Chapter 7: Proving Conspiracy
Table of Contents
Look at the Zapruder Film
In Chapter 5, I mentioned that my curiosity had been aroused by Christian David’s description—in The Men Who Killed Kennedy—of the shots fired at President Kennedy and John Connally. According to David, there were "three guns, four shots, three hits, and one miss." Two shots hit Kennedy, one hit Connally, and one missed the car completely. Furthermore, two shots were fired simultaneously which explains why witnesses heard three shots.
After studying the Zapruder film, I have concluded that David’s version is absolutely correct. Not only is it correct, I realized that the Zapruder film alone proves in a legal sense that there was a conspiracy. All one has to do is look at the Zapruder film.
I highly recommend that anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination go to the nearest video store and rent the Zapruder film. Before viewing it, purge your mind of any pre-conceived notions. Forget what the so-called experts have told you and look at it with an open mind. You will see—as I did—two important things rarely discussed by the so-called assassination experts. First of all, it is quite obvious that Kennedy’s neck wound was caused by a different bullet than Connally’s wounds because there was a four second delay between the time Kennedy grabbed his neck and the time Connally reacted to being hit. The Warren Commission concluded that one bullet hit Kennedy in the neck and caused all of Connally’s wounds. This is known as the "Single Bullet Theory." Simply stated, the Warren Commission’s Single Bullet Theory is impossible.
Secondly, the Zapruder film shows that there must have been at least two gunmen because there was only a one-second delay between the time Connally reacted to being hit in the back and the time Kennedy was shot in the head. That simply was not enough time for one gunman to fire two shots. The Warren Report stated that a minimum of "2.3 seconds" is "necessary to operate the [Mannlicher-Carcano] rifle" to fire two consecutive shots.1 Using the government’s own logic, there had to have been two gunmen because Kennedy was hit in the head less than 2.3 seconds after Connally was hit. According to the government, this would be impossible for one gunman. Using this logic, the shot that caused Kennedy’s head wound could have come from the front or the back, but two gunmen would still have been required because of the one second delay between Connally’s shot in the back and Kennedy’s shot in the head.
The one-second delay between the second and third shots was corroborated by the eye-witness account of Mary Woodward, a junior reporter on the Dallas Morning News at the time of the assassination. In fact she wrote an article describing the assassination before it was even announced that Kennedy had died. The following is Woodward’s description— from an interview years later for The Men Who Killed Kennedy—of the shots she observed:
…One thing I am totally positive of in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other, they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot. …
(The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Cover-up, N. Turner)
We have an eye-witness account and a film of the assassination; both clearly indicate that the second and third shots were immediate. As Mary Woodward stated, "It was almost as if one were an echo of the other." Again, the Warren Report stated that a minimum of 2.3 seconds delay is required between two consecutive shots from the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Keep in mind that Woodward’s observation that she heard three shots does not refute Christian David’s claim that there were actually four shots fired. David also stated that two shots were fired almost simultaneously. Hence, witnesses heard only three shots.
These facts are not complicated. They do not require an expert’s analysis. Any reasonable person of average intelligence can understand them. Yet the sponsors of Kennedy’s murder have trained the public to rely on expert "interpretation" of these simple facts. After viewing the Zapruder film for yourself, it will become clear that most of the so-called assassination researchers have confused the public for years on the notion of conspiracy. The sponsors of Kennedy’s murder have created a general state of public confusion by expressing from all sides so many complex opinions that the public has decided to have no opinion of any kind in matters of conspiracy.
John Connally’s Wounds
The nature of John Connally’s wounds are another topic of debate among the so-called critics of the Warren Report. The facts I am about to present will show that John Connally generally told the truth about his wounds. It will also become obvious that one bullet struck Connally wounding him in five places. In addition, the individual who shot Connally was standing in the vicinity of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository. This does not refute the previously described proof of conspiracy. Remember, the Warren Commission concluded that one bullet hit Kennedy in the neck and also wounded Connally in five places. My position is that one bullet hit Kennedy in the neck, and a separate bullet hit Connally. A third bullet hit Kennedy in the right temple and killed him. Also, the fact that the individual who shot Connally fired from the vicinity of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository does not prove that Oswald was the shooter. Here are the facts.
The position in which Connally was sitting when he was struck is critical to understanding the direction the bullet was traveling. I have also discovered that Connally’s physical position at the moment he was hit is an area in which disinformation abounds. The nature of Connally’s wounds is equally important. The combination of these two things—the physical position he was in when he was hit and the nature of his wounds—makes it fairly easy to ascertain the general location from which the shot was fired.
I have seen at least one hand-drawn diagram, in a popular assassination book, where Connally is sitting in the wrong position when he was hit. In that diagram, Connally is facing forward, but if you view the Zapruder film, you will see that Connally was actually sitting sideways, facing to his right when he was hit. His torso was twisted to the right because he turned to look behind after hearing gunfire from the back. His legs may have pointed forward, but his torso was definitely twisted to the right. This is a critical point.
All of Connally’s wounds were to the left and below the previous wound, but this only makes sense if you understand that his torso was twisted to the right and his legs were facing forward. More specifically, a bullet entered Connally’s back at his right armpit, continued in a straight line exiting the right side of his chest (at the right nipple), entering and exiting his right wrist, and hitting his left thigh.2 The bullet was obviously traveling downward and to the left in a straight line. This means that the individual who shot Connally had fired from a high position, from behind the Presidential limousine, and to the right of it (from the riders’ perspective). In other words, the individual who shot Connally had fired from the vicinity of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository.
Transcript of Connally’s Interview From The Men Who Killed Kennedy
The facts I have just described match Connally’s testimony which states that he turned to look over his right shoulder immediately after hearing the first shot. As he began to turn back around, he was hit. He was not facing forward, as so many of the "false critics" would have us believe. The following is Connally’s description of the shots from The Men Who Killed Kennedy:
Nellie [Connally’s wife] turned to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can’t say now that they don’t love you here in Dallas.
