The Assassination of JFK

In January, 1961, after a hard won election, John F Kennedy became the youngest elected President of the United States of America.

Kennedy was popular with the public due to his youth, optimism and charisma, and glamorous image, which was further enhanced by the fashionable beauty of his wife, Jackie Kennedy; and also due to his intentions regarding civil rights, internationalism, improving the economy and cutting income tax, increasing funding for education, reducing unemployment, combating the spread of communism, and reducing organised crime such as the Mafia.

But he was also unpopular with many sections of society: by 1963 many people were suspicious of his professed anti communism, as in 1961 he had sought to hide US involvement in, and refused to provided air cover for, the failing attempt by Cuban exiles to overthrow the communist leader, Fidel Castro; and in the same year failed to prevent the building of the Berlin Wall.

Also in the southern states a history of racial segregation made many white people hostile to his more liberal policies. Groups such as the Klu Klux Klan were prepared to bring this hostility to the point of violence.

This problem of his unpopularity in the southern states prompted Kennedy to tour there as part of his election campaign for the following year. And so on Friday, 22nd November, 1963, Kennedy arrived in Dallas, Texas, one of the most strongly right-wing cities in the country, and began to drive through the city, with the governor of the state, Governor Connally sitting in front of the Kennedy’s in their car.

On the way from the airport the cavalcade passed along Main Street but when it approached Dealey Plaza, instead of continuing straight on, it turned right along Houston Street, and then right again into Elm Street, in order to follow it diagonally across to the railroad overpass, where it joins with Main Street.

But just after the cars had passed into Elm Street, at a little after 12.30 p.m., the President was shot. He slumped forward with both hands reaching for his throat. Governor Connally heard this shot before feeling a bullet strike himself. By this point they were almost halfway across Elm Street. Kennedy was then thrust violently backwards as a second shot hit him in the head.

It is not fully known who was involved in the assassination and it has given rise to many different theories, many of them suggesting a conspiracy of some kind.

However there is also the possibility that the shooting was simply the work of one man motivated politically or by a simple desire for fame.

That is the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission, which was set up in 1963, immediately after the assassination by the newly inaugurated L. B. Johnson, and published its report the following year. In the report it is claimed that 'exhaustive investigation of every particle of evidence it could discover' resulted in the determination that President Kennedy was murdered by a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.

At the time of the assassination Oswald was an employee of the Texas Book Depository, from whence the Warren Commission concluded the shots had come. It is located at the corner between the continuation of Huston Street and Elm Street, as it begins to curve across.

In his testimony taken from the Dallas Police records of 1963, Charles Givens, who also worked at the Texas Book Depository, claims to have seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the building (from which the shots are believed to have been fired) at 11.55. The idea of Oswald being on the sixth floor is affirmed by a second eyewitness, Howard Brennan, who claimed to have seen a man at the sixth floor window.

Also in the Dallas Police records of that year are the conclusions of forensic investigation of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle used in the shooting: Oswald's handprints were found on the barrel and fibres from his shirt on the butt, the last suggesting that he actually fired the rifle rather than perhaps merely handling it.

Investigation of the area near the window found Oswald's fingerprints and three used cartridge cases, which verify that the gun was fired there. This further connects Oswald with the shooting, as does the circumstantial evidence, which shows that the rifle was purchased under a name Oswald possessed forged identity for (A. Hidell). The order form was also judged by handwriting experts to have been signed by Oswald, and it was sent to a P.O. Box owned by him. In addition to closely linking Oswald with the rifle the secrecy and deceit shown to have been involved by this suggest an illegal purpose.

Many people however do not accept the conclusions of the Warren Commission and use the evidence discovered by independent investigation and research to formulate alternative theories. Some do this in an endeavour to explain certain anomalies or incongruities in the official evidence and theory, whilst others begin with a determination to prove the involvement or guilt of certain bodies or individuals and select evidence to support that, in some cased distorting or deliberately falsifying the evidence used.

