The Question That Keeps Coming Back

Henry B. Burnett, Jr.
Skeptic, Special Issue, Issue No. 9, September/October 1975, pages 4–5.

Who killed John F. Kennedy? Nearly eleven years ago, the Warren Commission answered the question: Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, and he acted alone.

By and large, the news media accepted this verdict uncritically. Some Americans may have found it hard to believe that Oswald could have engineered the assassination by himself, but most were inclined not to challenge this conclusion. Who, after all, had a better answer?

For that matter, who has a better answer today? Although conspiracy theories abound, they remain theories; no conclusive evidence has been brought forward and no link between Oswald and any alleged conspirator has been established.

Why, then, does the question of who shot JFK keep coming back—if indeed it ever went away? Because most Americans don't believe the Warren Commission's answer.

Some attribute this to a change in the political climate: after Watergate, Vietnam and the CIA revelations, Americans are prepared not only to believe the worst about our officialdom, but to reject out of hand officialdom's pronouncements. More over, we are in a mood to probe for the truth, consequences be damned.

Some say that we have always been hooked on conspiracies and conspiracy theories (we're still speculating about the Lincoln assassination). Some explain this tendency as a need to reassure ourselves by supplying rational explanations for what are random, irrational acts that mock our notions of an ordered world.

Others maintain that the credibility of the Commission's findings has been worn away over the years by critics—the "assassination buffs" who once were dismissed as cranks, crackpots and paranoids. Some no doubt deserved the labels, but it turns out that a good many of the critics are serious scholars who are responsible for much of what we know today about the contents of the report and the commission's methods and procedures.

Now the Zapruder film of the assassination has been shown on television and hawked on the lecture circuits. Public skepticism abut the Commission's findings—for whatever reasons—has increased to the point where the Kennedy assassination has become a matter of public policy. At issue now is whether the investigation should be reopened.

Two resolutions to do so have been introduced in the House of Representatives. Reputable people have acknowledged doubts about the Commission's conclusions and called for a new inquiry. Candidates for national office in 1976 probably will find it difficult to avoid taking a position on the issue.

Even some former staff members of the Warren Commission have recommended reopening the investigation, not out of heresy but to put to rest widespread doubts about the Commission's performance.

The Commission is not without defenders. President Ford, who was a Commission member, reaffirmed recently that he stands behind the Warren Report. Senator Edward Kennedy and his family say they are satisfied with the official findings. David Belin, assistant counsel for the Warren Commission and executive director of the Rockefeller Commission, insists that the case against Oswald was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a recent television interview, Commission member John McCloy commented that he had "never seen a case more completely proven."

The case against Oswald is persuasive, if not airtight. And the problem that still confronts the critics is that there isn't a shred of evidence connecting anyone else to the crime. Only surmise, speculation, inference and hypothesis. The challenge flung down years ago by Commission member and former CIA director Allen Dulles—"If they've found another assassin, let them name names and produce evidence"—has not been met.

To be against reopening the investigation does not, of course, require that one be a defender of the Warren Commission. Columnist James Kilpatrick, for example, admits that puzzling questions remain unanswered, but that given the choice between the conspiracy theories and the Warren Report, he'll stick with the latter.

Some say that a new investigation isn't warranted unless new evidence is turned up. Some believe that a new investigation cannot be justified because the chance is too remote that it can find out any more than the Warren Commission found out. Some think that the best thing for the country is to let the matter rest.

The critics contend that the Commission's function was more political than investigative, that its real purpose was to put an end to the rumors and speculation about conspiracies; that the Commission assumed that Oswald was the lone assassin, ignored evidence and testimony to the contrary, and constructed an improbable explanation of how Kennedy was killed in order to support what was, in fact, a foregone conclusion.

The Commission found that just three shots were fired, all from behind and above the President and all by Lee Harvey Oswald. Although the endless arguments about the number and origin of the shots may seem trivial and academic, they are right to the point. For if there had been more than three shots (or, of course, if any shots had come from a direction other than behind and above the presidential limousine), there must have been another gunman because Oswald's single shot rifle could not have been fired more than three times in the seconds between the first and last hits on the President (the timing has been determined from the Zapruder film). If there was another gunman, there was a conspiracy of some sort.

Doubts about the Commission's findings on the number and origins of the shots—and about numerous other areas of the Commission's inquiry, notably the autopsy—are far from frivolous. Responsible citizens, including legislators, attorneys, forensic pathologists and law enforcement officers, believe the Commission's findings are open to serious question.

Does this mean that the investigation should be reopened? If one starts with the proposition that the purpose of the Commission, according to President Johnson, was to determine the truth "as far as it can be discovered," one might reasonably agree with Alexander Bickel that "...important legitimate questions are asked that are answerable but are unanswered in the report..." and that a new inquiry is not only justified, but imperative.

What is at stake? Is the point of a new investigation to satisfy our need for the truth? How important is that need? Important enough to override other considerations, such as the reputations of valued public servants and the peace of mind of the Kennedy family? Is it enough to know that the democratic process was subverted by bullets—or must we spare no effort to ensure that we have found out why? Does democracy demand that of us?

Back to Skeptic
Back to Calls For a New Investigation
Back to HSCA Period
Back to History
Back to Intro to PSC482G