police Lt. Jack Revill detailed in Revill’s memorandum written within hours of the shooting in which he states Hosty told him the FBI believed Oswald capable of the assassination (but never believed he would do it). The Warren Commision chose to accept Agent Hosty’s denial that he said that. Even without De Morhrenschildt the FBI should (would?) have wondered who took the shot at Walker, a nationally known and controversial right wing extremist, and Oswald would be an obvious suspect whose name should have been provided to Dallas police (as well as the secret service prior to Kennedy’s Dallas trip). They were well aware of his political views as well as his violent nature and activism. The timeline is at least interesting…

    April 10:Walker shooting

    April 14: De Morhenschildt’s visit Oswald’s and notice scoped rifle (and joke about Lee shooting at Walker before departing)

    April 23: LBJ makes public announcement published the next day in Dallas newspaper about Kennedy visiting Dallas.

    I would not rule out the possibility that the mafia or some others also had a desire to kill Kennedy but it does not mean they were connected to Oswald.

    It is possible I suppose that Oswald’s psychological profile made him a likely and willing assassin, which could have been foreseen and manipulated but I think it more likely he acted independently but with the knowledge (and approval) of Hoover. I don’t believe our government would want it known if Hoover had intentionally left Oswald alone to potentially commit the assassination. It would be a tremendous blow to public confidence and eclipse Watergate and perhaps even Viet Nam as national disgraces. Hoover also had tremendous influence as would LBJ. But as to other shooters from the grassy knoll…well there certainly is still an audience for such theories just as there is an industry anxious to feed it.

    1. I think this theory is entirely possible and even though Oswald is shooting alone I still consider it a conspiracy because people in power allowed it to happen when it could have been prevented, then covered up any connections that might have been discovered after the fact.

      Here are the conditions under which Oswald “acting alone” is still a conspiracy:

      1. He is known to the intelligence community and allowed to go about making plans to assassinate the president and possibly even encouraged to do so.

      2. He is murdered by Jack Ruby to cover up those associations.

      3. There may have been “assistance” to Oswald that he didn’t even know about ie a trained shooter in front in the grassy knoll to make sure the job got done. You can’t waste a good opportunity.

      4. The Warren Report covers up #1-3 so that the new government can move on, putting all the blame on Oswald and no else. Very convenient.

      This model may have been put in use for the assassination of RFK as well minus #2.

      1. In all fairness to Louis I consider the typical lone nut view and many complicated conspiracy theories far more far-fetched. This convergence point of view takes the strong points of lone nut theory and conspiracy theory and brings them together in a streamlined manner that is consistent with a lot of evidence.

    2. Louis, the DeMohrenschildts told the Voshinins after the Walker shooting and Mrs V stated she called the FBI about their suspicion. Walker himself indicated he knew that Oswald was suspected at the time, that authorities (not clear which) informed him of that, in April. Walker, who RFK had locked up in the nut-house until Thos Szasz helped spring him, believed that Oswald was acting with the protection of the Kennedy Justice Dept

    3. O’Riley’s claim is quite incredible but the lone nut is believable? Oswald’s psychological profile was about a 120 IQ, a trained radar operator fluent in Russian.

      1. There is also the corroboration by CIA agent Nicholas Anikeefe that he met with GDM in DC prior to his departure to Haiti. The CIA could have learned of the Walker attempt at this point, setting things in motion to pin the JFK assassination on Oswald.

  21. Bill O’Reilly’s book just is a Warren Commission re-hash, a discredited report being passed off as “history”. Oswald wasn’t a loser kicked out of the Marines. He left over a controversial “hardship” and his discharge was changed later.

  22. I picked up O’Reilly’s book while at a store yesterday and went to the index at the back . Except for two pages of inane conversation, I saw no references to the Warren Commission . Nothing about Sylvia Meagre , Peter Dale Scott , Harold Weisberg , Robert Groden , Dr Cyril Wecht , David Talbot , etc . Didn’t check to see if Gaeton Fonzi’s name was in there . But Elvis Presley was there . Maybe that was because of the songs he “stole” from several Blues artists . O’Reilly would be drawn to that . No wonder O’Reilly , as far as I know , hasn’t used an index in his other books. The mis-information continues.

