The South Tampa Tribune rebukes the Associated Press for its recent story on the JFK anniversary. An editorialist for the newspaper Web site noted that the reporter gave credence the “buffoon theorized that Kennedy’s limo driver shot him, as part of an effort to cover up proof of an alien invasion.”
“Shame on the AP for trafficking in such drivel and thus trivializing those who don’t support a lone-assassin theory,” said the Tampa news site. “It was awful timing for bad editing.”
The unsigned editorial concludes with an apt observation about “lone nuts” in American history: “Oswald was no John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme or Arthur Bremer.”
Solid evidence that there was more than one shooter would persuade a jury that at least two people assassinated President Kennedy. But would it persuade a jury that their dual conspiracy involved others?
I fully respect the role of forensics in this case; however, the term conspiracy – combining Oxford and Merriam definitions – suggests ” a group . . . with unusual power,” and two or more shooters does not take the case to conclusion of a conspiracy by definition were I a member of that jury. (As absurd as it sounds, it could be argued that instead of “one lone nut,” there were two . . . perhaps brothers?)
However, if that evidence was presented along with proof that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were at the very least acquainted and (possibly) involved in illegal business together, I would be comfortable with the case for conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is interesting that Oswald’s protestation that he did not shoot John Kennedy was completely ignored by the commission and buried by the press, but Ruby’s explanation of his motive for killing Oswald was accepted by both which redirected any wide public attention from the possibility of a relationship between the two men and rationalized Ruby’s actions in many minds.
Scientifically establishing the projectile striking Kennedy in the head originated from the front is paramount to supporting a second shooter, and thereby establishes a conspiracy. Beveling, fracture sequencing, projectile fragmentation, target movement, and blood spatter in gunshot wounds to the head are current methods of assessing a projectile’s direction of travel. The first is deemed unreliable, the other four support a shot from the front when applied to the evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Importantly, they so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom. The media in general needs to consider how contemporary forensics is impacting assassination conclusions, report what we can now prove, and move away from the “conspiracy theorists all wear tin hats” stories that are just fluff.
On whether Oswald is like John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme, or Arthur Bremer, consider the following, from George de Mohrenschildt’s fascinating manuscript:
“As everyone knows, Russian is a complex language, and he was supposed to have stayed in the Soviet Union only a little over two years. He must have had some previous training, and that point had never been brought up by the Warren Committee – and it is
still puzzling to me….I taught Russian at all levels in a large university, and I never saw such a proficiency in the best senior students who constantly listened to Russian tapes and spoke to Russian fiends. As a matter of fact, American-born instructors never mastered Russian spoken language as well as Lee did.”
“He must have had some previous training.” Think about that.
Also, I can add my own experience on this: I’m a reasonably bright guy with multiple graduate degrees from schools with international reputation. I’m pretty good with foreign languages. I started studying Russian 30 years ago, and lived in Russia for about six months. Like Oswald, I married a woman from the former Soviet Union. And while I can communicate and read pretty well, no one would describe my Russian proficiency in the terms de Mohrenschildt used for Oswald.
By the way, I don’t suppose it’s possible that there is a tape existing anywhere of Oswald speaking Russian. But if there were, and it confirmed de Mohrenschildt’s description of his proficiency, I bet that alone would turn a lot of doubters on whether there was a conspiracy. The image of him fluently conversing in this very difficult language does not fit the mainstream portrayal of him at all.
I’m not saying I think he was some kind of master spy. If he were some kind of intelligence asset, as the South Tampa Tribune thinks, it would probably be the kind of asset that gets manipulated, used, and thrown away.
But that kind of proficiency in Russian is a big deal. And de Mohrenschildt seems very credible on the point. Marina has also been quoted as saying he spoke Russian well, but I think that’s less significant, because Russians tend to give you a lot of credit just for going beyond “hello, please, and thank you.” De Mohrenschildt provides a meaningful evaluation.
In “Harvey & Lee”, John Armstrong makes a persuasive case that the person Jack Ruby killed (“Harvey” Oswald) was a native speaker. He also makes a persuasive case that there was a second Oswald — “Lee” Oswald — whose identity got blended, both pre- and post-assassination, with Harvey’s identity.
I agree with you, EconWatcher, that an American who was trained in Russian could never speak Russian as well as a native speaker.
I have to admit that I thought the “two Oswalds” theory was completely nuts until I read a piece of transcript in which J. Edgar Hoover asserts in recorded discussion right after the assassination that a man who presented himself as Oswald in Mexico City was not the man apprehended in Dallas. I haven’t read Morley’s book about Win Scott yet, but I assume he must get into this.
See Rex Bradford’s entry for November 23, 2012 in JFK Facts (i.e., this site).
LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.
Another comment that has been made about the tape recorded voice of the man impersonating Oswald was that he spoke “broken Russian.” This remark was made in contrast to Oswald’s relative fluency in conversational Russian, as noted by Marina in her comments about first meeting Oswald. See http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5099&relPageId=2 for copy of memo re “broken Russian” and “hardly recognizable Russian.”
See also re Lopez report and controversy about the tape and the voice on the tape-recorded telephone call not being Oswald’s: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0011a.htm.
Whereas the South Tampa Tribune declines to lump Oswald in with Bremer, Fromme and Hinckley, McNeil has no hesitation in describing Oswald as “two-thirds nuts” and “hell bent on doing something.” The Warren Commission Report declined to speculate on Oswald’s motive. (“the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives.” Report, p. 423.) Unlike other assassins, such as John Wilkes Booth (“Sic semper tyrannis.”), Oswald denied “shooting anybody, no sir.” In custody and during interrogation, Oswald defied the profile of a political assassin by denying guilt rather than proclaiming a motive and admitting the shooting. FBI agent Bookhout stated that Oswald emphatically denied shooting Kennedy. “He spoke very loudly…. He gave an emphatic denial.” (Warren Comm. vol. 7, p. 312.) Former Police Chief Jesse Curry told author Anthony Summers in 1977, “One would think Oswald had been trained in interrogation techniques and resisting interrogation techniques.” (See “The Interrogation of Oswald” by William Weston, http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/weston.html.)