The general idea present in all conspiracy theories is that Oswald was not the only gunman involved, although the level of his involvement, as well as the identity and number of others involved, is disputed.

The main evidence for these theories comes from the Zapruder film, which is a colour home movie showing the assassination, but there are also a number of important eyewitness accounts that support the theory of additional gunmen, who are generally believed to have been situated behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.

The Grassy Knoll is to the right of Elm street, further along from the Book Depository; the President’s car was situated between the two locations at the time of the shot.

Lee Bowers was employed by the railway to watch the line etc. and for this purpose he was stationed on a tower overlooking the railway - and the Grassy Knoll. He claimed to have seen men behind the picket fence and during the shooting ‘a flash of light or smoke’. His sighting is collaborated by the evidence of Julie Ann Mercer, who saw a man carrying ‘what appeared to be a rifle case’, while she was driving along Elm Street previous to the assassination.

Witnesses closer to the shooting offer similar evidence. Gordon Arnold, a soldier on leave, was standing in front of the Grassy Knoll when he perceived ‘a shot from behind [him], only inches over [his] left shoulder.’ If he was correct then this can only be explained by the presence of a gunman on the Grassy Knoll.

The closest eyewitness was Governor Connally, who heard a shot before he felt ‘a bullet hit [him] in the back’. His immediate thought was that either several people were shooting or else an automatic rifle was being used. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald used was not automatic, which means that if Connally’s evidence is correct Oswald could not have been acting alone.

One of the most important pieces of evidence is the 8mm colour film of the procession – and the assassination, shot by an unpolitically motivated or biased bystander, Abraham Zapruder. This was used to establish the timing of the shots; as it was a silent film this had to be done visually (through observing Governor Connally’s reactions etc.).

Acoustic evidence from a police motorcycle rider travelling beside Kennedy’s car was also used to establish timing: it shows there to have been ‘four shots, fired over a time period of 7.91 seconds’, the first, second and fourth shots coming from the Book Depository and the third from the Grassy Knoll.

To ascertain whether it would have been possible for a single gunman to have fired these shots, police marksmen attempted to replicate the timing (two shots in 1.66 seconds) but were unable to do so. Neither could any of six marksmen hit even a stationary target at the necessary range with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which was slowed by 'a stiff operating mechanism'. This makes it

seem very unlikely that Oswald could have fired all four shots.

X-rays and photographs from the autopsy suggest that Kennedy's head wound was caused by a shot from the front. If this is correct it means that this shot could not have been fired by Oswald. But if this is incorrect and the wound was from behind, it must has been caused by one of the three bullets that were shot from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

A second shot has been established to have missed, which leaves only a single shot to have caused the many further wounds to Kennedy and Connally.

To explain this the Warren Commission formulated what is known, by its detractors, as 'the Magic Bullet Theory', an idea of how the bullet might have done this. This theory seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, and so makes it appear that there were rather other gunmen involved as part of a conspiracy of some kind.

There is therefore evidence that seems to clearly show Oswald's involvement in the assassination and there is also evidence for a conspiracy, evidence that seems to show both that there were other gunmen involved and that it was not possible for him to have carried out the assassination alone. That is, if the evidence is correct.

Eyewitnesses are often not reliable as people often remember things incorrectly and having to describe an event can cause doubt as to the accuracy of the memory. In this case the eyewitnesses would have been aware of the potential importance of their testimony, which would make them nervous and by reason of wanting to be reliable even less so. Most people have a natural tendency to exaggerate and the desire to be involved in such a major event would have been an influence, as would the wish to help.

Mercer's evidence of additional gunmen seems quite weak when this is considered, as she says 'what appeared to be', which suggests she was unsure herself, and as she was driving past she would have been able to see what in retrospect she imagined to be a rifle case only very briefly, so it could easily have been, particularly as this was before the shooting, completely unrelated.