Within a matter of a few seconds after that, we turned on Elm Street to go down to get on the Stemmons Freeway to go out to the Trade Mart where the luncheon was being held. That’s when the shots occurred.
I heard what I thought was a rifle shot. I immediately reacted by turning to look over my right shoulder because that’s where the sound came from.
I didn’t see anything out of the ordinary and was in the process of turning to look over my left shoulder when I felt a blow in the middle of my back as if someone had hit me with a doubled up fist, about like that.
[As he was speaking, he hit his hands together hard, three times, one hand balled in a fist hitting the open palm of the other.]
The blow was of such force that it bent me over [leaning forward to indicate it bent him over in the forward direction] and I immediately saw that I was covered with blood – and I knew I’d been hit. And I said, "Oh my God, they’re gonna kill us all!"
And I heard another shot that was a loud shot almost like that [a gunshot noise is heard as a picture of the Zapruder film shows Kennedy being shot fatally in the head], and immediately I saw blood and brain tissue all over the back of the limousine. I knew then that the President had been fatally hit because Mrs. Kennedy, then, I heard her say, "My God. I’ve got his brains in my hand."
(John Connally, The Men Who Killed Kennedy – The Coup d'état, N. Turner)
Connally’s description of the assassination was consistent with Zapruder film with one exception. I do not believe he said, "Oh my God, they’re gonna kill us all." The reason I don’t believe it is because he only had one second to get those eight words out before the next shot was fired. There simply was not enough time. Again, look at the Zapruder film. Connally claimed he uttered those words after the second shot hit him in the back. After making the alleged statement he said he heard a third shot, the one that hit Kennedy in the head and killed him. The Zapruder film reveals a one-second delay between those two shots. I don’t believe those eight words—or any eight words—can be uttered in just one second. Try it.
For anyone who might argue that the Zapruder film is tainted in some way, recall the eye-witness account of Mary Woodward who made the following observation of the second and third shots: "…there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other, they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot."
We have film footage and an eye-witness account. Both clearly refute Connally’s claim that he shouted "Oh my God, they’re gonna kill us all!" after being hit.
Connally may have been coached into telling that white lie, or maybe he made the statement in his mind—thought it, but didn’t actually say it. In either case, critics had a field day analyzing his alleged remark. It fed the ridiculous notion that he was part of the conspiracy because by stating "they’re gonna kill us all," he must have known that there were multiple shooters. I use the word "ridiculous" because I do not believe he, or any rational person, would have put themselves in harm’s way to help kill someone. But I could definitely believe he was encouraged to lie about this subtle point for two reasons. First of all, it wasn’t the kind of lie that he could easily be convicted of perjury for telling. Secondly, it created a smokescreen by encouraging nonsensical debates amongst critics.
Summary of Shots Fired
Here is my analysis of the shots fired:
Kennedy’s Neck/Back Wound
Much has been made about the direction of the shot to Kennedy’s neck. As previously stated, we know that Connally’s immediate reaction after hearing the first shot—the one that caused Kennedy to grab his neck—was to look to the rear. My description of Connally’s response is corroborated in the Zapruder film and in Connally’s testimony. Hence, we can conclude that the wound to Kennedy’s neck/back was caused by someone firing from the rear.
In my opinion, many of the so-called critics who make a fuss about the direction of the bullet that hit Kennedy in the neck are intentionally creating a smokescreen to divert people away from noticing and discussing time delays between shots.
Joseph Milteer Corroborated Jewish Conspiracy
Joseph Milteer was an individual with first-hand knowledge of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Thirteen days before the assassination, Milteer told a Miami police informant that Kennedy would be killed with a high-powered rifle from an office building. After the assassination, he told the same informant that a Jewish conspiracy was behind the assassination. An FBI report was subsequently filed on the entire incident.
Joseph Milteer was a wealthy southerner from Quitman,4 Georgia with ultra-conservative extremist political leanings. He was an active member of the Constitutional America Party and had acquaintances in the Ku Klux Klan.5 His politics were a mixture of right-wing extremism mixed with Evangelical Christianity and the belief in Armageddon. Evangelicals believe Jews are needed to establish a Jewish state so that Jesus will return, gather all Jews in Israel, and build a Temple. The world would then end and practically all the Jews would be killed at Armageddon. The few Jewish survivors would convert to Christianity.6
On November 9, 1963, a Miami police informant named William Somersett met with Milteer who outlined the assassination. Somersett was a union organizer with extensive right-wing political ties. President Kennedy was scheduled to come to Miami on November 18, 1963. As a security measure, the local police were monitoring known subversives like Milteer. A tape recorder and microphone was placed in Somersett’s apartment where the two men met.7
The following is a transcript of the conversation between Milteer and Somersett on November 9, 1963 nearly two weeks before Kennedy was killed:
I think Kennedy is coming here on the 18th, or something like that to make some kind of speech . . .
You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans. There are so many of them here.
Yeah. Well, he will have a thousand bodyguards, don't worry about that.
The more bodyguards he has the easier it is to get him.
Well, how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?
From an office building with a high-powered rifle.
Do you think he knows he’s a marked man?
I’m sure he does. I’m sure he does. Yes.
They are really going to try to kill him?
Oh yeah, it’s in the working.
Hitting this Kennedy I’ll tell you is going to be a hard proposition, I believe. Now you may have it figured out to get him from an office building and all that, but I don’t know how the Secret Service—they’d … cover all them office buildings and anywhere he’s going. Do you know whether they’d do that or not?
If they have any suspicions, they will of course. But without suspicions the chances are they wouldn’t. You wouldn’t have to take a gun up there. They’d take it up in pieces, assemble it and take it out in pieces. All those guns come knocked down and you can take them apart.
Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot, we have to know where we are at. Because you know that will be a real shake if they do that.
They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there, no way. They will pick somebody up within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen. Just to throw the public off.