  23. I believe that there was much more that we missed on that fateful day in 1963…I believe JFK assassination was the attention getter that enabled a new Government to take control of the USA that day in Dallas..A n unelected President that history is proving may well have at the very least known that Kennedy would be murdered in Dallas that day..Lyndon Johnson was a power maniac that would do anything or anyone to get that dreamed for position..He was this close to being indicted for a variety of felony’..and his personal hit man Mac Wallace was probably one of the assassins firing at Kennedy in the Plaza…JFK and the Republic called the United States were both victims of a Coup that day in Dallas.

  24. Bill O’Reilly is a pathological liar. That’s well established and that’s how history will remember him: As a liar.

      1. larry wheeler

        you brought it man!- I went to the museum in 1991 , took the tour, got up to the window, back then it was not glassed in , I got up there ,looked out and realized any assassin firing from that window would take the easier shot firing at jfk coming toward him on Houston street. I voice this to others on the tour and pointed out the tree branches made almost a miracle shot even harder when you had the car coming toward you in clear view – they did not have the zapruder film showing, probably still don’t show it. I got escorted out by security and realized most of these guys hated kennedy, – the grassy knoll tour was free and the truth is found down there.

        1. The trees would have been much smaller in 1963 and I think there are some other photos of the front of the TSBD which show this. I go to the museum every year whilst on an annual business seminar in Dallas and I have been pleasantly surprised that the bookstore now carries a number of “conspiracy” (i.e. truth) books, including some by Robert Groden and David Wrone’s book on the Z film.

        2. This is the first time I’ve seen this point elsewhere, which I had figured out just from the diagram of the motorcade route.I was in the military and have had small arms training. The shot with the limo headed towards the School Book Dep. was dead easy and would have been the shot a LONE shooter would have taken. Not that I believe Oswald shot anyone that day but that’s another deal.

  25. Nice work Rob. I always wanted to read that letter. When George did show up with his little banker friend Mr. Charles, guess who was in his office that day – yes, LBJ.

    1. Notice how Walter Jenkins is hooking De Mohrenschildt with Col. Howard Burris, LBJ’s Air Force attache. Burris was involved in the 1953 Iranian coup … maybe De Mohrenschildt wants a Haitian coup so he can cut exclusive deals with the government.

      That is probably what is going on rather than any JFK assassination-related plotting.

      I do think that Air Force intelligence (see Lansdale & LeMay) was heavily involved in the JFK assassination. H.L. Hunt and D.H. Byrd were very plugged into those Air Force generals for decades and so was LBJ. Charles Cabell, the CIA many who JFK fired was also an Air Force general as well as the brother of Mayor Earle Cabell of Dallas. LBJ knew those men socially & professionally.

        1. lysias, you are correct,

          Lansdale was CIA using the Air Force as cover, as explained in depth by Fletcher Prouty.
          Remember Prouty acted as personal liaison for such introductions between CIA and the services.

  26. And let’s not forget that George De Mohrenschildt was in contact with Vice President Lyndon Johnson’s office in April, 1963. Scroll down and read that critical memo unearthed by ace JFK researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson:

    George De Mohrenschildt, who was Lee Harvey Oswald’s best friend in Dallas, ran in a circle of Texas businessmen (oil men) and politicians (Lyndon Johnson and GHW Bush) who just hate, hate hated the Kennedys. And there is a lot evidence that Oswald was U.S. intelligence with a fake public persona of a pro-Castro Marxist.

    Btw, LBJ’s military aide Air Force Col. Howard Burris was involved in the Iranian coup of 1953 which was backed by the CIA and American oil companies. And an Air Force general Edward Lansdale has been identified at TSBD on 11/22/63 by two of his peers, Col. Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak. And the head Air Force general of the time, Gen. Curtis LeMay was a rabid Kennedy hater, close to Texas oilmen H.L. Hunt and D.H. Byrd and who [LeMay] called the Kennedys “cockroaches” in his LBJ oral history.

    April, 18, 1963 Letter from LBJ’s top aide Walter Jenkins to George De Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s best friend in Dallas

    April 18, 1963

    Dear Mr. Mohrenschildt:

    Your letter has come in the Vice President’s absence from the office — the Congress is in its Easter Recess.
    Next week Mr. Johnson will be participating in the Second Manned Space Seminar in the Southwest, in a Forum in West Virginia in mid-week and has other speaking engagements that will take him out of town. Since we are faced with that situation I would like to suggest that you see Colonel Howard Burris, Air Force Aide to the Vice President, when you come to Washington. Should Mr. Johnson happen to have any office hours here during your stay, we will be happy to see if a mutually convenient time can be found for you to meet.

    With warm good wishes,


    Walter Jenkins
    Administrative Assistant to
    The Vice President

    Mr. George de Mohrenschildt
    1939-40 Republic National Bank Building
    Dallas 1, Texas

    1. larry wheeler

      Oswald was “handled’ by the coup plotters and then plugged in to be the designated patsy. it worked, but once you peel back the layers of deceit one can see the tangled web. there is no way a man with demohrenschidt’s background would befriend a Marxist pro castro defector in texas in the early 60’s. -unless he could be used by them. people have profiles – they are who we are- but 180 opposites don’t hang out and socialize unless it’s an intell operation work. George m. even know bush sr. at the petroleum club in dallas or Houston texas, aint no way this can happen with Oswald in the mix unless it’s a frame up job. last man standing wins.

    2. For a thorough analysis of George DeM’s relationships with Geo Bush Sr and LHO, see Russ Baker’s “Family Secrets”.

      1. Oswald was neither a Marxist nor a defector. He was an O.N.I. asset, former Marine on loan to C.I.A. and paid F.B.I. Informer working out of Guy Bannister’s (ex F.B.I) office in New Orleans during summer of 1963.

        1. And Bannister was among those who helped set up Oswald as the patsy.
          I haven’t seen it mentioned here about the “beep beep beep” on the tape recording that was supposed to pick up that soap opera for the lady of the house.

          Two people pointed it out to the official running the inquest. This beeping was a house alarm set on “Soft”, meaning that someone had entered the house just before the gun was fired.

          The jurist running the inquest said that they weren’t going there. He was obviously under pressure from above.

          This is real evidence of murder staged as a suicide. and “suiciding” is the MO of the national security state.

          1. I read the police report. The beeps corresponded exactly with the previous testimony of the maid and gardener as to when they entered and exited the house.

          2. Thank you for posting Ms. Fonzi. I read somewhere several years ago that the shotgun was found in a position that indicated was not a suicide. Was there anything in the report about that or have you ever heard of such?

  27. This is the kind of thing that ought to be making the evening news. But, of course I have no illusions about that happening. These are spooky, spooky times in which we live. Noam Chomsky, although himself an, ‘Oswald acted alone’ proponent, has it right when he talks about “Manufacturing Consent.” The way in which the media has so skillfully learned to manage and manipulate the public mind. ( )

    The lead story on NBC’s, “The Today Show,” is an investigation of fake NFL clothing! Followed by an exposé on some football player’s fake girlfriend. Good grief! It’s nothing more than a commercial for the Super Bowl masquerading as, “news.”

    Meanwhile, one of the most high profile, and allegedly most trusted media personalities of the day writes what’s supposed to be an historical account of one the most important events in American history. It’s marketed to children, it’s on the NYT best sellers list, and yet it has no footnotes, and according to the above article it includes an outright fabrication.

    Oh well, at least now I know I better be on the lookout for those fake NFL jerseys. Never mind fake history books by the guy who’s, “looking for you.”

    1. larry wheeler

      O’Reilly interviews Frank Sturgis and Frank uses the format as a propaganda exercise to blame the “commies” for killing Kennedy. O’Reilly was sitting right across from a cia-mafia operative who did “wet ops”- killings for operation 40 a cia connected assassination team. O’Reilly acted like a shill for Sturgis which makes him a lousy pimp of a journalist.

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