Bower's eyewitness account of gunmen on the Grassy Knoll at the time of the shooting should be accurate as his employment by the railway meant he would have needed to be responsible and observant, but he was situated at a distance, overlooking a busy area, and was employed to watch the railway not the Grassy Knoll. He was unsure whether what he saw was 'light or smoke'; this lack of precision indicates that he was not being intentionally deceitful as he would then most likely have said one or the other, but it also raises the possibility that he was mistaken.

Arnold was located much closer to the Grassy Knoll, between it and the car, and he claims that a bullet passed over his shoulder. A civilian might easily have been mistaken but, as Arnold says, he ‘had just got out of basic training’ and so was accustomed to distinguishing live ammunition, from the sound of blanks for example. His immediate reaction was to ‘hit the dirt’, which shows that his trained reflexes interpreted it so; but it can equally be argued that his training could have made him erroneously sensitive to the sound of gunfire coming from another direction.

Again the validity of Governor Connally’s evidence rests upon the significance of his immediate reaction. If what he claimed is actually what he thought then it is valuable from not being suggested or influenced by later information or reflection. However it is possibly unlikely that he did think all this in the shock of having just been shot.

As the Zapruder film was shot on film in 1963 it could not have been edited or doctored without it being evident, and Abraham Zapruder had no motive for doing so.

It is a silent film and when it was viewed in order to visually ascertain the timing of the shots, events may have been interpreted incorrectly as the picture is not always clear.

The quality of the audio recording from a police motorcycle rider that was used additionally for timing may also have introduced errors, as background noises could have been mistaken for shots.

Although the fact that Police marksmen failed to replicate the shots that it appears Oswald needed to have fired if he was a lone assassin, does make it seem unlikely that he fired them, the difference in circumstances needs to be remembered; people can often achieve what they would be unable to otherwise if under sufficient pressure, as Oswald was. As it is impossible to recreate his emotions and tension it cannot be ascertained what effect this and other unknown factors may have had.

The evidence that seems to show that Oswald was a lone assassin needs to be evaluated in the same way: Givens sighting of Oswald was slightly more than half an hour previous to the shooting and so offers no proof that Oswald was still or again present at the crucial time.

Givens would have been questioned reasonably soon after the event and so his memory should have been accurate; furthermore he made this statement under oath, with an understanding of the consequences of perjury and no suspected motives for deceit.

Brennan would again have been interviewed by the police soon after the event while his memory should have been more accurate, but his evidence against Oswald is less trustworthy as he picked him from a police line up as 'having the closest resemblance to the rifleman he had seen'. This is inconclusive and the angle and distance Brennan saw the man at would have made identification more difficult.

Oswald's fingerprints, which were found at the sixth floor window, could have been entirely innocent as it was his place of employment (although he does not appear to have had any particular reason for having been there) and while the gun was fired and his handprints and fibres from his shirt were found upon it there is no evidence to say that it was him that fired it.

Being set up by the President, the Warren Commission had the power to call any witness and the rapidity of its formation meant that those witnesses were questioned before their memory had become confused or they moved away or died. It was an official enquiry conducted by judges, forensic scientists etc. who were experts in their field and had all necessary power and money.

However operating so soon after the event made it difficult for it to be objective and balanced. It was also under great pressure to find an answer; pressure from the press and public, and from the president, to whom the verdict of a lone assassin was vastly preferable as, Oswald being dead, it would close the case, whilst the revelation of a conspiracy could have caused fear and potential panic.

Also if a communist conspiracy was uncovered, as was considered most likely, it could have had disastrous effects, as this was during the Cold War and the recent Cuban Missile Crisis had left American relations with the Soviet Union particularly delicate.

Oswald himself tried to use his communist / Soviet connections to suggest a conspiracy.

Upon his arrest he attempted to escape blame by claiming that it wasn't him – that he was a 'patsy' and had been set up. These

words were spoken spontaneously, which suggests honesty but it is likely that it was an instinctive excuse, made in order to deflect blame and deny his guilt.