(The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Cover-up, N. Turner8)
Miami Detective Everette Kaye was in charge of the surveillance operation on Milteer. Prompted by Milteer’s prophecy, security was tightened when Kennedy visited Miami on November 18th. The following is Kaye’s recollection of the change in security, from The Men Who Killed Kennedy:
... There was no particular city mentioned [by Milteer] nor was there any particular person mentioned that was to do the assassination. …
The tape was made on November 9th, and President John F. Kennedy was due in Miami on the 18th of November 1963. So the close proximity of the tape being made and his visit made quite a few changes in his security. They changed the motorcade—I believe that he was helicoptered in rather than have a motorcade. Additional men were secured. Everyone was made aware that there may be a problem. So there was a drastic change in the procedures. He wasn’t as accessible in this city as he might have been in the past.
(The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Cover-up, N. Turner)
FBI Report Stated Assassination was a Jewish Conspiracy
After the assassination, Milteer told the same informant, William Somersett, that it was a Jewish conspiracy that sponsored Kennedy’s murder. In fact, Milteer referred to the person in charge as "the big Jew." According to an FBI report, Milteer told Somersett that Martin Luther King and Attorney General Kennedy were now unimportant, but the next move would be against "the big Jew." Milteer described the assassination as "a Communist conspiracy by Jews to overthrow the United States government."9
This information is extremely important because Milteer was clearly a man with prior knowledge about the assassination. Despite his extremist politics, Milteer was a person to be taken seriously. His comment about Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and "the big Jew" tells us three things. First, his reference to "the big Jew" corroborates my thesis that one Jewish individual—likely Louis Bloomfield—ran the coup against Kennedy. Second, it reveals that right-wing extremists broke ranks with the Jewish-led coup immediately after the assassination. Apparently, Milteer and his associates had made a pact with Bloomfield to support the coup but secretly plotted to kill him—Bloomfield—upon completion of the deed. Third, it suggests that contingency plans were in place in 1963—by the right-wing extremists—to kill Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.
Further evidence indicates that Milteer personally declared a right-wing war on the Jews. On November 24, just two days after the assassination, Milteer reportedly made a speech before the Constitutional American Party in Columbia, South Carolina. According to an FBI report, he made the following statements:
… to all Christians: The Zionist Jews killed Christ 2000 years ago and on November 22, 1963, they killed President Kennedy. You Jews killed the President. We are going to kill you.10
The following FBI report, dated November 27, 1963,11 documented Milteer’s subsequent conversations with Somersett on November 23th and 24th. Although the report was written in a cryptic manner, it clearly stated that Milteer believed a Jewish conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy. It also indicated that Milteer’s right-wing extremists had declared war on the Jews. Here is the complete text of the FBI report:
11-27-63 - 6 p.m.
Howard Trent, FBI HQ, passed the following information to us per suggestion of Orrin Bartlett:
On Nov. 10 and 11 information came to the FBI from an informant [William Somersett] concerning J.A. Milteer, active in the Constitutional American Party, which information was furnished early the morning of Nov. 11 to Agent Scott Trundle of our Washington Field Office. Plans, he alleged, were being made to kill the President at some future date. He thought it might be done from some place near the White House with a high powered rifle.
Subsequently, Mr. Trent continued, the Secret Service in Miami contacted the informant [Somersett] and interviewed him and had access to a recording of interview with him.
The same informant [Somersett] has just furnished additional information which in many instances cannot be verified.
In this instance he is speaking of Milteer again. Says he met Milteer in Jacksonville, Florida, November 23, at which time Milteer was jubilant over the assassination and said "everything ran true to form -- I guess you thought I was kidding you when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle." Source then asked Milteer whether he was guessing when he gave the original information about the plan. Milteer replied "I don't do any guessing." Then Milteer allegedly said on the 23rd that he had been in Ft. Worth and Dallas, as well as other southern cities, but did not indicate the date he visited these cities. Milteer allegedly had contact with Robert Shelton who is a KKK leader but he thought Shelton could not be depended upon as he opposes violence. Milteer was quoted as saying Martin Luther King and Attorney General Kennedy are now unimportant, but the next move would be against "the big Jew." Milteer alleyed [sic] that there is a Communist conspiracy by Jews to overthrow the United States. On Nov. 24 the informant [Somersett] received information from Milteer that Milteer may have made a telephone call which was pertinent and that they do not have to worry about Oswald getting caught because Oswald knew nothing and the right wing was in the clear. Informant indicated Milteer while at Columbia, S.C. Nov. 24 made some notes prior to arrival of members of the Constitutional American Party who were to have a meeting there and captioned the notes "notes to all Christians --- The Zionist Jews killed Christ 2000 years ago and on Nov. 22, 1963, they killed President Kennedy. You Jews killed the President. We are going to kill you."
FBI Atlanta Office determined that Milteer was, on Nov. 22, at Quitman, Georgia.
FBI is in process of locating Milteer to question him because of his interest in American Constitutional Party Hate organization.
FBI will furnish our office with any further pertinent information developed.
Not possible to evaluate the reliability of the informant; however, he was interviewed by Secret Service Agent in Miami who may have made some comment as to his judgment of the man's veracity.12
Milteer’s War on Jews
As previously stated, Joseph Milteer belonged to several right-wing extremist groups that mixed politics with Evangelical Christianity. The latter has a history of loyalty to Israel because of its belief in Armageddon.
Evangelical ministers Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are both big supporters of Israel. Robertson in particular is a big believer in Armageddon. The bizarre thing about Evangelicals is they do not hesitate to encourage Jewish conversion to Christianity; however, they also feel that Jews are needed in order to fulfill the scriptures.
When Menachem Begin was cautioned that Evangelical aid was provided to Israel only because they believed that a new Jewish state was needed for the second coming of Jesus, and the conversion of Jews to Christianity, he reportedly responded: "I tell you, if the Christian Fundamentalists support us in Congress today, I will support them when the Messiah comes tomorrow."13
As previously stated, Milteer and his right-wing associates apparently made a pact with the Jewish forces—namely Louis Bloomfield—who organized the coup against Kennedy. Such an alliance seems highly plausible for several reasons. First of all, Evangelical Christians supported Israel for religious reasons mentioned before. Secondly, Milteer and his right-wing associates were racists and surely detested Kennedy for supporting American "negroes" in the burgeoning civil rights struggle. Thirdly, Milteer and his associates likely gave Louis Bloomfield a green light to step up heroin smuggling into the United States—as payment to the assassins—by Auguste Ricord et al so long as narcotics sales were confined to blacks in the inner cities, thereby making them a permanent underclass. Lastly, Milteer and his associates were ardent anti-communists and felt that Kennedy was getting too friendly with the Soviets.
Apparently Milteer and his associates learned that many of the Jews sponsoring the assassination had leftist leanings even stronger than Kennedy’s. Louis Bloomfield and Sam Bronfman, for example, were active members of the leftist Israeli labor union, Histadrut. Whatever the motivation, Milteer clearly indicated—in the cited FBI report—that he was declaring war on the Jews.
Such an action against Jews was not surprising in light of the origins of the Ku Klux Klan. Originally formed in Nashville, Tennessee in 1867 by Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Klan disappeared by 1882 because its original objective—the restoration of white supremacy throughout the South—had largely been achieved during the 1870s. In addition, Forrest had ordered it disbanded in 1869, because of the group's excessive violence.14
The second wave of Klan activity began when it was reorganized in 1915, not because of strong antiblack sentiment, but because white Protestants in small-town America felt threatened by the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and by the large-scale immigration of the previous decades that had changed the ethnic character of American society.15
Milteer’s call to arms against Jews may have intensified hatred by the Ku Klux Klan against Jews and blacks alike in its opposition to the Civil Rights movement. On June 21, 1964, three civil rights workers—Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Earl Chaney—were abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi. Two of those men were Jewish; only one was African-American. Their abduction occurred just seven months after Kennedy’s assassination.
As soon as the three workers turned up missing, President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover launched a massive investigation. The fate of the three men was uncertain, but their disappearance provided the final impetus needed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to pass. The bodies of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were found five weeks later, buried in a mud dam. Eventually, 19 men, including the county sheriff and a deputy, were convicted of federal conspiracy charges in connection with the murders.
On the surface, Johnson and Hoover seemed courageous in their fight against right-wing extremists; but more than likely, Johnson, Hoover, and the extremists had been partners in treason.
Milteer and George Wallace
Did Joseph Milteer have enough influence—even within his group right-wing extremist—to instigate a war against Jews? As it turns out, he may have had assistance from at least one prominent politician, namely Alabama Governor George Wallace who was friendly with right-wing General Curtis LeMay, a hawkish adversary of Kennedy’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis.16 Their animosity toward one another has been widely documented.
The Constitutional American Party—the group that Milteer reportedly addressed on November 24, 1963 when he declared war on Jews—later evolved into The American Independent Party, Wallace’s party when he ran for president in 1968.17 General LeMay was his running mate.
Wallace loathed the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King because they shamed him in June 1963 during a standoff at the University of Alabama where Wallace stood in the doorway to block enrollment of black students. Under President Kennedy's direction, Bobby Kennedy called out the Alabama National Guard who forced Wallace to step aside. King was in the middle of the conflict as well. In fact, he solicited the aid of the Kennedy brothers to deal with Wallace.
Wallace wanted to be president badly, probably more than Lyndon Johnson. And he would not have a chance until 1985 when the Kennedy dynasty was over (after John, Bobby and Ted had each served two terms).
LeMay was one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration. He was an ardent cold warrior, and partly for this reason his tenure as chief was neither successful nor happy. LeMay found himself at constant odds with the management policies of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and the "flexible response" military strategy of Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Maxwell Taylor.18
Kennedy’s relationship with the military was strained, to say the least.19 He and Lemay displayed mutual contempt for one another. Kennedy once remarked after one his many walkouts on the General, "I don't want that man near me again."20
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, LeMay and the other generals wanted to attack Cuba after it was learned that the Soviets had been supplying Cuban leader Fidel Castro with nuclear missiles. Having been ill-advised once before by the Joint Chiefs during the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Kennedy was not willing to make the same mistake twice. He remarked, "Those sons of bitches with all the fruit salad just sat there nodding, saying it would work."21
Kennedy feared that a US assault on Cuba would escalate into nuclear war. In fact it is generally accepted among scholars that one of the reasons that the nuclear stalemate ended peacefully is because both superpowers feared the possibility of a military coup against Kennedy if a settlement was not reached.22
In his four years as chief, LeMay argued vigorously for new air weapons like the B70 bomber and the Skybolt missile, and against the swingwing "fighter" plane, the General Dynamics TFX (later named the F111). He lost all these battles. In addition, LeMay had strong feelings regarding American involvement in Vietnam, arguing against the gradual response advocated by the administration. Once again he was ignored.23
False Critics and Opposing Propagandists
A powerful tool in covering up crimes is the use of false critics. Two examples are Dr. Cyril Wecht and Oliver Stone. Both are left-wing, both appear interested in the truth, but neither will look in the direction of Israel. Both have consciously deceived the public. In addition, opposing propagandists are employed to overtly promote the Warren Report. The end result is often a form of professional wrestling where both sides pretend to be at odds with each other, but in reality, they report to the same employer.
On January 2, 2002 assassination researcher and author Robert Groden gave a lecture at a law office, in Severna Park, Maryland, that offers classes on the Constitution. About midway through his slide presentation, Groden mentioned Joseph Milteer (the right-wing extremist). As Groden was talking, he showed the following slide without comment:
Milteer was quoted as saying Martin Luther King and Attorney General Kennedy are now unimportant, but the next move would be against "the big Jew."