Oswald's actions and words throughout suggest that he was trying to attract attention and gain notoriety, as his killer most certainly was.

Jack Ruby shot Oswald soon after his arrest. The murder was committed openly, on live television, which indicates that he was motivated by a desire for fame. However he could have been forced into it as he claimed ('put me in the position I'm in'), and the mystery he attempts to create as to his motives could be genuine.

He claimed that the conspirators 'will never let the true facts come overboard to the worlds' and that 'the world will never know […] my motives' but failed to give a reason as to why he cannot reveal this, or any evidence that what he was saying was true.

In the years after the assassination and the publication of the Warren Commission's report upon it many independent individuals began to consider the possibility of a conspiracy, with such different groups and organisations as communists, the Mafia, American Intelligence and right wing organisations being proposed.

This led to a three year investigation by the House Select committee on Assassinations, which concluded that President Kennedy was 'probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

The committee was composed of experts on assassination, and like the Warren Commission was a government body.

As sixteen years had passed, making it no longer such an urgent and pressing matter, the H.S.C.A. was able to take a longer time over the investigation than the Warren Commission's nine months. Consequently it ought to have been more thorough and, lacking the pressure of a contemporary investigation, more objective.

However, operating so long after the event was also a disadvantage as the investigation was no longer fresh: they would have had to rely upon forensic evidence etc. collected at the time rather than procuring it directly, and many eyewitnesses would have died or become otherwise uncontactable; the stories of others would have changed due to the inevitable changes of memory and to subconscious influence by media reports, many of which would have suggested a conspiracy.

Therefore eyewitness accounts used by the H.S.C.A. are likely less reliable than those used by the Warren Commission. And although the H.S.C.A. report does conclude that there was a conspiracy it does not commit to any theory or even make a definite answer, using the word 'probably', which suggests uncertainty.

In the decades after the assassination the belief in a conspiracy became so widely held that in 'The World since 1900', an overview of twentieth century history published in 1987, it is stated that 'research has shown enough links between Oswald, the CIA and the Russian KGB to weave half a dozen conspiracy theories'. This would have been the result of research undertaken for the book, which would have made use of information that had emerged during the 25 years since the Warren Commission made its report. The book gives a balanced opinion: it is not seeking to uphold one particular theory but rather says 'we do not know for certain, who killed him or why'. However it is not focused on Kennedy and does not pretend to be remotely in-depth.

As recorded in David Heymann's 1998 book 'RFK', in 1997, former president Gerald Ford admitted to having suppressed FBI and CIA reports that indicated Kennedy had been caught in a Mafia orchestrated crossfire.

This evidence should be accurate as Ford would have had access to the reports and as he was no longer president when he made the disclosure it no longer affected his interests. (In 1975 it would have been damaging as it potentially proved the Warren Commission, a body set up by the government, wrong, which might have caused the public to loose faith).

This revelation could, however, have been a simple bid for attention and even if it was accurate it possibly does not reflect morally well on Ford (which puts under question his honesty) as, while he could no longer be harmed, the information could still have had negative effects for the government, as it additionally emphasised that the government was in the practise of withholding and suppressing information.

Also the context of Heymann's book makes the evidence less trustworthy as books upon the assassination are often biased towards more sensational and controversial theories in order to assist sales.

Based upon these sources it seems quite certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was highly involved in the assassination of President Kennedy; however despite the conclusions of the Warren Commission it seems unlikely that he carried it out alone (due to the improbability of the magic bullet theory etc.) and more likely that, as general opinion holds, there was a conspiracy of some kind involved.

There is no definite evidence for any of the specific conspiracy theories, which often consist of speculation and fabrication, and much of the general evidence is uncertain, but enough of it seems to be correct that it may be used, with the fact that there is no proof that Oswald acted alone, to conclude that he did not.