Again, Groden did not comment on Milteer’s "big Jew" remark. He merely planted a seed of anti-semitism in people’s minds. The way he presented the excerpt, Groden gave the distinct impression that Milteer was calling Kennedy a "big Jew." I discussed this with two other people in the audience. Both agreed that they thought Milteer’s reference to "the big Jew" was President Kennedy. When I pointed out the Milteer made the statement on November 23, 1963, the day after Kennedy had been killed, they both agreed that Groden was obviously deceiving the audience.
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. Cyril Wecht is one of the world’s leading pathologists and a so-called critic of the Warren Report. After closely studying Wecht’s statements in a filmed interview, which appeared in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I have concluded that Wecht misled the public about the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor John Connally. Wecht gave a convoluted explanation about a "magic bullet" zigzagging in mid-air. Yet the world’s leading pathologist neglected to mention the four second delay between the time Kennedy reacted to being hit in the neck (he clutched his throat) and the time Connally reacted to being hit in the back, as displayed in the Zapruder film. Wecht made the following statements in Nigel Turner’s documentary:
The infamous magic bullet. We have that bullet exiting from President Kennedy’s neck, moving forward, and leftward, and downward. It now stops in mid-air. It turns to the right. It comes back a full eighteen inches, stops again, and then slams into John Connally’s back. It continues downward and it goes through his wrist, and somehow, they get that right wrist over to the left thigh. If you look at the Zapruder Film, you’ll see in the individual frames, that John Connally’s right wrist is not near John Connally’s left thigh.
The significance of this, the importance cannot be exaggerated. It is impossible to overstate it. Why? Because the Single Bullet Theory is the [mainstay] of the Warren Commission Report. It’s not a matter of how much weight and credibility do you give to it. It’s a matter of whether or not you have a Single Bullet Theory that permits you to conclude that there was only one person firing, whether it was Oswald, or anybody else in the world. If you don’t have a Single Bullet Theory, then you cannot have a sole assassin. And if you move to that point, then you’re into conspiracy by definition. And that’s why it had to stop with Oswald as a sole assassin. And that’s why they came up with the Single Bullet Theory. There’s no question in my mind that that 26 volume set [the Warren Report] should be taken from the shelves of all the libraries where they now rest in the United States, from non-fiction and placed in the fiction shelves along with Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Fin, and Gulliver’s Travels because that’s where they belong.
(Dr. Cyril Wecht, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, N. Turner)
Wecht made an issue out of something that is truly irrelevant: the zigzagging of the single bullet in mid-air. As previously stated, he ignored the four second time delay between the time Kennedy clutched his throat and the time Connally was obviously hit.
The most ridiculous statement Wecht made was when he described John Connally’s wounds. Here is a repeat of what he said on that topic:
[The Magic Bullet] comes back a full eighteen inches, stops again, and then slams into John Connally’s back. It continues downward and it goes through his wrist, and somehow, they get that right wrist over to the left thigh. If you look at the Zapruder Film, you’ll see in the individual frames, that John Connally’s right wrist is not near John Connally’s left thigh.
(Dr. Cyril Wecht, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, N. Turner)
Let’s focus on Wecht’s last statement: "John Connally’s right wrist is not near John Connally’s left thigh." That was a subtly deceptive statement. As a pathologist, Wecht is fully aware of the nature of Connally’s wounds. As previously stated, Connally was apparently shot by an individual in the vicinity of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository. Consequently, it makes perfect sense that the bullet would have entered Connally’s left thigh because it was traveling downward and to the left. Remember, his torso was twisted to the right when he was shot. If Connally’s right wrist was anywhere within a straight-line path between his right armpit and his thigh, it would have been hit, and it was.
To state that "John Connally’s right wrist is not near John Connally’s left thigh" was a masterful display of deception by Wecht. If the bullet was traveling on a downward angle, Connally’s right wrist would not need to be near his left thigh for them both get hit by the same bullet.
Wecht gave a finale performance that would have made Dr. Irwin Corey proud. Wecht cynically continued to pontificate as a bugle sounded towards the end of his diatribe.
I think it’s extremely important for the American people to know that there can be the overthrow of a government, that there can be a coup d’etat in America, that that in fact did happen through the assassination of President Kennedy. In order to prevent that kind of thing from happening again, in order to EXPOSE [emphasis] the forces that were responsible for that kind of murder and the kind of cover-up that has ensued in the following twenty-five years, it’s necessary to expose it. Otherwise we can have the same thing repeated again. Therefore in the same fashion that we have EXPOSED [emphasis] problems and scandals involved with Watergate, problems in Vietnam, problems in Central America, problems in the overthrow of governments elsewhere like . . . Chile, and on, and on, and on; so must we EXPOSE [emphasis] that same kind of political assassination in our country. [A bugle sounds in the background.] As painful as it may be, as disruptive as it might be in a transitory nature, as embarrassing as it might be to certain individuals and organizations in the United States government, that has to be uncovered. If they were able to do it to John F. Kennedy then; they could do it to some other president in the future.
(Dr. Cyril Wecht, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, N. Turner)
One has to wonder how a movie like JFK was made when the American news and entertainment media is almost completely controlled by friends of Israel. But how honest was Stone’s movie, particularly in the area of Israeli/Jewish involvement? Eleven and a half minutes into the movie, the character of Guy Banister (played by Ed Asner) made the following comment as an expression of contempt for Kennedy immediately after hearing of the assassination:
|That’s what happens when you let the niggers vote. They get together with the Jews and the Catholics and elect an Irish bleeding heart.|
Those two sentences played an enormous psychological trick on the audience. It shielded Jewish groups by giving the false impression that Kennedy and Jews were the best of friends. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. Stone’s objective was apparently to deceive the public by telling only half the story about who killed Kennedy.
As I stated earlier, Kennedy was more pro-Hitler than many people realize. He praised Hitler in his diary in 1945. Later he was subtly critical of the Nuremberg Trials in his 1957 book, Profiles in Courage, when he named Senator Robert Taft as a courageous profile for publicly criticizing the Nuremberg Trials while they were in progress in 1946. I believe Stone intentionally added the line about "niggers" and "Jews," which is pure disinformation, as a means of getting the picture financed by AOL-Time Warner, which is run by Jewish mogul Gerald Levin.(Footnote 18) By adding that one line early in the film, Stone created a psychological barrier in the audience’s collective mind which prevented them from entertaining the possibility that Jewish political interests may have been involved in the assassination.
Furthermore, I noticed that Stone made no mention of Permindex, but did quickly mention the Centro Mondiale Commercial (World Trade Center) in the scene where New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by actor Kevin Kosner) summoned Clay Shaw (played by actor Tommy Lee Jones) to his office on Easter Sunday for questioning about his involvement in the Kennedy assassination:
[Garrison holds up an Italian newspaper with the headline "Clay Shaw - ha lavorato a Roma."]
Mr. Shaw, this is an Italian newspaper article saying that you were a member of the board of the Centro Mondiale Commercial in Italy; that this company was a creature of the CIA for the transfer of funds in Italy for illegal political espionage activity. It says that this company was expelled from Italy for those activities.
I’m well aware of that asinine article. I’m thinking very seriously of suing that rag of newspaper.
It also says that this company is linked to the Schlumberger tool company here in Houma, Louisiana which helped provide arms to David Ferrie and his Cubans.
[laughing] Mr. Garrison, you’re reaching.
I’m an international businessman. The Trade Mart which I founded is America’s commercial pipeline to Latin America. I trade everywhere. I am accused as are all businessmen of all things. I somehow go about my business, make money, help society the best I can, and try to promote free trade in this world.
Mr. Shaw, have you ever been a contract agent for the Central Intelligence Agency?
And if I were, Mr. Garrison, do you believe I would be here today talking to somebody like you?
No. People like you don’t have to I guess.
May I go?
People like you, they just walk between the raindrops.
[whispering] May I go?
[Shaw stands up, turns and walks toward the door, then turns back facing Garrison.]
Regardless of what you may think of me, Mr. Garrison, I am a patriot first and foremost.
I’ve spent half my life in the United States military serving and defending this great country Mr. Shaw, and you’re the first person I ever met who considered it an act of patriotism to murder his own president!
Now just a minute sir, you are way out of line!
[One of Garrison’s male assistants steps between Garrison and Shaw apparently to prevent a fist fight from breaking out.]
I’m sorry Mr. Shaw. It’s getting late. That’s all the questions we have. Thank-you for your honesty and for coming in today.
I enjoyed meeting with you gentlemen. And with you Miss Cox. It was most pleasant.
(Miss Cox was a fictitious female assistant of Garrison’s, created by Stone.)
[Shaw walks outside the door of Garrison’s office, then turns and changes his demeanor to one of warmth toward his pursuers.]
I wish to extend to each of you, and to each of your families, my best wishes for a happy Easter.
[Shaw leaves and the assistant closes the door.]
'One may smile and smile and still be a villain.' [quoting Hamlet] God damn it we got one of ‘em! Did you see that?
(Transcript from JFK, the movie, Oliver Stone)
That was an explosive scene, but slightly inaccurate. The article in the Italian newspaper—Paesa Sera—was real, but Garrison never showed it to Shaw or asked him about it because Garrison himself did not find out about the article until well after the trial of Shaw was over. Had Garrison known of the article during the trial, the jury likely would have convicted Shaw of conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Jurors told researcher and attorney Mark Lane that Garrison had indeed convinced them that there was a CIA conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, but that Garrison was unable to link Shaw to the CIA. That article might have changed the jurors’ minds had they seen it during the trial.
Although it was an error on Stone’s part to state that Garrison knew of Shaw’s involvement in Centro Mondiale Commercial prior to indicting Shaw for conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, I can forgive Stone here because the mention of Centro Mondiale Commercial was barely detectable by most movie-goers. I saw the movie JFK twice in the theater and did not pick up on Garrison’s mention of Centro Mondiale Commercial. It likely didn’t register with me because Centro Mondiale Commercial is an Italian name which I had never heard of at that time. When I first saw the movie JFK, I had not read Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the Assassins, which explains Centro Mondiale Commercial and its half-brother corporation Permindex in more detail.
It wasn’t until after I read Garrison’s book, then rented a video cassette of JFK the movie, that I picked up on the dialogue which mentioned Centro Mondiale Commercial only one time. I doubt that one-tenth of one percent of the people who watched JFK the movie recall the mention of Centro Mondiale Commercial.
This poses an interesting question. Why did Stone put it in the movie? It is completely worthless to the plot since it is essentially undetectable?
The topic of Centro Mondiale Commercial is a sensitive area that gets into the uncomfortable area of Jewish political interests involved in the Kennedy assassination. In my opinion, Stone likely mentioned Centro Mondiale Commercial to gain credibility among serious researchers of the Kennedy assassination, but without jeopardizing distribution by Jewish controlled AOL-Time Warner.
Nevertheless, Stone’s script accurately described the article in the Italian newspaper, Paesa Sera, but no mention was made of Louis Bloomfield from Montreal who was also mentioned in the article as "Major Bloomfield." According to Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the Assassins, which Stone cited as the basis of the movie—along with Jim Marrs’ Crossfire, this is what the article in Paesa Sera actually stated about Shaw and Bloomfield:
Among its possible involvements …is that the Center was the creature of the CIA…set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA…funds in Italy for illegal political-espionage activities. It still remains to clear up the presence on the administrative Board of the Center of Clay Shaw and ex-Major Bloomfield.
(Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassin, p. 103)
Why did Oliver Stone omit the article’s mention of Louis Bloomfield, a lawyer for billionaire Jewish Zionist Sam Bronfman? Garrison’s book did not mention that Bloomfield was Bronfman’s lawyer, but Jim Marrs’ book, Crossfire, did. Here is what Marrs wrote about Bloomfield and his connection to Sam Bronfman:
The Italian media reported that [Ferenc] Nagy was president of Permindex and the board chairman and major stockholder was Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, a powerful Montreal lawyer who represented the Bronfman family as well as serving U.S. intelligence services.
(Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 499)
At this point, there is little doubt that Oliver Stone was intentionally directing viewers of the movie JFK away from Israel, even though the two books—On the Trail of the Assassins and Crossfire, which he credits as the basis for the movie—did in fact point to Israel when they mentioned Louis Bloomfield and the Bronfman family.
Noam Chomsky, the prestigious left-wing Jewish intellectual, is not a fake critic of the Warren Report. On the contrary, he endorses it wholeheartedly. Although his field is linguistics, he often strays into political discussions. In 1993, Chomsky wrote a book, Rethinking Camelot, which gave a backhanded endorsement to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed President Kennedy. One of Chomsky’s weakest arguments is to belittle conspiracy theories in general. Either Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin or he wasn’t. If you believe the former, then you essentially believe the Warren Report. If you believe the latter, then a conspiracy is a likely alternative. One can disbelieve the Warren Report without knowing what really happened or why. The mere fact that a so-called intellectual would engage in bashing all conspiracies reveals a hidden agenda and discredits him as a truth seeker.
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 9, The Kennedy Revival, of Chomsky’s 1993 book, Rethinking Camelot, which gives tacit endorsement of the Warren Report:
The Kennedy revival involves disparate groups. One consists of leading intellectuals of the Kennedy circle. What is interesting in this case is not their rising to Kennedy's defense, but the way they seized upon the idea that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, the timing of this thesis, and the comparison to the version of these events they had provided before the war became unpopular among elites. Among this group, few if any credit the belief that the alleged withdrawal plans, or other planned policy reversals, were a factor in the assassination.
A second category includes segments of the popular movements that in large part grew from opposition to the Vietnam war. Their attitudes toward the man who escalated the war from terror to aggression are perhaps more surprising, though it should be recalled that the picture of Kennedy as the leader who was about to lead us to a bright future of peace and justice was carefully nurtured during the Camelot years, with no little success, and has been regularly revived in the course of the critique of the Warren report and the attempts to construct a different picture, which have reached and influenced a wide audience over the years.
Within both categories, some have taken the position that JFK truly departed from the political norm, and had become (or always was) committed to far-reaching policy changes: not only was he planning to withdraw from Vietnam (the core thesis), but also to break up the CIA and the military-industrial complex, to end the Cold War, and otherwise to pursue directions that would indeed have been highly unpopular in the corridors of power. Others reject these assessments, but argue that Kennedy was perceived as a dangerous reformer by right-wing elements (which is undoubtedly true, as it is true of virtually everyone in public life). At this point, the speculations interweave with questions and theories about the assassination. Some take the position that Kennedy was assassinated by a high-level conspiracy determined to make sure that their own man, the hawkish LBJ, would take the reins. It is then necessary to assume further that a conspiracy of quite a remarkable character has concealed the awesome crime. There are other variants.
Of all of these theories, the only ones of any general interest are those that assume a massive cover-up, and a high-level conspiracy that required that operation. In that case, the assassination was an event of true political significance, breaking sharply from the normal course of politics and exercise of power. Such ideas make little sense unless coupled with the thesis that JFK was undertaking radical policy changes, or perceived to be by policy insiders.
The scale of the presumed conspiracy should be appreciated. There is not a phrase in the voluminous internal record hinting at any thought of such a notion. It must be, then, that personal discipline was extraordinary among a huge number of people, or that the entire record has been scrupulously sanitized. There has not been a single leak over thirty years, though a high-level conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and conceal the crime would have to involve not only much of the government and the media, but a good part of the historical, scientific, and medical professions. An achievement so immense would be utterly without precedent or even remote analogue.
The conviction that JFK was assassinated by a high-level conspiracy, and that the crime has since been concealed by a conspiracy awesome in scale, is widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals. Indeed, it is often presented as established truth, the starting point for further discussion.
Across this broad spectrum, there is a shared belief that history changed course dramatically when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. Many believe that the event casts a shadow over all that followed, opening an era of political illegitimacy, with the country in the hands of dark forces.
Given the strong reactions that these issues have raised, perhaps it is worthwhile to make clear just what is and is not under consideration in what follows. This discussion addresses the question of the assassination only at the policy level: is there any reason to believe that JFK broke from the general pattern and intended to withdraw US forces from Vietnam even if that would lead to "impairment of the war effort" and undermine the "fundamental objective of victory"? Ancillary questions arise concerning the further beliefs about impending policy changes. These questions are addressed below.
The issue of the assassination is only obliquely touched by these considerations. They imply nothing about the thesis that JFK was killed by the Mafia, or by right-wing Cubans, or other such theories. They bear only on the thesis that Kennedy was killed in a high-level conspiracy followed by a cover-up of remarkable dimensions. Serious proponents of such theses have recognized that credible direct evidence is lacking, and have therefore sought indirect evidence, typically holding that JFK's plans for withdrawal from Vietnam (or some of the broader policy claims) provide the motive for the cabal. If serious, the claim must be that the high-level conspirators knew something not publicly available, or had beliefs based on such material; hence the importance of the internal planning record for advocates of such theses. This line of argument has been at the core of the revival of the past few years. Currently available evidence indicates that it is entirely without foundation, indeed in conflict with substantial evidence. Advocates of the thesis will have to look elsewhere, so it appears.
The available facts, as usual, lead us to seek the institutional sources of policy decisions and their stability. Individuals and personal whim doubtless make a difference; one might, for example, speculate that the notorious Kennedy macho streak might have led to dangerous escalation in Indochina, or that he might have leaned towards an enclave strategy of the type advocated by his close adviser General Maxwell Taylor, or a Nixonian modification with intensified bombing and murderous "accelerated pacification" but many fewer US ground combat forces; while at home, he might not have committed himself to "great society" and civil rights issues to the extent LBJ did. Or one might make other guesses. They are baseless, and hold little interest. In the present case, there is a rich record to assist us in understanding the roots of policy and its implementation. People who want to understand and change the world will do well, in my opinion, to pay attention to it, not to engage in groundless speculation as to what one or another leader might have done.
(Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot, excerpt from Chapter 9, The Kennedy Revival)
I wish to make a few specific points about Chomsky’s anti-conspiracy diatribe. Much of his argument against conspiracy theories centers around the inaccurate use of the word "thesis" when referring to Kennedy’s plans to withdraw from US military forces South Vietnam. It is not a thesis, an opinion, or a proposition; it is a verifiable fact. The following is a transcript—from a press conference on October 31, 1963—of Kennedy’s announcement to withdraw a thousand men from South Vietnam by the end of 1963:
[REPORTER:] Mr. President, back to the question of troop reductions, are any intended in the far east at the present time – particularly in Korea and is there any speedup in the withdrawal from Vietnam intended?
[PRESIDENT KENNEDY:] Well as you know, when Secretary McNamara and General Taylor came back, they announced that we would expect to withdraw a thousand men from South Vietnam before the end of the year. And there has been some reference to that by General Harkins. If we’re able to do that, that will be our schedule. I think the first unit, the first contingent, would be 250 men who are not involved in what might be called front-line operations. It would be our hope to lesson the number of Americans there by a thousand as the training intensifies and is carried on in South Vietnam.
(from JFK’s press conference, October 31, 1963)
Although Chomsky avoided stating overtly that he believed the Warren Report, he came pretty close with the following statement: "There is not a phrase in the voluminous internal record hinting at any thought of such a notion [conspiracy]." I assume the phrase "voluminous internal record" means the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. If Chomsky had truly read all 26 volumes, as he suggests he did, he would know that they contain plenty of phrases which do more than merely hint at a conspiracy.
A good example is Volume 11 of the Warren Commission Hearings, pp. 325 - 339, where Dean Andrews was interviewed—on July 21, 1964—by Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the Warren Commission (excerpt of transcript is in Chapter 3). Under oath, Andrews identified Clay Bertrand as the man who phoned him requesting legal representation for Lee Harvey Oswald. After a close reading of the cited transcript, it becomes apparent that Andrews realized he was in potential danger after telling the FBI that he received a phone call to defend Oswald. Consequently, he began to have memory lapses about Bertrand’s appearance. The cited transcript indicates that Bertrand had shrunk six inches—from six feet two (per Andrews’s original description in an FBI report) all the way down to five feet eight inches which is how he described Bertrand to Liebeler. In fact, Liebeler grilled Andrews extensively about the discrepancy between his conflicting descriptions of Bertrand’s height.
Later it became known that Clay Bertrand was actually Clay Shaw, who was linked to international espionage activities with Louis Bloomfield, one of Israel’s most influential supporters. Although Jim Garrison lost the conspiracy case against Shaw (reference Chapter 3), he proved in a separate proceeding that Clay Bertrand and Clay Shaw were in fact the same individual.24 In subsequent testimony before a grand jury in Louisiana, Andrews denied that Clay Bertrand and Clay Shaw were the same person. The grand jury responded by convicting Andrews of perjury. Later, in August 1967, Andrews was found guilty of perjury by a jury of New Orleans citizens.25 As a result, Andrews was sentenced to five months in the Parish prison.26 The stated perjury conviction linked Bloomfield directly to Oswald because Shaw was obviously Oswald’s handler, and Shaw and Bloomfield were linked to subversive intelligence activity via Permindex and Centro Mondiale Commerciale.
This is just one example of how the "voluminous internal record" indicates that there was a conspiracy, thereby refuting Chomsky’s statement to the contrary.
Another example of conspiracy is the Zapruder film which I described in great detail at the beginning of this chapter.
Frankly, the timing of Chomsky’s support of the Warren Report was unfortunate for his image as an outspoken intellectual. His book, Rethinking Camelot, was published in 1993—around the time that most media outlets stopped endorsing the Warren Report.
Michael Kazin & Maurice Isserman
In 2000, Jewish authors, Michael Kazin and Maurice Isserman wrote a book, America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s. In the fall of that year, Kazin and Isserman gave a joint lecture at a book signing event in Washington, DC to promote their new book. I attended the event which was held at "Politics and Prose," a well-known bookstore in Washington, DC. In their book, I noticed that they aggressively supported the official explanations of the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King; however, they steered clear of making a similar endorsement of the Warren Report. Regarding Robert Kennedy, they inaccurately stated that his assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, was a "psychotic" Palestinian immigrant. During the question and answer session, I asked if they had any evidence that Sirhan Sirhan was psychotic because I had always heard that he was a model prisoner. Kazin admitted that it was an exaggeration. I followed up by asking him why they did not take a similar position regarding President Kennedy’s assassination after clearly stating that they accepted the government’s explanation for the murders of RFK and MLK. In fact I put a direct question to Kazin: "Do you believe the Warren Report?" He responded: "Yes I do, but I didn’t put it the book in because the conventional wisdom these days is not to believe it."
Kazin’s oral answer summed up the general position of the news media today regarding the Kennedy assassination. They secretly endorse the Warren Report but won’t put it in writing because few people believe it anymore. Hence, they would lose their audience if they supported it directly.
Gerald Posner is another Jewish writer whose claim to fame was a book, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (1994), that openly embraced the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed President Kennedy.
Posner’s book is filled with contradictions and half-truths. He does not provide any tangible evidence that Oswald was guilty. Instead he engages in double-talk, inconsistent presentation of facts, and character assassination.
Rather than point out the vast inconsistencies of Posner’s conspiracy-bashing book, I would like to list two other books he authored:
It is simply mindboggling that Posner can bash conspiracies on one hand, but write two books that endorse the biggest conspiracy of the Twentieth Century: the Holocaust. Such uneven treatment of two conspiracies is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents