Union Calendar No. 962 95th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - House Report No. 95-1828, Part 2 REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MARCH 29, 1979.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43-112 0 WASHINGTON: 1979 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-071-00590-1 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut District of Columbia CHARLES THONE, Nebraska YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan California CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania Assassination of Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. John F. Kennedy WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, Chairman HAROLD E. FORD YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE FLOYD J. FITHIAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD ROBERT W. EDGAR CHARLES THONE STEWART B. McKINNEY HAROLD S. SAWYER LOUIS STOKES. ex officio LOUIS STOKES. ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio STAFF G. ROBERT BLAKEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director GARY T. CORNWELL, Deputy Chief Counsel PETER G. BEESON, Assistant Deputy Chief Counsel LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. Hon. EDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR., Clerk of the House, U. S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. HENSHAW: On behalf of the Select Committee on Assas- sinations, and pursuant to the mandate of House Resolutions 222 and 433, 95th Congress, and House Resolution 49, 96th Congress, I am filing for presentation to the House of Representatives the enclosed Final Report with Additional and Dissenting Views of the Committee. This supplements the Summary of Findings and Recommendations flied on January 2, 1979 (H.R. Rept. No. 95-1828, 95th Congress, 2d session (1979)). Sincerely, LOUIS STOKES, Chairman. III CONTENTS Page Summary of findings and recommendations ..............................1 Introduction .........................................................9 History of the committee............................................9 Nature and scope of the investigation ............................10 Structure of the investigation ...................................18 I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the assassina- tion of President John F. Kennedy ................................21 Introduction: The Kennedy Presidency in perspective...............21 Presidential assassinations in the United States................21 A new President ................................................24 Foreign affairs: A fragile peace................................25 The Cuban threat ..........................................25 Combatting Communist in Latin America.......................27 The arms race .............................................27 The missile crisis ........................................27 Southeast Asia ............................................28 Pledge to defend Europe.....................................28 Cold war thaw .............................................29 Growing involvement in Vietnam..............................29 Detente ...................................................30 At home: A troubled land........................................30 Civil rights progress .....................................30 Economic policies ..........................................32 Government reform .. .......................................33 War on organized crime......................................33 Opposition from the far right .............................34 November 1963: A trip to Texas ................................35 A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President..........41 1. President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him ........................................41 (a) Reliance on scientific analysis ....................42 (1) The medical evidence .........................42 (2) Reaction times and alinement ..................44 (3) Neutron activation analysis ..................45 (4) Photographic evidence ........................45 (5) Acoustical evidence and blur anal- ysis ........................................46 2. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind were fired from the sixth floor window of the south- east corner of the Texas School Book Depository building ..................................................47 (a) Scientific analysis ................................47 (1) Trajectory analysis ..........................48 (2) Photographic evidence ........................49 (b) Witness testimony ..................................49 (c) Firearms evidence ..................................50 (d) Summary of the evidence ............................51 3. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Deposi- tory building .............................................52 (a) Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald .....................52 (b) The committee's approach ...........................54 (1) Handwriting analysis .........................54 (2) The backyard photographs .....................54 V VI I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations---Continued A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots--Continued 4. Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, Page had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building ...............56 (a) Testimony of book depository employees ............57 (b) Physical evidence of Oswald's presence ............57 (c) Oswald's whereabouts ..............................57 (1) Lovelady or Oswald? ..........................58 (2) Witness testimony ............................58 5. Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy .......59 (a) The Tippit murder...................................59 (b) Oswald: A capacity for violence? ..................60 (c) The motive ........................................61 B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations ..................65 (a) Warren Commission analysis of a tape ..............65 (b) Dallas Police Department recordings ...............66 (1) Analysis by Bolt Beranek and Newman ..........66 (2) Weiss-Aschkenasy analysis ....................72 (3) Search for a motorcycle ......................75 (c) Other evidence with respect to the shots .........79 (d) Witness testimony on the shots ...................87 (1) Analysis of the reliability of witness testi- mony ...........................................90 (e) Certain conspiracy allegations ...................91 (f) Summary of the evidence ..........................93 C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence avail- able to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy ................................................95 1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy ................................................99 (a) United States-Soviet relations ...................99 (b) The Warren Commission investigation ..............99 (c) The committee s investigation ....................99 (1) Oswald in the U.S.S.R ......................100 (2) Treatment of defectors by the Soviet Government .........................100 (3) Yuri Nosenko ...............................101 (4) Opinions of other defectors ................102 (5) Marina Oswald ..............................102 (6) Response of the Soviet Govern- ment ..................................103 (d) Summary of the evidence .........................103 2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy ...............................................103 (a) United States-Cuban relations ....................104 (1) Bay of Pigs ................................105 (2) Cuban missile crisis .......................105 (b) Earlier investigations of Cuban complicity .......106 (1) The Warren Commission investi- gation ....................................107 (2) The U.S. Senate investigation ..............107 (3) The CIA's response to the Senate ............108 VII I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations---Continued C. The Committee Continued 2. The Committee Continued (c) The committee's analysis of the CIA task Page force report ......................................109 (1) AMLASH ........................................111 (2) CIA-Mafia plots ...............................114 (3) Summary of the evidence .......................117 (d) Cubana Airlines flight allegation ..................117 (e) Gilberto Policarpo Lopez allegation ...............118 (f) Other allegations .................................121 (g) The committee's trip to Cuba ......................126 (h) Deficiencies of the 1963-64 investigation ..........127 (i) Summary of the findings ...........................129 3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved ..........................129 (a) The anti-Castro Cuban perspective ..................130 (1) The missile crisis and its aftermath ...........132 (2) Attitude of anti-Castro Cubans to- ward Kennedy .................................132 (b) The committee investigation ........................133 (1) Homer S. Echevarria ...........................133 (2) Antonio Veciana Blanch ........................135 (3) Silvia Odio ...................................137 (c) Oswald and anti-Castro Cubans ......................139 (1) Oswald in New Orleans .........................140 (2) Oswald in Clinton, La .........................142 (3) David Ferrie ..................................143 (4) 544 Camp Street ...............................143 (5) A committee analysis of Oswald in New Orleans ..................................145 (6) Summary of the evidence .......................146 4. The committee believes on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of orga- nized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved ...........147 (a) The Warren Commission investigation ...............148 (b) The committee investigation .......................149 (1) Ruby and organized crime .....................149 (2) Ruby and the Dallas Police De- partment ....................................156 (3) Other evidence relating to Ruby ..............158 (4) Involvement of organized crime ...............159 (5) Analysis of the 1963-64 investiga- tion ........................................168 (6) Carlos Marcello ..............................169 (7) Santos Trafficante ...........................172 (8) James R. Hoffa ...............................176 (c) Summary and analysis of the evidence ..............179 5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy ...............181 (a) The Secret Service ................................181 (1) Connally testimony ...........................182 (2) Choice of the mororcade route ................182 (3) Allegation a Secret Service agent was on the grassy knoll .........................183 (4) Conclusion ...................................184 VIII I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations--Continued C. The committee--Continued 5. The Secret Service, FBI--Continued Page (b) The Federal Bureau of Investigation ...............185 (1) Early rumors that Oswald was an in- formant .....................................185 (2) The Hosty entry in Oswald's address book ........................................186 (3) FBI contacts with Oswald (Fort Worth, 1962) ................................190 (4) FBI contacts with Oswald (New Orleans, 1963) ..............................191 (5) FBI contacts with Oswald (Dallas, 1963).........................................194 (6) The destruction of Oswald's note...............195 (7) Conclusion.....................................196 (c) The Central Intelligence Agency.....................196 (1) CIA personnel in the Soviet Russia Division ...................................198 (2) CIA personnel abroad ........................198 (3) Oswald's CIA file ...........................200 (4) Why the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file? ..................................200 (5) Why was he carried as Lee Henry Oswald in his 201 file? ....................202 (6) The meaning of "AG" under "Other identification" in Oswald's 201 file.....................................202 (7) Why was Oswald's 201 file re- stricted?....................................203 (8) Were 37 documents missing from Oswald's 201 file? .........................203 (9) Did the CIA maintain a dual filing system on Oswald? ..........................204 (10) Did Oswald ever participate in a CIA counterintelligence project?.............205 (11) Did the CIA ever debrief Oswald?..............207 (12) The Justice Department's failure to prosecute Oswald ...........................209 (13) Oswald's trip to Russia via Hel- sinki and his ability to obtain a visa in 2 days .............................211 (14) Oswald's contact with Americans in the Soviet Union ........................213 (15) Alleged intelligence contacts after Oswald returned from Russia ................217 (16) Alleged intelligence implications of Oswald's military service ................219 (17) Oswald's military intelligence file...........221 (18) The Oswald photograph in Office of Naval intelligence files ....................224 (19) Oswald in Mexico City .......................225 Conclusion ............................................225 D. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the as- sassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inade- quate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive ....................................................227 1. The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties ...............................................227 IX I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations--Continued D. Agencies and departments--Continued 1. The Secret Service Continued (a) The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investi- gated or used by the Secret Service in con- nection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to Page protect the President from a sniper ..............228 (1) The committee approach .......................228 (2) Significant threats in 1963 ..................230 (3) Inspection of the motorcade route ............233 (4) Performance at the time of the assas- sination ....................................234 (b) The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was termi- nated when the Federal Bureau of Investi- gation assumed primary investigative responsibility ...................................236 2. The Department of Justice failed to exercise initia- tive in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the as- sassination .............................................237 3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties ..............................................239 (a) The Federal Bureau of Investigation ade- quately investigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly eval- uated the evidence it possessed to assess his potential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency ...............................239 (b) The Federal Bureau of Investigation con- ducted a thorough and professional investi- gation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination .....................239 (c) The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.......239 (d) The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments ...................239 (1) History of the FBI ...........................239 (2) The FBI investigation ........................241 4. The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination ..................246 (a) Establishment of the CIA ..........................246 (b) Rockefeller Commission investigation of CIA activities ...................................248 (c) The committee investigation .......................248 (1) CIA preassassination performance-- Oswald in Mexico City .......................248 (2) The CIA and the Warren Com- mission .....................................252 (3) Post-Warren report CIA investiga- tion ........................................255 5. The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties ..................................................256 (a) The Warren Commission conducted a thor- ough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination ....................................256 X I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations Continued D. Agencies and departments Continued 5. The Warren Commission--Continued (b) The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government .......................................256 (c) The Warren Commission arrived at its con- clusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith...............................256 (d) The Warren Commission presented the con- clusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive ...................................256 II. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the assassina- tion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr ..............................263 Introduction: The civil rights movement and Dr. King ..............263 A history of civil rights violence ..........................263 Equality in education--the 20th century objective ...........265 A new leader emerges ........................................266 A philosophy of nonviolence .................................268 1960: The year of the sit-ins ...............................268 1963: A year of triumph and despair .........................270 The road to Memphis .........................................277 The last moments: Memphis, Tenn. April 4, 1968 ..............282 A. James Earl Ray fired one shot at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The shot killed Dr. King .......................................287 (a) Biography of James Earl Ray .......................287 (b) The committee's investigation .....................288 1. Dr. King was killed by one shot fired from in front of him .....................................................289 2. The shot that killed Dr. King was fired from the bath- room window at the rear of a roominghouse at 422 1/2 South Main Street, Memphis, Tenn ................290 3. James Earl Ray purchased the rifle that was used to shoot Dr. King and transported it from Birmingham, Ala. to Memphis, Tenn.,-where he rented a room at 422 1/2 South Main Street, and moments after the assassination, he dropped it near 424 South Main Street ..................................................293 4. It is highly probable that James Earl Ray stalked Dr. King for a period immediately preceding the assassination ...........................................296 5. James Earl Ray fled the scene of the crime immediately after the assassination .................................299 6. James Earl Ray's alibi for the time of the assassination, his story of Raoul, and other allegedly exculpatory evidence are not worthy of belief .......................303 (a) Ray's alibi .......................................303 (b) Ray's "Raoul" story ...............................305 (1) Conflicting descriptions of Raoul..............305 (2) Absence of witnesses to corroborate Raoul's existence ...........................305 (c) Preassassination transactions .....................306 (1) The rifle purchase ...........................307 (2) Fingerprints on the rifle ....................308 (3) Rental of room 5-B at Bessie Brewer's roominghouse .......................309 (4) The binocular purchase .......................310 (d) Grace Walden Stephens .............................310 XI II. Findings of the Select-Committee on Assassinations.--Continued A. James Earl Ray fired one shot at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., The shot killed Dr. King-Continued 7. James Earl Ray knowingly, intelligently, and volun- tarily pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr ..............................315 (a) Irreconcilable conflicts of interest of Foreman and Hanes ........................................318 (b) Foreman's failure to investigate the case...........319 (c) Coercion by Foreman and the Federal Gov- ernment ..........................................321 (d) Ray's belief a guilty plea would not preclude a new trial ......................................323 B. The committee believes, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available to it, that there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a result of a conspiracy ...............................325 1. The FBI investigation ....................................325 2. The committee investigation ..............................326 (a) Transactional analysis ............................326 (b) Ray's associates examined .........................326 3. Investigation of Ray's motive ............................327 (a) Ray's racial attitudes examined ...................327 (b) Ego gratification as a motive .....................330 (c) The prospect of financial reward ..................331 (d) Conclusion on motive ..............................333 4. General indications of conspiracy ........................333 (a) Transactions as evidence of associations ..........334 5. The brothers, John and Jerry Ray .........................336 (a) Evidence of Ray's contact with his brothers, 1967-68 ............................................337 (b) Missouri State Penitentiary escape..................339 (c) The Alton bank robbery ............................342 (1) Bank robbery modus operandi analysis ....................................348 (d) A brother was Raoul ...............................350 (e) The brothers and the rifle purchase.................354 (f) Motive with respect to John and Jerry Ray...........358 6. Evidence of a conspiracy in St. Louis ....................359 (a) The Byers allegation ..............................360 (b) The backgrounds of Kauffmann and Sutherland ........................................364 (c) Connectives to James Earl Ray.......................366 7. Conclusion ...............................................371 C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that no private organizations or individuals, other than those discussed under section B, were involved in the assas- sination of Dr. King ..........................................375 1. Rightwing extremist organizations ........................375 (a) The Minutemen .....................................375 (b) Klan organizations ................................377 (c) J.B. Stoner .......................................381 (d) William Hugh Morris.................................382 2. Conspiracy allegations: Memphis ..........................383 (a) Citizen's band radio broadcast ....................383 (b) John McFerren .....................................385 3. Conspiracy allegations: New Orleans ......................387 (a) William Sartor ....................................387 (b) Raul Esquivel .....................................389 (c) Reynard Rochon ...................................390 (d) Herman Thompson ..................................390 (e) Jules Ricco Kimble ...............................392 (f) Randy Rosenson.....................................393 XII II. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations--Continued C. The committee believes, etc.--Continued Page 4. Conspiracy allegations: Atlanta ..........................394 (a) Edna Matthews Lancaster ...........................394 (b) Claude and Leon Powell ............................394 (c) Robert Byron Watson ...............................395 5. Conspiracy allegations: Birmingham .......................396 (a) Morris Davis ......................................396 (b) Walter Maddox .....................................398 6. Conspiracy allegations: Louisville .......................399 (a) Clifton Baird .....................................399 (b) Charles Lee Bell....................................400 7. Conspiracy allegations: St. Louis ........................401 (a) Delano Elmer Walker ...............................402 8. Conspiracy allegations: Miami ............................402 (a) William Somersett .................................404 9. Conspiracy allegations: Texas ............................404 (a) Otis Moore ........................................404 10. Conspiracy allegations: New York .........................404 (a) Myron Billett .....................................404 D. No Federal, State or local government agency was involved in the assassination of Dr. King: ................................407 1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ......................407 (a) The Lorraine Motel issue ..........................409 (b) The inciting of violence by informants issue ......411 (c) The FBI foreknowledge issue .......................413 (d) The FBI assistance for Ray issue ..................414 (e) FBI surveillance files in the National Ar- chives ............................................415 2. Memphis Police Department ................................416 (a) Withdrawal of the security detail .................417 (b) The removal of Detective Reddirt ..................418 (c) The transfer of two Black firemen .................423 (d) The postassassination performance of the Memphis police ...................................424 3. Missouri State Penitentiary ..............................428 E. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investi- gation performed with varying degrees of competency and legality in the fulfillment of their duties ...................431 1. The Department of Justice failed to supervise ade- quately the Domestic Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Domestic Intelligence Division's COINTELPRO campaign against Dr. King, grossly abused and exceeded its legal authority and failed to consider the possibility that actions threatening bodily harm to Dr. King might be encouraged by the program ......................431 (a) Security investigation and COINTELPRO .............432 (1) Hoover's dislike for Dr. King ................434 (2) Electronic surveillance of Dr. King ..........436 (3) Manipulation of the media ....................437 (4) Analysis of the impact of the FBI- inspired editorial ..........................439 2. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation performed a thorough investigation into the responsibility of James Earl Ray for the assassination of Dr. King, and conducted a thorough fugitive investigation, but failed to investigate ade- quately the possibility of conspiracy in the assassi- nation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation mani- fested a lack of concern for constitutional rights in the manner in which it conducted parts of the investigation ...........................................441 (a) The FBI chain of command ..........................442 XIII II. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations--Continued E. The Department of Justice, etc. -Continued 2. The Department of Justice, etc.-Continued Page (b) The fugitive investigation ........................443 (1) James Earl Ray identified ...................445 (2) Surveillance of Ray family con- sidered ....................................446 (3) Ray arrested in London ......................449 (c) The conspiracy investigation ......................449 (1) The method ..................................450 (2) The focus ...................................453 (d) Investigative excesses ............................456 (e) Conclusion ........................................459 III. Recommendations of the Select Committee on Assassinations ........461 A. Legislative recommendations on issues involving the pro- hibition, prevention and prosecution of assassinations and federally cognizable homicides ................................464 (a) Prohibition and prevention ..............................464 (b) Prosecution .............................................472 B. Administrative recommendations to the executive ................473 C. General recommendations for congressional investigations.........475 D. Recommendations for further investigation ......................480 IV. Separate Remarks, Views and Dissent of Members of the Com- mittee ..........................................................483 Separate remarks of Christopher J. Dodd.............................483 Separate views of Samuel L. Devine and Robert W. Edgar ............491 Dissent of Robert W. Edgar ........................................494 Dissent of Harold S. Sawyer .......................................503 Appendix I: Staff of the Select Committee on Assassinations .........513 Appendix II: Consultants to the Select Committee on Assassinations ..516 Appendix III: Contractors for the Select Committee on Assassinations..519 Appendix IV: Statistical data and expenditures ......................520 Appendix V: Affirmative action program ..............................533 Appendix Vl: Enabling resolutions ...................................534 Appendix VII: Index for the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy ....................................................573 A. Public hearings of the committee ...............................573 B. Exhibit. s--John F. Kennedy public hearings ....................574 C. Supplemental exhibits--John F. Kennedy public hearings .........583 D. Appendices to the John F. Kennedy public hearings ..............583 Appendix VIII: Index for the investigation of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr .............................................584 A. Public hearings of the committee ...............................584 B. Exhibits--Martin Luther King, Jr. public hearings ..............585 C. Appendices to the Martin Luther King, Jr. public hearings ......592 Appendix IX: Index for the public hearings of the Committee on Legislative and Administrative Reform ..........................................593 References for the: Introduction .......................................................595 I. Report on the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy......................................................597 II. Report on the investigation of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.................................................645 III. Recommendations of the committee ..............................683 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963 A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Ken- nedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President. 1. President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him. 2. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building. 3. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle. that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building. 4. Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building. 5. Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the con- clusion that he assassinated President Kennedy. B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. 1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence avail- able to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. 2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence avail- able to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. 3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence avail- able to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved. 4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence avail- able to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Ken- nedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved. (1) 2 5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. D. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive. 1. The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of in duties. (a) The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addi- tion, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inade- quately prepared to protect the President from a sniper. (b) The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed primary investigative responsibility. 2. The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the assassination. 3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with vary- ing degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties. (a) The Federal Bureau of Investigation adequately in- vestigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly evaluated the evidence it possessed to assess his po- tential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency. (b) The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsi- bility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. (c) The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to in- vestigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assas- sinate the President. (d) The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and depart- ments. 4. The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination. 5. The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties. (a) The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Har- vey Oswald for the assassination. (b) The Warren Commission failed to investigate ade- quately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that 3 was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government. (c) The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith. (d) The Warren Commission presented the conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive. II. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. IN MEMPHIS, TENN. APRIL 4, 1968 A. James Earl Ray fired one shot at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The shot killed Dr. King. 1. Dr. King was killed by one rifle shot fired from in front of him. 2. The shot that killed Dr. King was fired from the bathroom window at the rear of a roominghouse at 422 1/2 South Main Street, Memphis, Tenn. 3. James Earl Ray purchased the rifle that was used to shoot Dr. King and transported it from Birmingham, Ala. to Memphis, Tenn., where he rented a room at 422 1/2 South Main Street, and moments after the assassination, he dropped it near 424 South Main Street. 4. It is highly probable that James Earl Ray stalked Dr. King for a period immediately preceding the assassination. 5. James Earl Ray fled the scene of the crime immediately after the assassination. 6. James Earl Ray's alibi for the time of the assassination, his story of "Raoul", and other allegedly exculpatory evidence are not worthy of belief. 7. James Earl Ray knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of Dr. King. B. The committee believes, on the basis of the circumstantial evi- dence available to it, that there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King as a result of a conspiracy. C. The committee believed on the basis of the evidence available to it, that no private organizations or individuals, other than those dis- cussed under section B, were involved in the assassination of Dr. King. D. No Federal, State or local government agency was involved in the assassination of Dr. King. E. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion performed with varying degrees of competency and legality in the fulfillment of their duties. 1. The Department of Justice failed to supervise adequately the Domestic Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Domestic Intelligence Division's COINTELPRO campaign against Dr. King, grossly abused and exceeded its legal authority and failed to consider the possibility that actions threatening bodily harm to Dr. King might be encouraged by the program. 2. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion performed a thorough investigation into the responsibility of 4 James Earl Ray for the assassination of Dr. King, and conducted a thorough fugitive investigation, but failed to investigate ade- quately the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination. The Federal Bureau of Investigation manifested a lack of concern for constitutional rights in the manner in which it conducted parts of the investigation. III. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS I. Legislative recommendations on issues involving the prohibition, preventation and prosecution of assassinations and federally cognizable homicides A. Prohibition and prevention-- 1. The Judiciary Committee should process for early considera- tion by the House legislation that would make the assassination of a Chief of State of any country, or his political equivalent, a Federal offense, if the offender is an American citizen or acts on behalf of an American citizen, or if the offender can be located in the United States. 2. The Judiciary Committee should process for early considera- tion by the House comprehensive legislation that would codify, revise and reform the Federal law of homicide, paying special attention to assassinations. The Judiciary Committee should give appropriate attention to the related offenses of conspiracy, at- tempt, assault and kidnaping in the context of assassinations. Such legislation should be processed independently of the general proposals for the codification, revision or reform of the Federal criminal law. The committee should address the following issues in considering the legislation: (a) Distinguishing between those persons who should re- ceive the protection of Federal law because of the official positions they occupy and those persons who should receive protection of Federal law only in the performance of their official duties, (b) Extending the protection of Federal law to persons who occupy high judicial and executive positions, including Justices of the Supreme Court and Cabinet officers, (c) The applicability of these laws to private individuals the exercise of constitutional rights, (d) The penalty to be provided for homicide and the re- lated offenses, including the applicability and the constitu- tionality of the death Penalty, (e) The basis for the exercise of Federal jurisdiction, in- cluding domestic and extraterritorial reach, (f) The preemption of State jurisdiction without the neces- sity of any action on the part of the Attorney General where the President is assassinated, (g) The circumstances under which Federal jurisdiction should preempt State jurisdiction in other cases, . (h) The power of Federal investigative agencies to require autopsies to be performed, (i) The ability of Federal investigative agencies to secure the assistance of other Federal or State agencies, including the military, other laws notwithstanding, 5 (j) The authority to offer rewards to apprehend the perpe- trators of the crime, (k) A requirement of forfeiture of the instrumentalities of the crime, (l) The condemnation of personal or other effects of his- torical interest, (m) The advisability of providing, consistent with the first amendment, legal trust devices to hold for the benefit of victims, their families, or the general treasury, the profits realized from books, movie rights, or public appearances by the perpetrator of the crime, and (n) The applicability of threat and physical zone of pro- tection legislation to persons under the physical protection of Federal investigative or law enforcement agencies. 3. The appropriate committees of the House should process for early consideration by the House charter legislation for the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The committees should address the following issues in considering the charter legislation: (a) The proper foreign and domestic intelligence functions of the intelligence and investigative agencies of the United States, (b) The relationship between the domestic intelligence functions and the interference with the exercise of individual constitutional rights, (c) The delineation of proper law enforcement functions and techniques including: (i) The use of informants and electronic surveillance, (ii) guidelines to circumscribe the use of informants or electronic surveillance to gather intel- ligence on, or investigate, groups that may be exercising first amendment freedoms, and (iii) the proper response of intel- ligence or investigative agencies where information is devel- oped that an informant has committed a crime, (d) Guidelines to consider the circumstances, if any, when an investigative agency or a component of that agency should be disqualified from taking an active role in an investigation because of an appearance of impropriety growing out of a particular intelligence or investigative action, (e) Definitions of the legislative scope and extent of "sources and methods" and the "informant privilege" as a rationale for the executive branch withholding information in response to congressional or judicial process or other de- mand for information, (f) Institutionalizing efforts to coordinate the gathering, sharing, and analysis of intelligence information, (g) Insuring those agencies that primarily gather intel- ligence perform their function so as to serve the needs of other agencies that primarily engage in physical protection, and (h) Implementing mechanisms that would permit inter- agency tasking of particular functions. B. Prosecution-- 1. The Judiciary Committee should consider the impact of the provisions of law dealing with third-party records, bail and speedy 6 trial as it applies to both the investigation and prosecution of federally cognizable homicides. 2. The Judiciary Committee should examine recently passed special prosecutor legislation to determine if its provisions should be modified to extend them to Presidential assassinations and the circumstances, if any, under which they should be applicable to other federally cognizable homicides. II. Administrative recommendations to the Executive The Department of Justice should reexamine its contingency plans for the handling of assassinations and federally cognizable homicides in light of the record and findings of the committee. Such an examina- tion should consider the following issues: A. Insuring that its, response takes full advantage of inter- and intra-agency task forces and the strike force approach to investiga- tions and prosecutions, B. Insuring that its response takes full advantage of the advances of science and technology, and determining when it should secure independent panels of scientists to review or perform necessary scien- tific tasks, or secure qualified independent forensic pathologists to perform a forensic autopsy, C. Insuring that its fair trial/free press guidelines consistent with an alleged offender's right to a fair trial, allow information about the facts and circumstances surrounding an assassination promptly be made public, and promptly be corrected when erroneous information is mistakenly released, and D. Entering at the current time into negotiations with representa- tives of the media to secure voluntary agreements providing that photographs, audio tapes, television tapes, and related matters, made in and around the site of assassinations, be made available to the Gov- ernment by consent immediately following an assassination. III. General recommendations for congressional investigations A. The appropriate committees of the House should consider amend- ing the rules of the House to provide for a right to appointive counsel in investigative hearings where a witness is unable to provide counsel from private funds. B. The appropriate committees of the House should examine the rules of the House governing the conduct of counsel in legislative and investigative hearings and consider delineating guidelines for profes- sional conduct and ethics, including guidelines to deal with conflicts of interest in the representation of multiple witnesses before a committee. C. The Judiciary Committee should examine the adequacy of Fed- eral law as it provides for the production of Federal and State prison- ers before legislative or investigative committees under a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. D. The appropriate committees of the House should examine and clarify the applicability to congressional subpenas of recently enacted legislative restrictions on access to records and other documents. E. The appropriate committees of the House should consider legisla- tion that would authorize the establishment of a legislative counsel to conduct litigation on behalf of committees of the House incident to 7 the investigative or legislative activities and confer jurisdiction on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to hear such lawsuits. F. The appropriate committees of the House should consider if rule 11 of the House should be amended, so as to restrict the current access by all Members of the House to the classified information in the possession of any committee. IV. Recommendations for further investigation A. The Department of Justice should contract for the examination of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy. B. The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Department of Justice and the National Science Foundation should make a study of the theory and application of the principles of acoustics to forensic questions, using the materials available in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a case study. C. The Department of Justice should review the committee's findings and report in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and after completion of the recommended investigation enumerated in sections A and B, analyze whether further official investigation is warranted in either case. The Department of Justice should report its analyses to the Judiciary Committee. 8 (blank page) INTRODUCTION History of the Committee The House Select Committee on Assassinations was established in September 1976 by House Resolution 1540, 94th Congress, 2d Session. The resolution authorized a 12-member select committee to conduct a full and complete investigation of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The committee was constituted for the four remaining months of the 94th Congress, and it was mandated to report the results of its investi- gation to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable. House Resolution 1540 had been introduced a year prior to its pas- sage. It was a refinement of several similar resolutions sponsored by some 135 Members of the 94th Congress. Substantial impetus for the creation of a select committee to investigate these assassinations was derived from revelations in the report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activ- ities, dated April 1976 and released in June 1976. The Senate select committee reported that the Central Intelligence Agency had with- held from the Warren Commission, during its investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, information about plots by the Government of the United States against Fidel Castro of Cuba; and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had conducted a counter- intelligence program (COINTELPRO) against Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The House Select Committee on Assassinations created by House Resolution 1540 officially expired as the 94th Congress ended its term on January 3, 1977. On January 4, 1977, a unanimous consent request was introduced to consider House Resolution 9, a resolution to reconstitute the com- mittee. An objection was heard, however, and House Resolution 9 was not brought to an immediate vote on the floor of the House. It was instead referred to the Rules Committee, which began hearings on it on January 25, 1977. House Resolution 9, as amended, was favorably reported by the Rules Committee as House Resolution 222 on Feb- ruary 1, 1977. The creation of a congressional committee to investigate assassina- tions, as well as issues concerning the nature and cost of the proposed investigations, created considerable controversy. House Resolution proposed to constitute the committee for only an additional 2 months, to the end of March 1977, so that these issues could be more closely examined. On February 2, 1977, House Resolution 222 was considered -------- *Italic numerals in parentheses in the middle of or at the end of sentences indicate references which can be found at the end of the report. (9) 10 by the House of Representatives as the Committee of the Whole, so that amendments could be offered from the floor and Members given an opportunity to express objections. House Resolution 222 authorized and directed the committee to: * * * conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and of any other persons the select committee shall determine might be related to either death in order to ascertain (1) whether the existing laws of the United States, including but not limited to laws relating to the safety and protection of the President of the United States, assassinations of the President of United States, deprivation of civil rights, and conspiracies related thereto, as well as the investigatory jurisdiction and capability of agencies and departments of the U.S. Government, are ade- quate, either in their provisions or in the manner of their enforcement; and (2) whether there was full disclosure and sharing of information and evidence among agencies and de- partments of the U.S. Government during the course of all prior investigations into those deaths; and whether any evi- dence or information which was not in the possession of any agency or department of the U.S. Government investigating either death would have been of assistance to that agency or department, and why such information was not provided to or collected by the appropriate agency or department; and shall make recommendations to the House, if the select com- mittee deems it appropriate, for the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation. House Resolution 222 was passed by the House on February 2, 1977. On March 8, 1977, Representative Louis Stokes of Ohio was named chairman of the committee to replace the previous chairman who had resigned. Two subcommittees were created--a subcommittee on the assassination of President Kennedy, with Representative Richardson Preyer of North Carolina as its chairman, and a subcommittee on the assassination of Dr. King, with Walter E. Fauntroy, Delegate of the District of Columbia, as its chairman. The staff was divided into two task forces designated to assist each of the subcommittees. On March 30, 1977, the House approved House Resolution 433 which constituted the committee until January 3, 1979, the duration of the 95th Congress. In June 1977, G. Robert Blakey was appointed chief counsel and staff director to replace the former chief counsel who had resigned on March 30, 1977. The committee established a program that consisted of three primary activities-the investigation, public presentation of evidence and preparation of the final report. Nature and Scope of the Investigation The committee identified four main issues to be investigated to ful- fill its mandate set forth in House Resolution 222. First, who was or 11 were the assassin(s) of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Second, did the assassin(s) have any aid or assist- ance either before or after the assassination(s). Third, did the agencies and departments of the U.S. Government adequately perform their duties and functions in (a) collecting and sharing information prior to the assassination; (b) protecting John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and (c) conducting investigations into each assassi- nation and coordinating the results of those investigations? Fourth, given the evidence the committee uncovered, are the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation appropriate? The necessity for the committee to explore each of these issues, as well as the manner in which they could be investigated, was carefully considered by the committee because the committee was acutely aware of the potential risks and dangers inherent in a congressional commit- tee addressing aspects of these issues. The issues that posed particular risks and dangers were the committee's investigation of who the assas- sin(s) was or were, and if the assassin(s) had help before or after the assassination. Necessarily, the committee's inquiry into these issues would entail an examination of the conduct of individuals. Further, the conduct to be examined might also be found to be criminal in a judicial proceeding, and might well carry with it, in the minds of the general public, the severest moral disapprobation because of the nature of the crimes committed. Possible injury of the reputation of potential "subjects" or "targets" of the investigation was, therefore, a significant danger or risk clearly recognized by the committee. The committee also recognized other risks and dangers inherent in the special character of its investigation. For example, associates of a "target" might have to be investigated fully. The associate may not have engaged in any activity connected with the assassination, but dis- closure of the facts of the investigation alone might carry with it an invasion of privacy of the associate. The risk and danger were also considered by the committee. The committee recognized that, unlike a criminal trial in a court, no matter how definitively the committee's findings were presented in its report, no legal sanctions such as fine or imprisonment could be im- posed as a direct result of its investigation. Nevertheless, the danger of injury to reputation and invasion of privacy of the individuals the committee had investigated required that the committee responsibly assess precisely how its investigation would be conducted and its re- sults disclosed. Many of the potential risks and dangers from Congress undertaking an investigation into conduct that is also criminal primarily arise be- cause of the nature and scope of a congressional investigation and the procedures a congressional committee employs to conduct an investiga- tion. The procedures that Congress uses are dramatically different than those employed when individual conduct is examined by either the executive or judicial branches of Government. The manner in which the investigations differ should be understood by each person reading this report and should be considered by Congress in deciding when an investigation of this character is appropriate in the future. The primary determinant of the character or scope of any govern- mental investigation is dependent upon which branch of Government is responsible for conducting it. Each of the three branches of govern- 12 ment--legislative, executive, and judicial--is granted differing powers and privileges by the Constitution. These powers and privileges differ to reflect the differing societal goals and values intended to be achieved by the functioning of each branch. Accordingly, the nature and scope of a congressional investigation are determined by the powers and privileges granted to Congress by the Constitution. The Constitution assigns to Congress the power and responsibility for legislating in particular areas. Although the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the power to investigate, it had been recog- nized by the Supreme Court that "the power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legis- lative function." (1) The Supreme Court recognized that for Congress wisely or effectively to legislate required that it have access to infor- mation and be able to compel the production of the information before it. Consequently, it has long been recognized that the failure of a citizen to respond to a subpena to testify at it congressional hear- ing can result in fine and imprisonment, if the witness is convicted in court of contempt of Congress. Similarly, a witness who appears before a congressional committee may be found guilty of contempt if he re- fuses to testify or respond to particular questions. The limits on con- gressional power to compel testimony that can constitute a defense for a witness in any contempt trial are few. A fundamental defense is that the investigation is not in an area in which Congress can constitutionally legislate. This defense, how- ever, is, as a practical matter, very limited, as Congress can enact legislation in many areas. Further, even the ability of Congress to legislate concerning particular activity has expanded over time. For example, under current Supreme Court rulings, American society today is such that an activity would probably be construed as affect- ing interstate commerce where it might not have been so construed in the less complex economic markets of the early 1800's. As such, the authority of Congress to legislate and investigate has grown. That an investigation must be in an area in which Congress can legislate is, therefore, not a substantial restriction on the scope of Congress to investigate.1 Perhaps the most significant limitation on the scope of a con- gressional investigation is that the questions propounded to the wit- ness must be pertinent to the investigation. Yet that concept is not readily capable of precise definition, and, most importantly. its appli- cation to a set of facts is not ultimately resolved while the witness is before the committee. These two factors also shape congressional hearings. For example, before the committee pertinent questions about motive of a suspected "target" might include, in the Kennedy investi- gation, attitudes about American policy toward the Cuban Govern- ment, or, in the King investigation, questions concerning attitudes on racial relations. Even questions about conduct occurring after the assassination might be considered pertinent if the answers to them might be used to demonstrate similar conduct prior to the assassination or to illuminate personal character traits, including trustworthiness or ---------------------- 1 Just because Congress can legislate and therefore investigate in an area does not, of course, mean that it may enact any legislation that it desires in the area. The legislation itself may be successfully challenged if, for example, it unnecessarily infringes on constitutional rights. 13 propensity to violence. Accordingly, pertinency in the context of a con- gressional hearing is an elastic concept that, when exploring a subject as broad as the assassination of two of the Nation's leaders, is not in fact very restrictive on the scope of the investigation. Even when a question is propounded that the witness believes not pertinent, there is substantial pressure on the witness to answer the question. The witness may object to the question and ask the Chair to rule on the objection. Pursuant to the rules of the House, the chair- man of the committee is the person responsible for ruling on a wit- ness' objection to a question. Should the Chair sustain the objection, the witness does not have to answer the question. Should the chair- man overrule the objection and direct the witness to answer, the wit- ness faces a difficult choice. The witness may. of course, decide to answer the question. If he refuses to answer the question, however, he runs the risk of being prosecuted in a court for criminal contempt. In any prosecution, the witness will be able to raise the defense that he refused to answer the question because it was not pertinent to the inquiry. If he prevails, he will be found not guilty. If his defense is rejected, he will be found guilty and face fine and imprisonment. Nevertheless, the contempt trial may come months or longer after the witness refusal to testify before the committee. The witness does not get an opportunity at the time of his appearance before the committee to have a judicial ruling on the merits for his refusal to answer. Accordingly, witnesses are under substantial pressure at the hearing to answer questions; they are naturally reluctant to risk fine and imprisonment at a later date. The pertinency objection, therefore, is also a restriction on the scope of a congressional investigation that may be of limited impact. The procedures of a congressional hearing also affected the commit- tee's assessment of the risks and dangers inherent in its addressing all four issues it had tentatively identified. The procedures of a congres- sional hearing are fundamentally different than those in a judicial con- text. A few clear examples are sufficient to demonstrate the differences. First, there is no impartial judge presiding over the congressional pro- ceeding. An objection that a committee member's question is imperti- nent is in fact ruled upon by the chairman of the committee. Second, a "target" in a congressional hearing may be compelled by a grant of immunity to testify despite his claim of the fifth amendment. In a trial, a defendant. may not, be compelled to take the stand and testify. Third, there are no constraints on what committee members may say publicly prior to the appearance of a "target" of an investigation before a hearing; a prosecutor in a criminal case is constrained by law to refrain from public comment prior to the commencement of a trial. Fourth, unlike a defendant in a trial, a witness before a committee has no right to object to the admissibility of evidence. Hearsay, for example, is freely admissible in a congressional hearing, and witnesses may be questioned on the basis of secondhand statements. Fifth, in the case of a witness who is a "subject" or "target" of a congressional investiga- tion, the witness, unlike in a trial, has no absolute right to: --Cross-examine witnesses who have testified against him; --Have particular witnesses whom he desires to be subpenaed to appear before the committee; or even --Make a statement in his own behalf. 14 Sixth, and just as important, the right of a witness before a com- mittee to be accompanied by an attorney, and the role of the attorney, are radically different in a congressional hearing than in a judicial trial. Unlike a trial, a witness ,before a congressional committee has no constitutional right to have an attorney with him. The rules of the House do grant a witness the right to have an attorney present, but it is a right conferred by the House and not the Constitution; the scope of the right is defined by the House and not by judicial authority. The rule provides that witnesses can be accompanied by counsel only "for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights." The committee recognized that by modifying its own procedures, it could ameliorate some of the effect of the inherent dangers congres- sional procedures might entail in the context of the special character of its inquiry. Consequently, comment outside of the committee's hear- ings was severely restricted by the committee rules. The committee also provided in its rules that it would provide counsel for a witness who was financially or otherwise unable to afford counsel; it allowed counsel to submit questions to the committee to be asked of his or her client; and it allowed a witness or counsel time at the conclusion of his testi- mony to make any statement to explain or amplify the witness' testi- mony, or the opportunity to supplement the record. In addition, in its hearings, the committee followed the practice of having the chairman of the committee relinquish the Chair temporarily when he wished to ask a substantial number of questions. 2 Nevertheless, distinctions between a congressional hearing and a trial remain, and they cannot be eliminated without remaking the legislative function in the image of judicial power. The outcome of a congressional hearing differs radically from that of a trial. A congressional committee votes on its findings, but, as witnessed in this report, there is no requirement for unanimity. Simple majority vote suffices to issue a report of conclusions. In addition, a congressional hearing need not, in its finding of facts for the purpose of legislation, establish facts beyond a reasonable doubt. A committee may base its legislation on facts it finds as prob- able, or even likely. Consequently, a "target" may not obtain the vin- dication of his claims of innocence that would be associated with a judicial verdict in his favor. Suspicion about the "target" may linger, and the most dangerous injury to reputation may, in fact, stem from lingering suspicion. The differences in the nature and purpose of a congressional com- mittee hearing and a judicial trial are apparent--they exist because each proceeding is designed to achieve differing societal goals. Some of the dangers considered by the committee arise when a congressional hearing investigating conduct that is criminal is mistaken for or con- fused with a criminal trial adjudicating whether a person committed criminal acts. Others may be inherent in a congressional hearing. It can be forcefully argued that when evidence of conduct that maybe termed criminal is introduced before a congressional committee, but in the end falls short of a clear and convincing or similar high stand- ------------------- 2 The committee also strictly adhered to the rules of the House and first took testimony that might tend to defame, degrade or incriminate a person in executive session, so that the committee could evaluate the testimony and not publicly present unfounded or baseless accusations that might harm a person's reputation. 15 ard of persuasion, the responsible course would be to refrain from mak- ing the evidence public to protect the reputation of the person involved. Similarly, the committee considered whether it should disclose infor- mation relevant to its investigation out of concern for the privacy rights of individuals who were not "targets" of the investigation. The committee evaluated each of the four issues it had identified for examination in fulfillment of its mandate in light of the perceived risks and dangers to the reputations and rights of privacy of persons investigated, risks and dangers arising from the character of a congressional investigation. The committee determined that a complete analysis of all four, and public disclosure of that analysis were necessary. to fulfill its legislative responsibilities under the Constitution. In addition, the committee determined that a complete analysis of all four, and public disclosure of that analysis, were necessary to fulfill its constitutional duty of in forming the public. The fourth issue the committee identified--whether the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation is appro- priate is, of course, the essence of the legislative function. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the committee had to have an independent and objective analysis of the facts that surrounded each assassination, as well as the prior investigations into the assassinations. The com- mittee realized that to address satisfactorily the fourth issue required, in essence, a complete analysis of the other three issues. To consider intelligently issues related to, for example, Presidential protection and deprivation of civil rights, it was necessary that the committee deter- mine the facts in President Kennedy's and Dr. King's assassinations, and the earlier investigations of those assassinations. Further, it was important to the committee that it was investigating areas in which there had been prior legislation. Statutes had assigned numerous duties to agencies and departments of the Federal Govern- ment. For example, the Secret Service had responsibility for protect- ing President Kennedy, and the FBI conducted the investigation into the assassination of Dr. King on the basis of its being a possible con- spiracy to violate Dr. King's civil rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C.  241. The responsibility of the House to oversee the performance of particu- lar agencies and departments of the executive branch is of paramount importance in insuring efficient, responsive and constitutional govern- ment. As Woodrow Wilson observed: "Quite as important as legislat- ing is vigilant oversight of administration." (2) An assessment of the performance of agencies such as the CIA, Secret Service, and FBI was consequently considered essential by the committee. A careful and complete investigation into the third issue the committee had identi- fled--the performance of the agencies--was necessary to fulfill the committee's responsibilities for oversight of the administration and the determination of the adequacy of existing laws. To address satisfactorily the performance of the agencies, however, the committee required an independent determination of the facts in each assassination. For example, it would be irresponsible for the com- mittee to criticize the manner in which the FBI conducted its investi- gation and the conclusions it reached without the committee having made an independent determination of what it believed to be the facts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the committee to explore the first 16 and second issues it identified--who the assassin(s) of President Ken- nedy and Dr. King was (were), and if there was a conspiracy in either case--so that the committee could effectively perform its oversight responsibilities in evaluating the performance of the executive. As discussed, a resolution of these issues was also necessary to determine whether the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation was appropriate. Despite the acknowledged risks and dangers to the reputation or privacy of some individuals, the committee believed that a complete analysis and disclosure of all the issues it had identified was necessary to fulfill its legislative mandate. There was an equally important rea- son, the committee believed, for public disclosure of the facts bearing on these issues. The committee had an obligation pursuant to its in- forming function under the Constitution to make public to the Amer- ican people the facts about each of these assassinations and to respond to public concern about the performance of Government agencies and departments. The House of Representatives recognized that these two assassina- tions had been of extraordinary concern to the American people when it debated and authorized the creation of this committee. The Ameri- can people clearly disbelieved the conclusions that had been the official position of the U.S. Government. Despite the official position of the Government that Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray were lone assassins, a Gallup Poll indicated that 80 percent of the American people believed Lee Harvey Oswald had help and 70 percent believed James Earl Ray had help. This public disbelief in the conclusions of the official governmental investigations was a substantial factor in the creation of the committee. (3) The public concern, however, was far more significant than mere doubt about the official conclusions of the investigations. Such doubt extended to far more serious allegations concerning the agencies and departments of the Government. These allegations ranged from inten- tional coverup of known coconspirators to actual governmental com- plicity in the assassinations. Such allegations called into question the very integrity of the governmental structure. The committee did not believe it would suffice to respond to public concern simply by issuing a finding on the question of agency and department complicity in the assassination. No finding would receive public acceptance if support- ing facts were not presented, in fact, it would most likely increase suspicion of governmental involvement in the assassinations if the finding as simply that agencies and departments were not involved. The committee had a responsibility to state who it believed had participated in each assassination, and what the factual basis was for that conclusion. To respond to public concern about the assassinations and the per- formance of the executive agencies and departments, the committee be- lieved its informing and legislative functions required an independent determination and public disclosure of the facts. Woodrow Wilson wrote about the informing function of Congress: It is the proper duty of a representative body to look dili- gently into every affair of Government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless 17 Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the Government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. (4) The Supreme Court has similarly stated that it "does not doubt the importance of informing the public about the business of Congress." 3 The committee's independent analysis of all four issues, and its in- forming the public of that analysis, will allow each American to make an intelligent judgment on the validity of allegations concerning the performance of agencies and departments of the executive branch, as well as enable people to assess the committee s own performance. It is essential not only that persons be able to judge the performance of the executive agencies, but that they be able to judge this committee's performance as well. Such is the very essence of representative democracy. The committee determined, therefore, that, despite the potential dangers and risks inherent in its analysis of some of the issues it had identified to fulfill its mandate, an analysis and the public disclosure of all of the facts relating to the four issues was necessary to fulfill its legislating functions under the Constitution. Further, the committee determined that an analysis and disclosure of the facts relating to each issue was also necessary to fulfill its constitutional informing responsibilities. The committee's findings in this report are stated so as to be faith- ful and accurate to the facts as found by the majority of the committee. The committee found each fact in this report with no goal or standard except the committee's commitment to ascertain the truth to the best of its ability. The committee hopes that each person who reads this re- port appreciates the nature of a congressional investigation, and that any potential dangers or harms from a misunderstanding of the com- --------------------- 3 Doe v. McMillian (412 U.S. 306, 314 (1972)). The Doe case was carefully considered by the committee as its investigation was conducted, its hearings held, and the report prepared. Doe addressed the relationship between the informing function of Congress and the availability of speech and debate immunity for distribution of a report that might infringe on the rights of privacy of individuals. The majority opinion in the Doe case, the committee believed, does inhibit Congress exercise and performance of its responsibilities and duties. The committee noted that the opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on remand from the Supreme Court. Doe v. McMillian (566 F. 2d 713 (1977)), also emphasized the importance of the informing function of Congress; it interpreted the Supreme Court decision as only stating that was "not necessarily" within the speech and debate immunity. As detailed in the text, the committee was acutely aware of the potential injury to reputation or invasion of privacy that might occur by distribution of the committee's report. The committee believed, however that its legislative and informing responsibilities required that this report be prepared and distributed in the manner the committee has done. For a committee ad- dressing questions about controversies that have arisen concerning the assassination of two of the country's leading figures, public dissemination of the report is vital to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Congress should be able to disseminate such a report without fearing spurious lawsuits, for the very fear of such lawsuits may shape the manner in which facts are presented. If Congress is limited to official or qualified immunity for public distribution of a report, the committee recognizes that this might serve to insure against reckless public presentation of false facts. Such a benefit, however, can only accrue at the cost of Congress being inhibited in fulfilling its constitutional informing responsibilities. 18 mittee's work will therefore be minimized. The committee also hopes that the Congress and other committees will carefully consider in the future the nature and scope of congressional investigations in deciding what issues to investigate, how they will be investigated, and in what manner the results of the investigations should be disclosed. Structure of the Investigation The investigation was broken into an exploratory phase and a con- centrated factfinding phase. During the exploratory phase, primarily prior to December 31, 1977, the committee undertook to master the critical literature that had been written on the issues. The exploratory phase was also used for the purpose of deciding what specific subjects were worthy of further investigation, taking into account such factors as the passage of time since the assassinations were committed. Many issues were scrutinized and given due consideration, but not every possible lead nor every allegation that has been raised concerning these assassinations was investigated by the committee. The committee recog- nized it had finite time span and limited resources. 4 The committee established priorities among the issues and investigated those which it deemed to be most apt to resolve significant issues of public concern. The concentrated phase of the investigation spanned the period from January to July 1978. It was based on a detailed investigative plan that entailed a step-by-step process of factfinding. The plans were de- signed to address the first three questions the committee identified to fulfill its legislative mandate: Who assassinated President Kennedy and Dr. King? Was there a conspiracy in either case? How well did the Federal agencies perform? The plans were also structured to ac- count for the natural interrelationships among the three questions. The committee was acutely aware of the need for strict security pre- cautions as the investigation proceeded. This was necessary not only because of the classified nature of the material the committee reviewed, but also because the effectiveness of the committee's investigation could have been undermined by premature disclosure of information. Further, the committee recognized that unverified information con- cerning a person that was prematurely disclosed might unjustly injure the reputation of that person. Accordingly, the committee adopted stringent security procedures, requiring each member of the staff to receive top-secret clearance. As an accommodation to the com- mittee, the FBI conducted background investigations, which were reviewed by the CIA. After consultation with the FBI and CIA, the committee made its own determination on each clearance. At the same time that the committee was undertaking to assure the integrity of its security system, it was making arrangements with Federal agencies--principally the FBI and CIA--for the review of their materials, many of which were classified. Memoranda of under- standing between the committee and the agencies were signed. They established a procedure for how the materials would be handled. The ----------------- 4 For example, the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Warren Commission) came into existence on Nov. 30, 1963 and submitted its final report on Sept. 24, 1964. During that 10-month period, its cost exceeded $10 million and it used the services of over 400 people.(5) In contrast, the committee came into existence on Sept. 17, 1976, and it submitted its report on Mar. 29, 1979. During that 30-month period. its cost exceeded $5.5 million, and it used the services of over 250 people. (For additional statistics on the committee, see appendix IV infra.) 19 CIA agreement was of particular importance since it provided for access to classified information by members of the committee and its staff on a completely unsanitized basis. No "sources or methods" infor- mation would be removed from any material given to the committee. Access on such a basis was unprecedented by any congressional As it undertook its investigation, the committee was fully aware that the evidence of events that occurred 10 and 15 years in the past would be of varying degrees of quality. The committee recognized that there were three general categories of evidence. First, there was the evidence that would be developed by the scientific projects such as autopsy, ballistics, handwriting, fingerprint, photographic and acous- tical analysis. Second, there was documentation that existed in the form of governmental agency files. Third, there was the current recol- lection of the event by witnesses. The committee believed that the evidence of potentially the greatest reliability was generally that of science Government files were of sub- stantial value in pursuing some areas of the investigation, but were of limited use in others because of the particular issue the committee was pursuing or the nature of the file. Finally, the committee recognized that witness testimony was sharply qualified by problems of human perception and memory, as well as bias or motive to lie. The committee also found that the nature of the evidence for the two assassinations was markedly different. For example, there was a relative abundance of scientific evidence in the Kennedy assassination, as compared with the King assassination. Field investigation by the committee staff consequently assumed a somewhat greater significance in the King case than in the Kennedy case. The committee subjected the work of the FBI, Secret Service, CIA and other agencies to critical scrutiny. If the investigations conducted in 1963-64 and 1968 were determined to be honest, thorough and com- petent, the results of those investigations could be used to corroborate and to advance the independent work of the committee with greater confidence in the resolution of issues. But the converse was just as true. If the original investigation was found to be deficient, its conclusions were evaluated accordingly and considered by the committee as having little evidentiary value. During the next phase of the committee's work--public presentation of the evidence--it held 36 days of public evidentiary hearings from August through December 1978. as well as 2 days of public policy hear- ings in December. This phase was designed to present in public essen- tial evidence on key issues in each investigation. It was also designed to explore the public policy questions raised by the assassinations. In its public hearings, the committee received evidence on the issues it had identified to fulfill its legislative mandate. It heard evidence on (1) the facts and circumstances surrounding the deaths of President Kennedy and Dr. King and the connections, if any, between those facts and circumstances and the accused assassins. Led Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray; (2) the question of whether there was a conspiracy in either case: and (3) the performances of the various Federal agencies-- the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Warren Commission, and others. 20 In its policy meetings in December, the committee heard the testi- mony of the directors or deputy directors of the FBI, CIA and Secret Service, and the Deputy Attorney General, representing the Depart- ment of Justice. These policy hearings explored the appropriateness of the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation in light of the evidence that had been received by the committee. The final phase of the committee's work included the preparation of this report, which presents the committee's analysis and synthesis of the evidence the committee obtained on all four issues the committee deemed necessary to fulfill its mandate. The committee issues this re- port to fulfill its legislative and informing responsibilities under the Constitution. President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. each embodied aspects of the best characteristics of the American spirit. They sought to elicit from every American attitudes and actions that would make our society achieve its great potential. The committee has attempted, therefore, to conduct its investigations into the assassina- tions of President Kennedy and Dr. King, and present the results of those investigations, in a thorough and dignified manner in keeping with the memory of these two great leaders. I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSI- NATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963 INTRODUCTION: THE KENNEDY PRESIDENCY IN PERSPECTIVE John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was shot to death on November 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Tex. Kennedy had represented for many the dawn of a new era of hope. In his account of the Kennedy administration, "A Thou- sand Days," historian and Kennedy staff member Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote: * * * [T]here can be no doubt that Kennedy's magic was not alone that of wealth and power and good looks, or even of these things joined to intelligence and will. It was, more than this, the hope that he could redeem American poli- tics by releasing American life from its various bondages to orthodoxy. (1) When the young President died, much of the world grieved. West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt's words reflected the sense of loss:"A flame went out for all those who had hoped for a just peace and a better world." (2) A stunned nation felt deeply the loss of a promising leader. The assassination, wrote historian Christopher Lasch, "helped to dispel the illusion that the United States was somehow exempt from history, a nation uniquely favored and destined * * * to be spared the turmoil and conflict which had always characterized the politics of other countries." (3) PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES (4) John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the fourth victim of Presidential assassination, preceded by Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James A. Gar- field in 1881, and William McKinley in 1901. The first Presidential assassination occurred within 1 week of the end of the Civil War. President Lincoln was shot, by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, while watching a British comedy, "Our American Cousin," at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. He died the following morning. Booth, an actor and Confederate sympathizer, fled Washington immediately after the crime. He reportedly was trapped in a burning barn by Federal troops on April 26, 1865, where he died of a gunshot wound to the head. A military commission established to try persons accused of com- plicity in the assassination of President Lincoln found that the murder was part of a conspiracy to kill Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward. Having lost (21) 22 heart, George A. Atzerodt did not attack Johnson as planned, but Seward was seriously wounded by Lewis Payne, a former Confederate soldier. As a result of the investigation by the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the. U.S. Army, several defendants were accused of conspiring with Confederate President Jefferson Davis and a group of Confederate Commissioners in Canada to murder Lincoln. The accused were Confederate courier John T. Surratt, his mother, Mary E. Surratt, David Herold, a half-wit Confederate sympathizer, and Confederate veterans Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin. Ed- ward Spangler, a stagehand at Ford's Theater, and Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, a physician who set the leg Booth injured in his escape from the theater, were accused of aiding the assassin's escape. Mrs. Surratt, Herold, Payne, and Atzerodt were found guilty and hanged on July 19, 1865. Three others received life sentences. John Surratt initially fled to Canada and then to Italy, where he joined the Papal Zouaves in Rome under an assumed name. He was captured in November 1866 and returned to the United States to stand trial on charges of com- plicity in the assassination. He was freed when the trial ended with a hung jury. Several conspiracy theories emerged after the Lincoln assassina- tion. Surratt's flight to Italy, coupled with the fact that many of Booth's co-conspirators were Roman Catholic, stirred the anti-Catholic sentiments of the "Know-Nothing Movement", which charged that the assassination was part of a Papist plot. Although the military com- mission ultimately dismissed the contention that the conspirators were in league with Jacob Thompson, head of the Confederate Commission to Canada, under the supervision of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, that theory also persisted. Another contention was advanced by those who opposed the execution of Mrs. Surratt. Suspicious of those in charge of her arrest and prosecution, they believed that Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was the real mastermind of the assassination. In 1866 and 1867, the House of Representatives authorized two separate investigations into the death of President Lincoln. (5) Neither finally laid to rest the suspicions around the death of President Lincoln. President James A. Garfield was shot in the back by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2, 1881, in Washington, D.C. Guiteau, a religious fanatic and would-be officeholder, had been denied access to the White House after he had asked to be appointed U.S. Ambassador to Austria. When Garfield appointed James A. Blaine as Secretary of State, an incensed Guiteau apparently believed that the President had betrayed a faction of the Republican Party. In the ensuing murder trial, there was no suggestion that the de- fendant was involved in any conspiracy. Guiteau maintained that he had acted as an agent of God in a political emergency and therefore was not guilty of wrongdoing. Despite a history of mental illness in Guiteau's family, the insanity defense presented by his counsel failed. Guiteau was declared sane, found guilty and hanged before a large crowd. Contrary to events following the Lincoln assassination, no 23 theories of possible conspiracy surfaced in the wake of Garfield's slaying. While attending the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo, N.Y., on September 6, 1901, President William McKinley was shot. He died 8 days later, the victim of assassin Leon F. Czolgosz, a factory worker and anarchist. Although an anarchist group had published a warning about Czolgosz 5 days before McKinley was shot and Czolgosz insisted he had acted alone, many believed that the assassination was the result of an anarchist plot Czolgosz refused to testify at his own trial which was held 4 days after McKinley's funeral. After 34 minutes of delib- eration, the jury found him guilty of murder. Czolgosz did not appeal the verdict, and he was executed in the electric chair. McKinley's assassination came after a wave of anarchist terrorism in Europe. Between 1894 and 1900, anarchist assassins had killed M.F. Sadi Carnot, President of France; Elizabeth, Empress of Aus- tria; and Humbert I, King Of Italy. Following McKinley's death vigilantes in the United States attacked anarchist communities. An- archist leaders such as Emma Goldman were arrested. Responding to a plea by the new President, Theodore Roosevelt, Congress passed a series of restrictive measures that limited the activities of anarchists and added alien anarchists to the list of excluded immigrants. Despite a spate of frenzied charges of an anarchist conspiracy, no plot was ever proven, and the theories appeared to collapse shortly after the execu- tion of Czolgosz. Three Presidents who preceded John F. Kennedy were the targets of attempted assassinations. On January 30, 1835, Richard Lawrence tried to kill President Andrew Jackson on the steps of the U.S. Capi- tol, but both pistols he carried misfired, and Jackson was not injured. Following the attempt, some of Jackson's supporters charged a Whig conspiracy, but this allegation was never substantiated. Lawrence was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in mental institutions. On February 15, 1933, in Miami, Fla., President-elect. Franklin D. Roosevelt was fired upon by Guiseppe Zangara, an unemployed Italian immigrant bricklayer. Zangara missed Roosevelt, but mortally wounded Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. Zangara was tried, found guilty of murder and executed. No conspiracy was charged in the shooting. Two Puerto Rican nationalists attacked Blair House, the temporary residence of President Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C., on November 1, 1950, with the apparent intention of assassinating the President. A White House guard and one of the nationalists, Griselio Torresola, were killed in the ensuing gun battle. The surviving na- tionalist, Oscar Collazo, explained that the action against Truman had been sparked by news of a revolt in Puerto Rico. He believed the assassination would call the attention of the American people to the appalling economic conditions in his country. The two would-be as- sassins were acting in league with P. Albuzio Campos, president of the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico. Truman was not harmed during the assault. Collazo was tried and sentenced to death, but President Tru- man commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. 24 A NEW PRESIDENT In an era when the United States was confronted with intractable, often dangerous, international and domestic issues, the. Kennedy ad- ministration was inevitably surrounded by controversy as it made .poli- cies to deal with the problems it faced. Although a popular President, John F. Kennedy was reviled by some, an enmity inextricably related to his policies. The possibility of nuclear holocaust overshadowed the administration's reshaping of cold war foreign policy as it grappled with Cuba, Berlin, Laos, Vietnam, relations in the Third World and Western Europe, and U.S. military strength. At home, an emerging Black protest movement, persistent unemployment, poverty and urban blight, governmental disorganization, congressional resistance to the President's New Frontier program, and the menace of organized crime were among the problems Kennedy faced. He relied on the counsel of some of the foremost thinkers of his age, as he pursued new approaches in leading the country. In the summer of 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy won the Demo- cratic Party's nomination for President. In his acceptance speech, he emphasized the challenges of the 1960's and declared that "we stand today on the edge of a 'New Frontier'," a phrase that later became at- tached to his program. Two days before his election in November, Kennedy pledged, "I am not promising action in the first 100 days alone. I am promising you 1,000 days of exacting Presidential leader- ship." With the slogan "Let's get this country moving again," he pledged to combat unemployment, the sluggish economy, what he called a missile gap, and the Communist government in Havana. Ken- nedy defeated the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, by a slim margin of 118,450 out of nearly 69 million votes cast. He was the first Roman Catholic and, at age 43, the youngest man ever elected President. On a cold January morning in 1961, the new President stood before the Nation that elected him and voiced these memorable words: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. No words could have portrayed more aptly the determination of John F. Kennedy as he assumed office as the spokesman for "a new gen- eration of Americans." His mettle yet to be tested, an articulate, con- fident new President confronted the issues that put him in conflict with forces at home and abroad. Despite his narrow election victory, Kennedy's popularity was high at the time he took office. The Gallup Poll showed a 69 percent favor- able rating. During his term, that popularity fluctuated, and, in the autumn of 1963. it appeared to be in decline. It was concern over that slump and the implications for the 1964 Presidential contest that led, in large part, to Kennedy's decision to make the ill-fated Texas trap in November 1963. 25 FOREIGN AFFAIRS: A FRAGILE PEACE The cold war was President Kennedy's foremost concern, as the United States and the Soviet Union stood poised to obliterate each other or to coexist. Kennedy, who emphasized the need for a strong military during his campaign, tacked an additional $4 billion to the defense budget approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. To demonstrate that the United States would not retreat from its treaty commitments, his military buildup was the largest in the peacetime history of the country. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Eisenhower had relied almost exclusively on a rigid foreign policy based on nuclear power and military pacts. Rejecting "massive retalia- tion" with nuclear arms, Kennedy urged the strengthening of conven- tional forces and emphasized the need for a flexible, diversified mili- tary that would counter the threat posed by Communist guerrilla armies. Nonetheless, he was committed to negotiation and steadfastly pursued a. nuclear arms limitation treaty, despite Soviet threats in Cuba, Berlin, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere. Some critics were con- fused by his call for a strong military while pursuing a nuclear treaty, but Kennedy saw military preparedness as the foundation for achiev- ing peaceful solutions. Kennedy's first move in United States-Soviet relations was to reply to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's January 1961 congratulatory note: We are ready and anxious to cooperate with all who are prepared to join in genuine dedication to the assurance of a peaceful and more fruitful life for mankind. The Cuban threat With Premier Fidel Castro's increasing ties to the Soviet Union, Communist Cuba, just 90 miles from the United States, became an early focal point of Kennedy administration concern. In February 1961, Soviet Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko visited Cuba to arrange large-scale economic and military assistance. The United States ended formal diplomatic contacts with Cuba shortly after Gro- myko's trip. Soon after taking office, Kennedy learned that since the spring of 1960, the U.S. Government had been training a guerrilla force of anti- Castro Cuban exiles in Florida and Guatemala-with the ultimate objec- tive of invading Cuba and overthrowing Castro. Kennedy sanctioned the training and reluctantly allowed the invasion to proceed, but he limited U.S. participation and support. On April 17, 1961, a force of anti-Castro Cuban refugees attempted to establish a-beachhead in Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The United States had grossly underestimated the popular support for the Castro regime. An anticipated internal uprising never occurred, and Castro's forces defeated the invaders within a few days. President Kennedy accepted "sole responsibility" for the debacle when the United States could no longer disavow its role in the iII-fated expedition. Privately, however, he blamed the CIA and reportedly vowed to "splinter the agency into a thousand pieces." 26 The Cuban Revolutionary Council, a group of anti-Castro exiles that was to have become the provisional government after Castro's over- throw, was particularly bitter about the Bay of Pigs. Its principal leaders Antonio Maceo, Justo Carillo, Carlos Heria, Antonio de Varona, Manuel Ray and Jose Miro Cardona--had formed the Council with the CIA's sanction and had been promised recognition by the U.S. Government. They were outraged by the failure of the United States to support the invasion force. At a meeting with President Kennedy shortly after the invasion, the angry leaders blamed his mili- tary advisors for the defeat, but Kennedy replied that he alone was responsible. On the other hand, Kennedy attempted to reassure them, promising that the United States was committed to returning Cuban refugees to their homeland. A stunning setback for the new administration, the Bay of Pigs defeat resulted in worldwide criticism of the United States, both its role in the invasion and for its reluctance to back the refugees with sufficient force to allow the expedition to succeed. It also gave Khrush- chev the occasion to lecture the new President on international moral- ity and raised questions about Kennedy as a coolheaded leader. While anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the United States believed they had been betrayed by Kennedy and accused him of being a weak leader who was soft on communist, the administration was criticized from the left as a reactionary return to barbarism. Kennedy traveled to Europe in June and met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev for 12 hours in Vienna, Austria. Nuclear testing, dis- armament, and Berlin were discussed, but the leaders reached no agreement. Khrushchev threatened to end four-power control of Berlin by signing a treaty with East Germany that would give it control over access routes to West Berlin. In late June, he told the allies to get out of the city by the end of the year, charging that the air corridors were being used to import spies and saboteurs into East Germany. On his return to the United States, Kennedy said: I made it clear to Mr. Khrushchev that the security of Western Europe, and therefore our own security, are deeply involved in our presence and our access rights to West Ber- lin; that those rights are based on law and not on sufferance; and that we are determined to maintain those rights at any risk and thus meet our obligation to the people of West Berlin, and their right to choose their own future. Kennedy responded to Khrushchev's threat with a call for 217,000 more men in uniform. He ordered the draft doubled, tripled if neces- sary, and requested authority to activate Reserve and National Guard units. With the Soviet determination to eliminate West Berlin and the U.S. commitment to preserve it, the prospect of a third world war was greater than ever. The crisis intensified with the August 1961 construction of a wall that prevented eastern European refugees from entering West Berlin. The United States responded by sending troops and tanks to West Berlin. Western rights remained intact, and the crisis subsided with Khrushchev's decision in late 1961 not to sign a treaty with East Germany. U.S. armored units in Berlin were pulled back in January 1962. 27 Combating communist in Latin America Meanwhile, to encourage progressive democracy in the underdevel- oped world, the administration embarked on programs of assistance. Peace Corps volunteers brought technical and educational expertise to emerging areas. Promising to "transform the American continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts," Kennedy deter- mined to wipe out the seedbed of communist in Latin America and contain Communist Cuba by raising the living standards with his Alliance for Progress. He proposed that the Latin American Republics join the United States in a 10-year plan for developing the Americas to satisfy the basic needs of housing, employment, land, health care, and education, thus relieving the economic distress that made the countries vulnerable to Castro-style revolutions. Formed in August 1961, the Alliance for Progress received the enthusiastic support of many Latin Americans, which was evident in the acclaim for Kennedy when he visited Colombia and Venezuela in 1961 and Mexico in 1962. At the Inter-American Conference in January 1962, he said, "I think communist has been isolated in this hemisphere and I think the hemi- sphere can move toward progress." The arms race An escalating arms race and the harmful effects of radioactive con- tamination from nuclear tests deeply troubled the Kennedy adminis- tration. Despite an earlier promise by Khrushchev to join the United States in a no-test policy, the Soviets resumed nuclear tests on Au- gust 30, 1961, and exploded 50 devices that fall. Kennedy urged Khru- shchev to join with the United States and Great Britain in an agree- ment banning atmospheric tests. When the Soviet Premier refused, Kennedy ordered resumption of underground tests. In March 1962, after studying Soviet advances, Kennedy reluctantly renewed atmos- pheric tests with a series of blasts over Christmas Island in the central Pacific. He told a writer it was his fate to "take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them." The missile crisis Acting on his pledge to defend the Western Hemisphere if it was threatened by Soviet aggression, Kennedy faced the greatest crisis of his brief Presidency in Cuba in October' 1962. It was the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war. On October 16, aerial recon- naissance photographs of Cuba appeared to show installation of of- fensive nuclear missiles. This initial discovery was verified, and on October 20, Kennedy returned abruptly to Washington from a politi- cal trip to Chicago on the pretext of a sudden cold. On Monday, October 22, he revealed that the United States had discovered from aerial photographs that the Soviet Union had deployed ballistic mis- siles and Ilyushin-28 bombers in Cuba. He announced that he had ordered an air-sea quarantine on all offensive weapons bound for Cuba and promised more drastic action if the missiles and bombers were not removed. President Kennedy grimly stated that the United States would intercept any Soviet vessel with arms and that the United States would retaliate if the Soviets attacked any nation in the Western Hemi- sphere. The U.S. Armed Forces were at combat readiness on "maxi- mum alert." After a tense 6 days, Khrushchev announced his decision 28 to dismantle and withdraw offensive weapons from Cuba in return for Kennedy's agreement not to invade Cuba and to lift the blockade- Kennedy received widespread international support during the, missile crisis and was later credited with having achieved a turning point in the cold war favorable to the West. Among anti-Castro Cuban exiles and some rightwing factionis in this country, however, there was outrage over Kennedy's decision. Despite his reassurance that the Cubans would be returned to their homeland, he had promised not to invade Cuba. Militant rightwing extremists argued that the United States should have invaded Cuba, removed the Russians and their arms, and toppled Castro. On December 29, 1962, President Kennedy greeted over 1,000 Cubans who had been captured at the Bay of Pigs and ransomed from Castro's jails by the United States. In a ceremony at the Orange Bowl in Miami, he accepted the brigade's invasion flag and addressed in their concerns about the future. The President declared, "I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Cuba. Abandoning the Eisenhower administration's mistrust of neutral nations, Kennedy pursued a cautious approach in Laos where Com- munists had captured many of the northern provinces in 1961. In July 1962, the United States was able to get all parties in Laos to agree to a tripartite coalition government and withdrawal of all foreign troops. In South Vietnam, however, the administration decided to take a stand against Communist inspired "wars of liberation." U.S. involve- ment dated back to 1956, when the Eisenhower administration backed the decision of the South Vietnamese Government to postpone elections there because Communist victory appeared imminent. The United States was pledged to support the pro-American regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in the fear that if one Southeast Asian nation fell to the Com- munists, others would soon follow. Kennedy continued that policy, although with growing reluctance by 1963. In 1961, Viet Cong guerrillas backed by Ho Chi Minh of North Viet- nam attacked South Vietnamese troops, murdered officials, and placed the Diem regime in jeopardy. Kennedy responded initially by sending more than 4,000 military advisers to South Vietnam and, over the following months, U.S. participation grew steadily. In his move away from the "all or nothing" nuclear arsenal strategy of the 1950's, Ken- nedy emphasized a varied military capability to meet the jungle war- fare tactics of the enemy in countries such as Vietnam. He also directed economic aid to Southeast Asia to meet the Communist threat there. In November 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara announced that the United States was winning the war in south Vietnam. When the Chinese invaded northern India in 1962, Kennedy au- thorized an airlift of arms to halt the Chinese Communist advance. Pledge to defend Europe To some critics, Kennedy's foreign policy, combining military bluster with negotiation, appeared vacillating and self-defeating. Their misgivings seemed to be confirmed by actions of some traditional allies of the United States. President Charles de Gaulle of France, for example, insisted on a defense capability independent of the United 29 States and refused to sign any nuclear arms limitation treaty, thus threatening the cohesiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion. In addition, Kennedy's acceptance of the principle of neutrality, manifested by the Laos agreement, was criticized by some who believed countries were either American friends or enemies. Kennedy reasserted his pledge to defend Western Europe during a trip there in June 1963. "The United States will risk its cities to defend yours," he assured the West Germans, who feared a pullout of U.S. troops. In a speech to an enthusiastic West Berlin crowd, Kennedy de- scribed himself as a "Berliner," saying that "all free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin." Cold war thaw Uneasiness over Cuba continued in 1963. The Soviet presence was symbolized by an attack of a Cuban Air Force MIG fighter on an American shrimp boat in March 1963. Some 17,000 Russian troops still occupied the island nation, and 500 antiaircraft missiles plus a large supply of other Soviet armaments were emplaced there. Yet, with Kennedy's foreign policy emphasis on gradual progress, a thaw in the cold war was perceptible. In a major policy address on June 10, 1963, at American University in Washington, D.C., Kennedy proposed a "strategy of peace" to lead the United States and Soviet Union out of the "vicious and dangerous cycles" of the cold war. Let us focus on a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution of human institutions. He announced that the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union would begin work on a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. A major accomplishment of the Kennedy administration, the nuclear test ban treaty, was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in September. This limited treaty, prohibiting at- mospheric testing of nuclear weapons, represented the first limitation of arms expansion since the beginning of the cold war in 1945. The administration had hoped, however, for a more comprehensive agree- ment. Underground testing was not covered because of Soviet resist- ance to onsite inspection, and China and France refused to sign the treaty. Although praised by many as a step toward peace, the treaty had its detractors. Air Force Gen. Thomas D. White described it. as "next to unilateral disarmament." while scientist Edward Teller called for re- sumption of atmospheric testing to maintain American nuclear supremacy. In October, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed to refrain from using nuclear weapons in outer space. Growing involvement in Vietnam The Vietnam conflict intensified and U.S. involvement expanded steadily, although Kennedy refused to make any major increases in support. By October 1963, the United States had 16,000 troops in South Vietnam. As U.S. helicopters flew combat support missions and U.S. planes strafed enemy lines, U.S. advisers radically altered life there with the strategic hamlet resettlement program, an effort to concen- 30 trate the population in various areas. Some Americans criticized this involvement in support of the Diem dictatorship. At the insistence of his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu, the Roman Catholic Diem had instituted a number of repressive measures against the country's Buddhists, who made up 70 percent of the population. His troops attacked pagodas, and Buddhists were jailed. The self-immolation of protesting Bud- dhist monks dramatically called into question the American role in Vietnam. By threatening withdrawal of economic support, the United States sought to persuade the Diem government to change its brutal policies. Diem resisted, denying that the Buddhists were being persecuted and charging that in fact they were aiding the Communists by demand- ing a change of government. U.S. advisers warned that Diem's un- popular regime imperiled the battle against the Viet Cong. On November 1, 1963, Diem and his brother, Nhu, were killed in a military coup. The United States quickly recognized the new government. Kennedy's willingness to negotiate with the Russians, combined with a Sino-Soviet split, cased East-West tension and sparked opti- mism about the prospects for world peace. Other moves indicating Soviet-American detente and peaceful coexistence included installa- tion of a "hot line" emergency telephone system from Washington to Moscow in the summer of 1963, approval of the sale of 4 million tons of surplus wheat to the Soviet Union, and initiation of cultural ex- change programs. Kennedy also made overtures to Castro concerning normalization of relations, a move that enraged anti-Castro exiles in the United States. His steps away from dangerous nuclear diplomacy were praised by many, but some doubted that Kennedy's policy would contain communist and insure the strength of the United States. AT HOME: A TROUBLED LAND President Kennedy's New Frontier domestic program was not readily accepted. The administration's relations with Congress, domi- nated as it was by a conservative bloc of Republicans and southern Democrats, were difficult. Kennedy's major proposals--aid to educa- tion, medical care for the elderly and the creation of a Department of Urban Affairs--were rejected. Although measures were adopted to increase Federal aid to depressed areas, to increase and expand the minimum wage, and to increase social security benefits, the administra- tion failed to persuade Congress to enact the widespread social legisla- tion it sought. Civil rights progress The administration's most dramatic accomplishments were in the area of civil rights, though the President did not live to see the passage of the comprehensive legislation he proposed, the most far-reaching since Reconstruction. Kennedy appointed Blacks to high administration posts and to Federal judgeships. He gave Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy his sanction for vigorous enforcement of civil 31 rights laws to extend voting rights, end segregation and fight racial discrimination. Attorney General Kennedy expanded the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and President Kennedy issued a strongly worded Executive order against discrimination in employ- ment that established a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity headed by Vice President Johnson. Kennedy's civil rights program, however, increasingly alienated southerners and conservatives. Violence erupted soon after Kennedy took office. In May 1961, the Congress of Racial Equality staged a series of freedom rides in Ala- bama in an effort to integrate buses and terminals. One bus was burned by a mob in Anniston, Ala. An angry segregationist crowd attacked demonstrators in Montgomery, Ala., and several persons were injured. Attorney General Kennedy ordered several hundred U.S. marshals to Montgomery to protect the demonstrators. National Guardsmen with fixed bayonets scattered a mob that tried to overwhelm the marshals, who were protecting a mass meeting at a Black church where civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., was speaking. Sparked by the vicious treatment of the nonviolent demonstrators, protests continued in Mississippi. The Attorney General petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission, and in September 1961, the ICC adopted rules banning segregation on interstate buses and in terminals. Trouble exploded again in 1962 when James Meredith, a 29-year- old Black Air Force veteran, gained admission to the all-white Uni- versity of Mississippi. Meredith had been refused admission, despite Federal court orders requiring that he be enrolled. The Kennedy ad- ministration supported an effort to force compliance by the State, but Governor Ross Barnett was equally determined to defy the orders. In his fourth attempt to enroll at the university, Meredith arrived in Oxford on September 30, escorted by 300 U.S. marshals. He was met by a mob of 2,500 students and segregationist extremists who howled, "Two-four-one-three, we hate Kennedy." The hecklers attacked the marshals with bricks and bottles. The marshals responded with tear gas. A bloody night-long riot that. left two dead and scores injured quelled only after Federal troops had been dispatched by President Kennedy. Meredith registered the next day and began classes with the protection of marshals, who remained with him until his gradua- tion in August 1963. Urging the need for legislation in a February 28, 1963, address to Congress on civil rights, President Kennedy attacked the scourge, of racial discrimination: Race discrimination hampers our economic growth by pre- venting the maximum development and utilization of our manpower. It hampers our world leadership by contradicting at home the message we preach abroad. It mars the atmos- phere of a united and classless society in which this Nation rose to greatness. It increases the costs of public welfare, crime, delinquency and disorder. Above all, it is wrong. There- fore, let it be clear, in our own hearts and minds, that it is not merely because of the economic waste of discrimination, that we are committed to achieving true equality of opportunity. The basic reason is because it is right. 32 Although the administration's civil rights policies generated the dogged opposition of segregationists in the South, Black leaders criti- cized the President for not pursuing change even more forcefully. Dr. King said: This administration has outstepped all previous ones in the breadth of its civil rights activity. Yet the movement, instead of breaking out into the open plains of progress, remains con- stricted and confirmed. A sweeping revolutionary force is pressed into a narrow tunnel. (7) Blacks continued demonstrations for equal rights in the spring of 1963. In April and May, Dr. King led an attack on what he called "the most segregated city in the United States," Birmingham, Ala. Demon- strators were met by police dogs, electric cattle prods and fire hoses. The brutal response to the nonviolent protestors led to worldwide outrage. Black leaders and Birmingham community leaders ultimately reached a compromise agreement to integrate public facilities. Birm- ingham became a rallying cry for the civil rights movement across the Nation. Over 700 demonstrations swept the South that summer, and northern public opinion increasingly supported the protestors. In June 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace, in defiance of a Federal court order, stood on the steps of the University of Alabama to prevent the admission of two Black students. Wallace bowed, how- ever, to National Guard troops that had been federalized by the Pres- ident. The Black students entered the university. In the same month, Medgar Evers, the NAACP field secretary for Mississippi was shot to death in front of his home in Jackson, Miss. The turbulence sparked President Kennedy's special message to Con- gress in June 1963, in which he asked the legislators to help end "rancor, violence, disunity and national shame" by pushing what was described as the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Recon- struction. The bill would, among other things guarantee access to public accommodations and the right to vote. "We are confronted pri- marily with the moral issue," Kennedy said. He warned that Federal inaction would mean continued racial strife, declaring, "The fires of frustration and discord will burn in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand." On August 28, 1963, an interracial group of more than 200,000 per- sons joined "The March for Jobs and Freedom" in Washington, D.C., to urge the Congress to pass the comprehensive civil rights legislation the Kennedy administration envisioned. Violence shattered the hope- ful mood in the wake of the Washington march when a bomb exploded on September 17 at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birming- ham, Ala. during a Sunday School session. Four young Black girls were killed and 23 other persons were injured. Despite the national unrest, Congress did not rush to pass the civil rights bill. Economic policies Kennedy's Keynesian, New Deal economic policies brought him into conflict with business. For example, he advocated deficit spending at a time of economic growth in an attempt to overcome persistent high 33 unemployment. He also proposed costly welfare programs to improve the plight of the Nation's poor and issued voluntary wage-price guide- lines that he was determined to enforce. As the Kennedy administration grappled with thorny economic issues--persistent unemployment, recession--a steel price hike set the stage for the most dramatic economic crisis of Kennedy's term. In March 1962, the administration persuaded the United Steel Workers Union to accept a contract he called "noninflationary" in the belief that such an agreement would ameliorate the recession by preventing a rise in prices. A few days later, however, the U.S. Steel Corp. an- nounced an increase of 3.5 percent, or $6 per ton, and most other steel companies followed suit. Kennedy commented, "My father always told me all businessmen are sons-of-bitches, but I never believed it until now." (8) In the 3 days that followed the increase, four antitrust inves- tigations of the steel industry were initiated, a bill to roll back the price increase was considered, wage and price controls were discussed and the Department of Defense began to divert purchases away from U.S. Steel. Kennedy denounced the increase as "wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.," and said the steel industry had shown its "utter contempt for their fellow citizens." U.S. Steel finally rescinded the price increase when several other steel companies said they would hold the price line. Despite the President's assurance after the steel crisis subsided that "this administration harbors no ill will against any individual, any industry, corporation, or segment of the American economy," business leaders complained about Government interference and hostility. Government reform Kennedy was also concerned about the autonomy of Federal agen- cies and reorganization of the Federal bureaucracy. He saw a need for greater control over the Central Intelligence Agency after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Its independent role in the Southeast Asian con- flict and in Cuba particularly troubled him. The CIA's budget was twice that of the State Department, its staff had doubled in the 1950's, and, it was said by its critics, in some Embassies it had more per- sonnel than the State Department. Kennedy replaced Director Allen Dulles with John McCone, cut the Agency's budget, and assigned Robert Kennedy as Agency watchdog. Kennedy's relations with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover were cool. In an attempt to bridle the independent Hoover, the administration insisted that the facts reflect the law that the FBI was under the Department of Justice and that the Depart- ment was led by the Attorney General. Attorney General Robert Kennedy also compelled a reluctant Hoover to investigate civil rights and organized crime cases. War on organized crime The Kennedy administration made an unprecedented effort to fight the insidious menace of organized crime. The President had first en- countered the problem when he became a member of the Senate Select Committee on Labor Racketeering. Robert Kennedy was chief coun- sel of the committee, and later, as Attorney General, he became the President's surrogate in a campaign against the underworld. 34 Dramatic developments in the war on organized crime had occurred Just before Kennedy came to the White House. A roundup of hood- lums in Apalachin, N.Y., in 1957, followed by an abortive prosecution of many of the leaders, demonstrated the impotence of Federal en- forcement. The Senate testimony of Mafia member Joseph Valachi in 1963 became the catalyst for a renewed effort to strengthen Federal criminal laws that could be used to control the threat of organized crime. The zeal of the Kennedy brothers signified the roughest period for organized crime in Department of Justice history. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote in "Robert Kennedy and His Times" that, as a result of the Attorney General's pressure, "the national Government took on organized crime as it had never done before." (9) Schlesinger observed: In New York, Robert. Morgenthau, the Federal attorney, successfully prosecuted one syndicate leader after another. The Patriarca gang in Rhode Island and the De Cavalcante gang in New Jersey were smashed. Convictions of racketeers by the Organized Crime Section and the Tax Division stead- ily increased--96 in 1961, 101 in 1960, 373 in 1963. So long as John Kennedy sat in the White HoUse, giving his Attorney General absolute backing, the underworld knew that the heat was on. (10) The Attorney General focused on targets he had become acquainted with as counsel for the Rackets Committee. He was particularly con- cerned about the alliance of the top labor leaders and racketeers as personified by Teamster President James R. Hoffa. Schlesinger wrote that "the pursuit of Hoffa was an aspect of the war against organized crime." (11) He added: The relations between the Teamsters and the syndicates continued to grow. The FBI electronic microphone, planted from 1961 to 1964 in the office of Anthony Giacalone, a De- troit hood, revealed Hoffa's deep if wary involvement with the local mob. For national purposes a meeting place was the Rancho La Costa Country Club near San Clemente, Calif., built with $27 million in loans from the Teamsters pension fund; its proprietor, Morris B. Dalitz, had emerged from the Detroit [sic. Cleveland] underworld to become a Las Vegas and Havana gambling figure. Here the Teamsters and the mob golfed and drank together. Here they no doubt reflected that, as long as John Kennedy was President, Robert Kennedy would be unassailable. (12) As with the Civil Rights Division, Robert Kennedy expanded the Organized Crime Division at Justice. As a result of information col- lected by the FBI syndicate operations were seriously disrupted in some cases, and leading organized crime figures were concerned about the future. Opposition from the far right As the policies of the Kennedy administration broke new ground, political extremists in the United States seemed increasingly willing 35 to resort to violence to achieve their goals. In an address at the Uni- versity of Washington in Seattle on November 16, 1961, President Kennedy discussed the age of extremism: two groups of frustrated citizens, one urging surrender and the other urging war. He said: It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humilia- tion or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. The radical right condemned Kennedy for his "big Government" policies, as well as his concern with social welfare and civil rights progress. The ultraconservative John Birch Society, Christian Anti- Communist Crusade led by Fred C. Schwarz, and the Christian Cru- sade led by Rev. Billy James Hargis attracted an anti-Kennedy fol- lowing. The right wing was incensed by Kennedy's transfer of Gen. Edwin A. Walker from his command in West Germany to Hawaii for distributing right-wing literature to his troops. The paramilitary Minutemen condemned the administration as "soft on communist" and adopted guerrilla warfare tactics to prepare for the fight against the Communist foe. At the other extreme, the left labeled Kennedy a reactionary disappointment, a tool of the "power elite." President Kennedy saw the danger of a politically polarized society and spoke against extremist solutions, urging reason in an ordered society. In the text of the speech he had planned to deliver in Dallas on November 22, 1963, he wrote: Today * * * voices are heard in the land--voices preach- ing doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. NOVEMBER 1963: A TRIP TO TEXAS (13) At the beginning, John F. Kennedy had been an extremely popular President. His ratings, ironically, were highest in the aftermath of the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, when he received a remarkable 83 percent approval rating in the Gallup Poll. But by the fall of 1963, he had slipped to 59 percent, and he became concerned about the po- litical implications. In October, Newsweek magazine reported that the civil rights issue alone had cost Kennedy 3.5 million votes, adding that no Democrat in the White House had ever been so disliked in the South. In Georgia, the marquee of a movie theater showing PT 109 read, "See how the Japs almost got Kennedy" (14) An inveterate traveler, Kennedy interspersed his diplomatic mis- sions abroad with trips around the country. He made 83 trips in 1963. In June he visited Germany, Ireland and Italy; later in the summer he toured the western United States--North Dakota, Wyoming, Mon- tana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Nevada and California--to gain support for his legislative program. Not only did Kennedy enjoy traveling, but he almost recklessly resisted the protective measures the Secret Service urged him to adopt. He would not allow blaring sirens, and only once--in Chicago in November 1963--did he permit his limousine to be flanked by motor- 36 cycle police officers. He told the special agent in charge of the White House detail that he did not want agents to ride on the rear of his car. Kennedy was philosophical about danger. According to Arthur M. Schlesinger, "A Thousand Days," Kennedy believed assassination was a risk inherent in a democratic society. In 1953, Schlesinger recounted, then-Senator Kennedy read his favorite poem to his new bride, Jac- queline Bouvier Kennedy. It was "I have a Rendezvous with Death," by Alan Seeger. (15) It may be he shall take my hand And lead me into his dark land And close my eyes and quench my breath . But I've a rendezvous with Death At midnight in some flaming town, When Spring trips north again this year, And I to my pledged word am true, I shall not fail that rendezvous. During the November 1963 Texas trip he told a special White House assistant: * * * if anybody really wanted to shoot the President * * * it was not a very difficult job-all one had to do was get on a high building someday with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt. Kennedy had decided to visit the South to bolster his image in that region. He chose to visit Florida because it had voted Republican in 1960, and Texas because it only had been saved by Lyndon Johnson by an extremely slim margin. According to Texas Governor John B. Connally, Kennedy first mentioned a political trip to Texas in the summer of 1962 when Connally, a former Secretary of the Navy, was running for Governor. Kennedy broached the idea to Connally again the following summer. Despite some obvious political reasons for a Texas visit, some mem- bers of Kennedy's staff opposed it because the State was not favorably disposed to the President. From 1961 to 1960, the Secret Service had received 34 threats on the President's life from Texas. Political em- barrassment seemed a certainty. The decision to travel to Dallas was even more puzzling. Many perceived Dallas as a violent, hysterical center of right-wing fanaticism. There, in 1960, then-Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson had been heckled and spat upon. In October 1963, just a month before the President's scheduled visit, Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson was jeered, hit with a placard and spat upon. Byron Skelton, the National Democratic Committee- man from Texas, wrote Attorney General Robert Kennedy about his concern for President Kennedy's safety and urged him to dissuade his brother from going to Texas. There are several probable explanations for the decision to visit Dallas. Kennedy was to visit four other cities--San Antonio, Hous- ton, Austin and Fort Worth--and it was feared that ignoring Dallas would harm his image in Texas. Kennedy also was anxious to win 37 over business, and Dallas was the place to address business leaders in Texas. As a result of his economic policies, particularly the rollback of steel prices, Kennedy believed he was perceived as hostile to busi- ness. Before the November Texas trip, he shared his concern with Governor Connally: If these people are silly enough to think that I am going to dismantle this free enterprise system, they are crazy. All the other trips that summer and fall, including the visit to Florida, had been successful. In his testimony before this committee, Governor Connally explained that he believed that Texas was a State crucial to a Kennedy victory in 1964, and contended that Kennedy came to Texas for two reasons: to raise money and to enhance his own political prospects in Texas. Word of the trip to Texas first appeared in the Dallas papers on September 13, and Kennedy's itinerary for Texas was announced by Governor Connally on November 1. the President was scheduled to address a luncheon of business leaders at the Trade Mart in Dallas on November 22. He decided to travel into the city in a motorcade that was to follow the normal Dallas parade route. Kennedy liked motorcades, for they afforded an opportunity to get close to the people, and he made a special point of arranging one in Dallas because he believe it would be his one chance that day to greet workers and minorities. The final motorcade route through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas was selected on November 15. In 1963, the Secret Service had indentified six categories of persons who posed a threat to the President: right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Black militants, and a miscellaneous category that included mental patients. It indentified two cities as particularly threatening--Miami and Chicago. Dallas was considered a potential source of political embarrassment. Prior to the trip to Dallas, the Secret Service had not uncovered any serious threats there, and no extensive investigation was conducted in the city. Beginning a week before the trip, defamatory posters and leaflets excoriating the President appeared throughout Dallas. Some carried Kennedy's picture with the caption, "Wanted for Treason: This Man Is Wanted for Treasonous Activities Against the United States." It was suggested the President's Dallas parade route should not be published, but at the urging of Kennedy's staff, it appeared in the Dallas newspapers on the November 18 and 19. The President and Mrs. Kennedy traveled to Texas on November 21. That day, Kennedy visited San Antonio and Houston, where he was warmly greeted by enthusiastic crowds. He flew to Fort Worth that evening. One of the President's first act on the morning of November 22 was to call the woman who had arranged the accommodations that he and the First Lady occupied at Fort Worth's Texas Hotel. She had hung the walls with original paintings by modern masters such as Vincent Van Gogh and Claude Monet, and the special effort of the citizens of Fort Worth greatly impressed the Kennedys. That rainy morning, the President addressed the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. The speech was well received and, as Governor Connally recounted, it was 38 laced with fun. Later in the morning, after a query from Dallas, the President said that if the weather was clear, he did not want the protective bubble used on the Presidential limousine. The President and his entourage took off for Dallas at approxi- mately 11:20 a.m. While the Presidential plane, Air Force One, was airborne, the President looked out the window and remarked to Governor with a smile, "Our luck is holding. It looks as if we'll get, sunshine." A clear sky, brilliant sunshine. 68-degree temperature--a marvelous autumn day--provided the backdrop for the Presidenl Mrs. Kennedy as they arrived at Love Field in Dallas. The First Lady was presented with a bouquet of roses, and the couple attended a reception held in their honor at the airport by the community leaders of Dallas. After grating them, the President moved to shake hands with the enthusiastic crowd which according to some estimates, may have numbered 4,000 persons. For a few minutes, the President and the First Lady walked along the security barrier, greeting people. Then they joined Governor and Mrs. Connally in the Presidential limousine. Two Secret Service agents, one the driver, sat in front. The President and his wife sat in the rear seat, with the President on the right, in keeping with military protocol, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Governor Connally sat on a jump seat directly in front of the President, with his back to Kennedy, and Mrs. Connally occupied the left jump seat. Two cars with members of the Dallas Police Department, including Chief Jesse Curry, and Secret Service agents, preceded the Presidential limousine. Behind a followup car carried Secret Service agents and members of the White House staff. To the rear of that car, the Vice President and Mrs. Johnson and Senator Ralph Yarborough rode in another limousine. Next came the Vice President's followup car, and then a long line of limousines, trucks and various vehicles containing Members of Congress and other dignitaries, photographers, the President's physician, and mem- bers of the White House staff and the press. The motorcade left Love Field at about 11:50 p.m. Governor Con- nally recalled he was worried not about violence but about the possibility that some incident might occur that would embarrass the President and disrupt the atmosphere of confidence that had been building throughout the trip. That morning a hostile full-page ad- vertisement, sponsored by the "America-thinking Citizens of Dallas." had appeared in the pages of the Dallas Morning News 11 charged. among other things, that Kennedy had ignored the Constitution. scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the "Spirit of Moscow." and had been "soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America." The Governor was apprehensive that there might be unfriendly demonstrations during the motorcade or that the crowd's mood would be indifferent or even sullen. The Governor's concern subsided as the motorcade passed through the outskirts of Dallas and neared the center of the city. The crowds grew larger and they were unmistakably friendly. with people smil- ing, waving, and calling the President's name. In Connally's words, The further we got toward town, the denser became the crowds, and when we got down on Main Street, the crowds were extremely thick. They were pushed off of curbs; they were out in the street, and they were backed all the way up 39 against the walls of the buildings. They were just as thick as they could be. I don't know how many. But, there were at least a quarter of a million people on the parade route that day and everywhere the reception was good. Governor Connally noticed that Mrs. Kennedy, who had appeared apprehensive the previous day, was more relaxed and enjoyed the Dallas crowd. The only hostile act he remembered was a heckler with a placard that read "Kennedy Go Home." The President noticed the sign, and asked Governor and Mrs. Connally if they had seen it. Con- nally said, "Yes, but we were hoping you didn't." "Well, I saw it. Don't you imagine he's a nice fellow?" Kennedy asked. The Governor said, "Yes, I imagine he's a nice fellow?" Connally's fear of an embarrassing incident seemed to be unfounded. recalled: The crowds were larger than I had anticipated. They were more enthusiastic than I could ever have hoped for. This enthusiasm was apparent in a number of incidents. A little girl held up a sign with the request, "President Kennedy, will you shake hands with me?" The President noticed the sign, had the car stopped and shook hands with the little girl. The car was mobbed by an admir- ing crowd that was only separated from the Presidential limousine by Secret Service agents. At another stop, as the motorcade approached downtown Dallas, the President caught sight of a Roman Catholic nun with a group of schoolchildren. He stopped and spoke with the group. Several times enthusiastic onlookers broke away from the curbside throng and attempted to reach the limousine. Secret Service agents cleared the admirers from the street. The crowds grew thicker as the Presidential parade approached downtown. The motorcade followed the traditional Dallas parade route into the downtown business district, turning onto Main Street, which brought it through the center of the Dallas commercial district. It moved westward along Main toward Dealey Plaza. People crowded the sidewalks, surged into the street and waved from office building win- dows. The motorcade tunneled through the throng. The Governor later remarked that the business community, the group Kennedy sought to impress, would have to be affected by this remarkable reception. Con- nally said "* * * the trip had been absolutely wonderful, and we were heaving a sigh of relief because once we got through the motorcade at Dallas and through the Dallas luncheon, then everything else was pretty much routine." President Kennedy was clearly delighted by his Dallas welcome. At the corner of Main and Houston, the motorcade made a sharp 90- degree turn to the right and headed north for one block, toward the Texas School Book Depository. As the limousine approached Houston and Elm, Mrs. Connally, elated by the reception, said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." "That's obvious," the President replied. At Elm Street, the limousine made a hairpin turn to the left and headed west, passing the book depository. At about 12:30 p.m., as the President waved to the crowds, shots rang out. 40 Mrs. Connally heard a noise, turned to her right, and saw the Presi- dent clutch his neck with both hands, then slump down in the seat. Governor Connally immediately thought the noise was a rifle shot. He turned from his straight-backed jump seat in an attempt to catch sight of the President because he feared an assassination attempt. The Governor described the scene: I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double, and when I looked, immediately I could see I was drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nellie [Mrs. Connally] reached over and pulled me down into her lap. I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired * * * I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't con- scious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact * * * it made a very, very strong sound. Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both cov- ered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger * * * * * * * * * * When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no no, no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President had been so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment, this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no," Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Mrs. Connally initially thought the Governor was dead as he fell into her lap. She did not look back after her husband was hit, but heard Mrs. Kennedy say. "They have shot my husband." After one shot, Mrs. Connally recalled. the President's wife said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand." Roy Kellerman, the Secret. Service agent in the right front seat, said, "Let's get out of here fast." Bill Geer. the driver, accelerated tremen- dously. "So we pulled out of the motorcade," Mrs. Connally recalled, "and we must have been a horrible sight flying down the freeway with those dying men in our arms." She added, "There was no screaming in that horrible car. It was just a silent, terrible drive." The wounded President and Governor were rushed to Parkland Hospital. At 1 p.m., the 35th President of the United States was pronounced dead, 1,037 days after his term had begun. A. LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THREE SHOTS AT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY; THE SECOND AND THIRD SHOTS HE FIRED STRUCK THE PRESIDENT; THE THIRD SHOT HE FIRED KILLED THE PRESIDENT 1. PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS STRUCK BY TWO RIFLE SHOTS FIRED FROM BEHIND HIM The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Ken- nedy (Warren Commission) concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets that were fired from above and behind him.(1) According to the Commission, one bullet hit the President near the base of the back of the neck, slightly to the right of the spine, and exited from the front of the neck. The other entered the right rear of the President's head and exited from the right side of the head, caus- ing a large wound. (2) The Commission based its findings primarily upon the testimony of the doctors who had treated the President at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas and the doctors who performed the autopsy on the President at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. (3) In forming this conclusion, neither the members of the Warren Com- mission, nor its staff, nor the doctors who had performed the autopsy, took advantage of the X-rays and photographs of the President that were taken during the course of the autopsy. (4) The reason for the failure of the Warren Commission to examine these primary materials is that there was a commitment to make public all evidence examined by the Commission. (5) The Commission was concerned that publica- tion of the autopsy X-rays and photographs would be an invasion of the privacy of the Kennedy family. (6) The Commission's decision to rely solely on the testimony of the doctors precluded the possibility that the Commission might make use of a review of the autopsy evi- dence by independent medical experts to determine if they concurred with the findings of the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda. A determination of the number and location of the President's wounds was critical to resolving the question of whether there was more than one assassin. The secrecy that surrounded the autopsy proceedings, therefore, has led to considerable skepticism toward the Commission's findings. Concern has been expressed that authorities were less than candid, since the Navy doctor in charge of the autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital destroyed his notes, and the Warren Commission decided to forego an opportunity to view the X-rays and photographs or to permit anyone else to inspect them. The skepticism has been reinforced by a film taken of the Presiden- tial motorcade at the moment of the assassination by an amateur movie photographer, Abraham Zapruder. In the Zapruder film, the Presi- dent's head is apparently thrown backward as the front right side of the skull appears to explode, suggesting to critics of the Warren Com- mission's findings that the President was struck by a bullet that entered the front of the head. (7) Such a bullet, it has been argued, was fired (41) 42 by a gunman positioned on the grassy knoll, a park-like area to the right and to the front of where the moving limousine was located at the instant of the fatal shot. (8) Since the Warren Commission completed its investigation, two other Government panels have subjected the X-rays and photographs taken during the autopsy on President Kennedy to examination by independent medical experts. A team of forensic pathologists ap- pointed by Attorney general Ramsey Clark in 1968,(9) and a panel retained by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States (Rockefeller Commission) in 1975,(10) reached the same basic conclusion: the President was struck by two bullets from behind. But neither panel published the X-rays and photographs, nor did either explain the basis of its conclusions in a public hearing. Consequently, neither panel was able to relieve significantly doubts that have per- sisted over the years about the nature and location of the President's wounds. (a) Reliance on scientific analysis The committee believed from the beginning of its investigation that the most reliable evidence upon which it could base determinations as to what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, was an analysis of hard scientific data. Accordingly, the committee contracted with leaking independent experts in the fields of forensic pathology, ballistics, photography, acoustics, neutron activation analysis and other disciplines. The reports submitted by these experts were fully considered by the committee in formulating its findings. (1) The medical evidence.--The committee's forensic pathology panel was composed of nine members, eight of whom were chief medi- cal examiners in major local jurisdictions in the United States.(11) As a group, they had been responsible for more than 100,000 autop- sies, (12) an accumulation of experience the committee deemed in- valuable in the evaluation of the medical evidence--including the autopsy X-rays and photographs--to determine the cause of death of the President and the nature and location of his wounds. The panel was also asked to recommend guidelines in the event of a future as- sassination of a President or other high Federal official.(13) The committee also employed experts to authenticate the autopsy materials. Neither the Clark Panel nor the Rockefeller Commission undertook to determine if the X-rays and photographs were, in fact, authentic. The committee, in light of the numerous issues that had arisen over the years with respect to autopsy X-rays and photographs, believed authentication to be a crucial step in the investigation.(14) The authentication of the autopsy X-rays and photographs was accomplished by the committee with the assistance of its photographic evidence panel as well as forensic dentists, forensic anthropologists and radiologists working for the committee. (15) Two questions were put to these experts: Could the photographs and X-rays stored in the National Archives be positively identified as being of President Kennedy? Was there any evidence that any of these photographs or X-rays had been altered in any manner? To determine if the photographs of the autopsy subject were in fact of the President, forensic anthropologists compared the autopsy 43 photographs with ante-mortem pictures of the President. This com- parison was done on the basis of both metric and morphological fea- tures. The metric analysis relied upon a series of facial measurements taken from the photographs, while the morphological analysis was focused on consistency of physical features, particularly those that could be considered distinctive (shape of the nose, patterns of facial lines, et cetera). Once unique characteristics were identified, posterior and anterior autopsy photographs were compared to verify that they, in fact, depicted the same person. The anthropologists studied the autopsy X-rays in conjunction with premortem X-rays of the President. A sufficient number of unique anatomic characteristics were present in X-rays taken before and after the President's death to conclude that the autopsy X-rays were of President Kennedy. This conclusion was consistent with the findings of a forensic dentist employed by the committee. (16) Since many of the X-rays taken during the course of the autopsy included the Presi- dent's teeth, it was possible to determine, using the President's dental records, that the X-rays were of the President. Once the forensic dentist and anthropologists had determined that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were of the President, photo- graphic scientists and radiologists examined the original autopsy photographs, negatives, transparencies, and X-rays for signs of altera- tion. They concluded there was no evidence of the photographic or radiographic materials having been altered.(17) Consequently, the committee determined that the autopsy X-rays and photographs were a valid basis for the conclusions of the committee's forensic pathology panel. While the examination of the autopsy X-rays and photographs was the principal basis of its analysis, the forensic pathology panel also had access to all relevant witness testimony. In addition, all tests and evidence analyses requested by the panel were performed. (18) It was only after considering all of this evidence that the panel reached its conclusions. The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. 1 The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. This second bullet caused a massive wound to the President's head upon exit. There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head,(19) and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the Pres- ident and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. Because this con- clusion appears to be inconsistent with the backward motion of the President's head in the Zapruder film, the committee consulted a wound ballistics expert to determine what relationship, if any, exists between the direction from which a bullet strikes the head and subse- ------------- 1 In many of its conclusions, the forensic pathology panel voted 8 to 1. with the dissenting vote being consistently that of Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. In all references to conclusions of the panel, unless it is specifically stated that it was unanimous, it should be assumed that Dr. Wecht dissented. 44 quent head movement. (20) The expert concluded that nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear.(21) He demonstrated the phenomenon in a filmed experiment which involved the shooting of goats. (22) Thus, tile com- mittee determined that the rearward movement of the President's head would not be fundamentally inconsistent with a bullet striking from the rear.(23) The forensic pathology panel determined that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet from the rear, one that entered just below the right armpit and exited below the right nipple of the chest. It then shattered the radius bone of the Governor's right wrist and caused a superficial wound to the left thigh. (24) Based on its examination of the nature and alinement of the Governor's wounds, the panel con- cluded that they were all caused by a single bullet that came from the rear. It concluded further that, having caused the Governor's wounds, the bullet was dislodged from his left thigh. The panel determined that the nature of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all of the Governor's wounds. (25) A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering.(26) An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object. (27) Based on the evi- dence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would sup- port a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. (28) Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission. (29) (e) Reaction times and alinement.--The hypothesis that both the President and the Governor were struck by a single bullet had origi- nally been based on the Warren Commission's examination of the Zapruder film and test firings of the assassination rifle. The time between the observable reactions of the President and of the Gov- ernor was too short to have allowed, according to the Commission's test firings, two shots to have been fired from the same rifle.(30) FBI marksmen who test fired the rifle for the Commission employed the telescopic sight on the rifle, and the minimum firing time between shots was approximately 2.25 to 2.3 seconds.(31) The time between the observable reactions of the President and the Governor, according to the Commission, was less than two seconds. 2 The Commission determined that its hypothesis that the same bullet struck both the President and the Governor was supported by visual observations of the relative alinement of the two men in the limousine, by a trajectory analysis and by wound ballistics tests. The Commis- ---------------------- 2 In its report, the committee's photographic evidence panel suggested that Governor Connally reacted to his wounds approximately one second after President Kennedy. This interval might have been even less, but a sign obstructing Zapruder's field of view made it impossible to study the Governor immediately after the President first appeared to be reacting to having been shot. 45 sion said, however, that a determination of which shot hit the Gov- ernor was "not necessary to any essential findings."(32) (3) Neutron activation analysis.--In addition to the conclusions reached by the committee's forensic pathology panel, the single bullet theory was substantiated by the findings of a neutron activation anal- ysis performed for the committee.(33) The bullet alleged to have caused the injuries to the Governor and the President was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.(34) Numerous critics have alleged that this bullet, labeled "pristine" because it appeared to have been only slightly damaged, could not have caused the injuries to both the Governor (particularly his shattered wrist) and the President. Some have even suggested the possibility that the bullet wounded neither Con- nally nor Kennedy, that it was planted on the stretcher. (35) Neutron activation analysis, however, established that it was highly likely that the injuries to the Governor's wrist were caused by the bullet found on the stretcher in Parkland Hospital. (36) Further, the com- mittee's wound ballistics expert concluded that the bullet found on the stretcher--Warren Commission exhibit 399 (CE 399)--is of a type that could have caused the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally without showing any more deformity than it does.(37) In determining whether the deformity of CE 399 was consistent with its having passed through both the President and Governor, the committee considered the fact that it is a relatively long, stable, fully jacketed bullet, typical of ammunition often used by the military. Such ammunition tends to pass through body tissue more easily than soft nose hunting bullets. (38) Committee consultants with knowledge in forensic pathology and wound ballistics concluded that it would not have been unusual for such a fully jacketed bullet to have passed through the President and the Governor and to have been only mini- mally deformed. (39) The neutron activation analysis further supported the single bullet theory by indicating that there was evidence of only two bullets among the fragments recovered from the limousine and its occupants. The consultant who conducted the analysis concluded that it was "highly likely" that CE 399 and the fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist were from one bullet; that one of the two fragments recovered from the floor of the limousine and the fragment removed from the President's brain during the autopsy were from a second bullet. (41) 3 Neutron activation analysis showed no evidence of a third bullet among those fragments large enough to be tested. (4) Photographic evidence.--The committee also considered photo- graphic evidence in its analysis of the shots. The Zapruder film, the only continuous chronological visual record of the assassination, is the best available photographic evidence of the number and timing of the shots that struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. The committee's panel of photographic experts examined specially enhanced and stabilized versions of the Zapruder film for two pur- poses: (1) to try to draw conclusions about the timing of the shots from visual reactions of the victims; and (2) to determine whether ------------------------- 3 The other large fragment recovered from the floor of the limousine had no lead in it, and therefore was not subjected to neutron activation analysis. 46 the alignment of the President and the Governor was consistent with the single bullet theory. The panel also examined still photographs. Several conclusions with respect to the validity of the single-bullet theory were reached.(42) The panel concluded there is clear photo- graphic evidence that two shots, spaced approximately 6 seconds apart, struck the occupants of the limousine. By Zapruder frame 207 when President Kennedy is seen going behind a sign that obstructed Zapruder's view, he appears to be reacting to a severe external stimu- lus. This reaction is first indicated in the vicinity of frame 200 of the Zapruder film. The President's right hand freezes in the midst of a waving motion, followed by a rapid leftward movement of his head. (43) There is, therefore, photographic evidence of a shot strik- in the President by this time. Governor Connally shows no indication of distress before he dis- appears behind the sign at Zapruder frame 207, but as he emerges from behind the sign after frame 222, he seems to be reacting to some severe external stimulus. (44) By frame 226, when all of the limousine occupants have reappeared in Zapruder's field of view, the panel found indictions in observable physical attitude and changes of facial expression to indicate that both the President and the Governor were reacting to their wounds. The President's reactions are obvious--he leans forward and clutches his throat. The, Governor displays a pro- nounced rigid posture and change in facial expression. 4(45) To study the relative alinement of the President and Governor Con- nelly within the limousine, the photographic panel paid particular attention to the Zapruder frames just, before the President and the Governor were obstructed, by the sign, employing a stereoscopic (depth) analysis of frames 187 and 193 and still photographs taken at about the same time from the south side of Elm Street. The panel found that the alinement of the President and the Governor during this period was consistent with the single bullet hypothesis.(46) The photographic evidence panel determined, further, that the explosive effect of the second shot to strike, President Kennedy, the fatal head shot is depicted in Zapruder frame 313. By frame 313, the President's head is seen exploding, leading the panel to conclude that the actual moment of impact was approximately frame 312. (47) (5) Acoustical evidence and blur analysis.--The committee per- formed two other scientific tests that addressed the question of the direction and timing of the bullets that struck the President. First, it contracted with acoustical consultants for an analysis of a tape recording of a radio transmission made at the time of the assassina- tion. The experts decided there were four shots on the recording. (48) The first, second and fourth came from the Texas School Book Deposi- tory behind the President, the third came from the grassy knoll to the right front of the President. Taking the shot to the President's head at frame 312 as the last of the four shots, and thus as a possible base point, 5 it was possible to correlate the other sounds identified as probable gunfire with the Zapruder film.(49) Since the acoustical ----------------------- 4 There is no scientific method for determining the elapsed time between when a shot hits and when a person visibly reacts. Different people have different reaction times; moreover, a person's reaction time often depends on where he has been hit. 5 The committee considered using frame 328 as a possible base point. In this analysis, the head shot occurring at frame 312 would, according to the acoustics results, have originated from the grassy knoll. This alternative, however, was rejected. 47 consultants concluded that the two earliest shots came from the deposi- tory, the shots (or at least their shock waves) would have reached the limousine at between frames 157 and 161 and frames 188 and 191. When coupled with the photographic evidence showing a reaction by President Kennedy beginning in the vicinity of frame 200, it appeared that he was first struck by a bullet at approximately frame 190.6 Second, the photographic evidence panel also studied the blurs on the Zapruder film that were caused by Zapruder's panning errors, that is, the effect of a lack of smooth motion as Zapruder moved from left to right with his camera. This was done in an effort to determine whether the blurs resulted from Zapruder's possible reaction to the sound of gunshots. (50) This analysis indicated that blurs occurring at frames 189-197 and 312-334 may reasonably be attributed to Zapruder's startle reactions to gunshots. The time interval of the shots associated with these blurs was determined to be approximately 6 to 7 seconds. The possibility that other blurs on the film might be Attrib- utable to Zapruder's reactions to gunshots could not be confirmed or dismissed without additional data. Taken together with other evidence, the photographic and acoustical evidence led the committee to conclude that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by one bullet at approximately Zapruder frame 190, and that the President was struck by another bul- let at frame 312. Thus, from the results of the analyses by its experts in the fields of forensic pathology, photography, acoustics, wound ballistics and neutron activation analysis, the committee concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two shots fired from behind. 2. THE SHOTS THAT STRUCK PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM BEHIND WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING The Warren Commission concluded that the shots that killed Presi- dent Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally "* * * were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository." (51) It based its conclusion on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence found on the sixth floor of the depository, medical evidence and the absence of "* * * credible evidence that the shots were fired from * * * any other location."(52) (a) Scientific analysis In investigating this aspect of the case, the committee relied heavily on the scientific analysis of physical evidence, and again the conclusions of the forensic pathology panel were relevant. The panel con- cluded that the two bullets that struck the President came from behind and that the fatal head shot was moving in a downward direction when it struck the President. (53) 7 Thus, forensic pathology provided reli- --------------------- 6 A more detailed description of the reasoning leading to this conclusion is set forth in section I B. infra. 7 The panel used both the location' of the wounds and Zapruder frame 312 to determine the "downward" slope of the fatal head shot. It did not attempt to determine the slope of the bullet that struck the President's back because the moment of impact was not thought to be visible in the film. This decision by the forensic pathology panel was made well before the photographic panel reached its conclusion regarding the President's and Governor Connally's reactions as shown in the Zapruder film. 48 able evidence as to the origin of the shots: The gunman who fired the shot that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally at approxi- mately frame 190 of the Zapruder film fired from behind, and the gun- man who fired the shot that hit the President in the head at frame 312 was positioned above and to the rear of the presidential limousine. (1) Trajectory analysis.--Another project pertaining to the origin of the shots involved the trajectory of the bullets that hit the President. Although the Warren Commission also studied trajectory, its analysis consisted of proving that a bullet fired from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the book depository could have hit the President and then hit the Governor and that another bullet fired from that location could have caused the wound to the President's head. Basically, purpose of the Commission's trajectory analysis was to prove that it was possible for the prime suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, to have hit both the President and the Governor from the sixth floor of the depository. The committee approached the problem without making prior as- sumptions as to the origin of the shots. It was an interdisciplinary effort, drawing from the expertise of forensic pathologists, acoustical and photographic analysts and an engineer from the staff of the tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, who plotted the trajectories. (54) The trajectory analysis was based on three types of data. From the acoustical analysis of the radio transmission, the timing of the shots was obtained. From the photographic analysis of the Zapruder film and the acoustical analysis, it was possible to know with relative precision when each of the shots struck--at approximately Zapruder frame 190 for the shot that struck the President in the back of the neck, and at Zapruder frame 3112, for the fatal shot to the President's head. Through an analysis of those frames and still photographs taken at approximately the same time from the south side of Elm Street, it was possible to determine the location of the limousine in the plaza, the sitting positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally and their alinement to one another. (55) By then coordinating this data with the forensic pathology panel's analysis of the exit and entry wounds sustained by President Ken- nedy, it was possible to plot the path of the bullets out to their source. Separate direction and slope trajectories were developed for two bul- lets-the one that caused the President's back and neck wounds, and the one that caused his fatal head wound.(56) A third trajectory analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that the first bullet also caused the wounds to Governor Connally, using for this analysis the exit wounds to the President's neck and the entry wound to the Governor's back. (57) All three trajectories intercepted the southeast face of the Texas School Book Depository building.(58) While the trajectories could not be plotted with sufficient precision to determine the exact point from which the shots were fired, they each were calculated with a mar- gin of error reflecting the precision of the underlying data. The mar- gins of error were indicated as circles within which the shots origi- nated. The southeast corner window of the depository was inside each of the circles. (59) 49 (2) photographic evidence.--The photographic evidence panel ex- amined evidence possibly relevant to the question of the origin of the shots, as follows: The panel examined a motion picture of the southeast corner win- dow of the depository taken a short time prior to the shots. (60) While there is an impression of motion in the film, the panel could not at- tribute it to the movement of a person or an object and instead attrib- uted the motion to photographic artifacts.(61) The panel's findings were the same with respect to apparent motion in adjacent windows shown in the film.(62) The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. (63) While no human face or form could be detected in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes in the window had been rearranged during the interval of the taking of the two photographs.(64) There is evidence, a motion picture film made by Charles L. Bron- son, that some independent researchers believe shows a figure or figures in the sixth floor depository window several minutes before the shooting. The film came to the attention of the committee toward the end of its investigation. Some members of the committee's photo- graphic evidence panel did conduct a preliminary review (without en- hancement) of the film. While motion was detected in the window, it was considered more likely to be a random photographic artifact than human movement. Nevertheless, the limited review was not sufficient to determine definitively if the film contained evidence of motion made by human figures.(65) Because of its high quality, it was recommended that the Bronson film be analyzed further. (b) Witness testimony While the committee relied primarily on scientific analysis of physi- cal evidence as to the origin of the shots, it also considered the testi- mony of witnesses. The procedure used to analyze their statements was as follows: First, all available prior statements were read by the committee and studied for consistency. The objective was to identify inconsistencies either between the words of one witness and another or between the various words of a witness whose story had changed. The statements were obtained from the files of the Dallas Police Department, dallas Sheriff's Office, the FBI, Secret Service and Warren Commission. Second, an attempt was made to locate the witnesses and to show them the statements they made in the course of the original investiga- tion. Each witness was asked to read his statements and to indicate whether they were complete and accurate. If statements were inac- curate, or if a witness was aware of information that was not include, he was asked to make corrections or provide additional information. In addition, where relevant questions had not been asked, the committee asked them.(66) There are inherent limitations in such a process. Any information provided by a witness in 1978--15 years after the assassination--must be viewed in light of the passage of time that causes memories to fade and honest accounts to become distorted. Certainly, it cannot be con- sidered with the same reliability as information provided in 1963-64. 50 To the extent that they are based on witness testimony, the conclusions of the committee were vitally affected by the quality of the original investigation. The inconsistencies in the statements--the questions not asked, the witnesses not interviewed--all created problems that defied resolution 15 years after the events in Dallas. Nevertheless, the committee considered all of the witness statements and determined to what extent they corroborated or independently substantiated, or contradicted, the conclusions indicated by the scien- tific evidence. An example of such witness testimony is that relating to the dis- covery of the rifle and shell casings in the Texas School Book Deposi- tory. (Because detailed versions of witness testimony taken in the original investigation are a matter of public record, only brief resumes are included here. ) Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney testified to the Warren Commission that at approximately 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, he discovered three spent rifle shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. (67) He stated that he was in the southeast corner of the building when he noticed boxes stacked high in the vicinity of the window. (68) He then squeezed in between a space in the boxes and saw three spent rifle shells in the vicinity of the window. (69) Mooney also told of seeing boxes stacked up as though they were a prop or rest for a weapon. (70) Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone told the Warren Commission that he arrived on the sixth floor of the depository subsequent to the dis- covery of the three spent rifle shells. (71) He said he went to the east end of the floor and began working his way across to the west end, looking in, under and around boxes and pallets. (72) At the wall near a row of windows, he noticed a small space between some of the boxes. When he squeezed through the opening, he saw a rifle between two rows of boxes. The time was 1:22 p.m. (73) (c) Firearms evidence The rifle Boone found, a. 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, was analyzed by the FBI in 1963-64 and by the committee's firearms panel in 1978, as was the other firearms evidence that was recovered. It was determined in both investigations that the bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital had been fired from the rifle found in the depository, as were two fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine. (741) Further, the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the depository were determined to have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano. 8 (75) Through neutron activation analysis, the committee found that the firearms evidence could be even more directly linked to the wounds suffered by the President and Governor Connally. It is highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher was the one that passed through Governor Connally's wrist, leaving tiny particles behind, and the frag- ------------------------- 8 The committee firearms panel determined that the evidence stored in the National Archives ballistically matched the bullets fired by the FBI in 1964 tests from the Mannlicher-Carcano found by Boone. Since the rifle had been test fired numerous times since 1963, its barrel had been altered by wear, and bullets the panel fired from the rifle did not match either the FBI test cartridges or those found on the sixth floor of depository or that found on the stretcher. 51 ments retrieved from the limousine came from the same bullet as the fragments taken from President Kennedy's brain. (76) Over the years, skepticism has arisen as to whether the rifle found in the depository by Boone is the same rifle that was delivered to the Warren Commission and is presently stored in the National Archives. The suspicion has been based to some extent on allegations that police officers who first discovered the rifle identified it as a 7.5 millimeter German Mauser. (77) The controversy was intensified by the allega- tion that various photographs of the rifle, taken at different times, portray inconsistencies with respect to the proportions of the various component parts. ( 78) To resolve the controversy, the committee assembled a wide range of photographs of the rifle: a police photograph taken where it was found in the depository; a motion picture film taken by a television station showing the rifle when it was found by the police; a series of photographs of a police officer carrying the rifle from the depository; photographs taken as the rifle was carried through the halls of Dallas Police Department; and photographs taken later by the FBI and Dallas Police Department. (79) The examination by committee photographic consultants determined that all photographs were of the same rifle. Both a study of propor- tions and a comparison of identifying marks indicated that only one rifle was involved. (80) (d) Summary of the evidence In the final analysis, the committee based its finding that the shots that struck President Kennedy were fired from the Texas School Book Depository on the quantity and quality of the evidence, to wit: The findings of forensic pathologists that the shots that hit the President came from behind; The results of the trajectory analysis that traced the bullets to the vicinity of sixth floor window of the depository; The conclusion of acoustics experts that the shots came from the vicinity of the sixth floor window of the depository; The positive identification by firearms experts that the rifle. found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital and frag- ments retrieved from the Presidential limousine; The results of neutron activation analysis indicating that it was highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital was the one that ,passed through Governor Connally's wrist, and that the fragments found in the limousine were from the bullet that struck the President in the head; The conclusion of photographic experts that the rifle found in the depository was the same one that was repeatedly photographed in November 1963 and that is presently stored at the National Archives. The committee also weighed the firsthand testimony of witnesses but with caution, because of the problem of the passage of time. Besides the statements of law officers on the scene immediately after the assassination, it considered the accounts of bystanders in Dealey Plaza, bearing in mind that these were recollections of fleeting mo- 52 ments when emotions were running high. The committee noted, how- ever, that a number of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said they saw either a rifle or a man with a rifle in the vicinity of the sixth floor southeast corner window of the book depository. 3. LEE HARVEY OSWALD OWNED THE RIFLE THAT WAS USED TO FIRE THE SHOTS FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW OF TIlE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Since the Commission further concluded that Oswald was the assassin of the President, his background is relevant. (a) Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald Oswald was born in New Orleans, La., on October 18, 1939, two months after the death of his father. His mother remarried, and, from 1945 until 1952, the family lived in a number of cities in Texas and Louisiana. This marriage ended in divorce when Oswald was nine. In 1952, Oswald and his mother moved to New York City. His school record was marked by chronic truancy, and a psychiatric ex- amination suggested that he was emotionally disturbed. Oswald and his mother returned to New Orleans in 1954. After finishing the ninth grade, the 16-year-old Oswald dropped out of school. The following year, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps. Asserting the iII-health and distressing financial situation of his mother, Oswald obtained a release from the Marines in 1959. Follow- ing his discharge, he spent 3 days with his mother in Fort Worth, Tex., and then went to New Orleans. From there, he traveled to the Soviet Union where he tried to become a Soviet citizen. In April 1961, Oswald married a 19-year-old Russian woman, Marina Nikolaevna Prusakova, whom he had met while working in Minsk. Having become disillusioned with Soviet life, he returned to the United States with his wife and baby daughter the following year. The Oswalds arrived in Fort Worth, Tex. on June 14, 1962, and soon became acquainted with a number of people in the Dallas-Fort Worth Russian-speaking community. Oswald moved to Dallas in October 1962 where he found a job with a graphic arts company. Marina fol- lowed in November, but their marriage was plagued by intermittent feuding. In March 1963, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald pur- chased a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and telescopic sight from a Chicago mail order house. He also ordered a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson pis- tol from a Los Angeles firm. According to Marina Oswald, he probably used the rifle in an attempt in April to kill Edwin A. Walker, a retired Army general who had been relieved from his post in West Germany for distributing rightwing literature to his troops. Walker was not harmed. In April 1963, Oswald went to New Orleans. Meanwhile, Marina and the baby moved to the home of a friend, Ruth Paine, in Irving, Tex., in late April. In May, she joined Oswald in New Orleans. On July 19, Oswald was dismissed from his job for inefficiency. In May 53 and June, Oswald had expressed an interest in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. In August, he distributed pro-Castro leaflets and also made two radio broadcasts on behalf of the Castro regime. Marina Oswald and her baby returned to Texas to stay with Ruth Paine in Irving on September 22. Oswald went to Mexico City in the latter part of September. He visited the Russian Embassy and Consulate and the Cuban Consulate there, but he failed to get permission to travel to either country. He re- turned to Dallas on October 3, 1963. He visited Marina in Irving on several occasions but continued to try to find a place to live in Dallas. On October 14, Oswald moved into a roominghouse on North Beckley Avenue in Dallas. He began work at the Texas School Book Deposi- tory 2 days later. On October 20, Marina gave birth to their second daughter. She returned to the Paine home in Irving where Oswald visited on November 1, and from November 8 until November 11. Oswald next visited Marina and his children in Irving on the evening of November 21. He returned to Dallas the following morning. Shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy on Novem- ber 22, 1963, Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit was shot and killed. At approximately 2 p.m., Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre. He was subsequently charged in the murder of Tippit and named as a suspect in the Kennedy assassination. On November 24, 1963, while he was being escorted through the basement of Dallas police headquarters in preparation for being trans- ferred to the Dallas County Sheriff's office, Oswald was fatally wounded by a single shot fired from a pistol by Jack Ruby, a Dallas nightclub operator. As noted, the Warren Commission had traced the chain of possession of the alleged assassination rifle and determined that the name on the money order and purchase form used to buy the rifle was "A. Hidell" which it determined to be an alias used by Oswald. (81) It also determined that the rifle was sent to a Dallas post office box rented on October 9, 1962 by Oswald. (82) Through handwriting analysis, the Commission determined that Oswald had filled out and signed the documents relative to the purchase and receipt of the rifle. (83) More- over, the Commission received testimony that Oswald owned a rifle and that it was not in its usual storage place at the residence of Michael and Ruth Paine in Irving, Tex., when police searched the residence on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. Photographs of Oswald holding a rifle were also recovered from among his personal possessions, and the Commission concluded that the rifle in the photograph was the one found on the sixth floor of the book depository. (85) A palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle was identified as a latent palmprint of Oswald.(86) Finally, the Commission treated as significant evidence a brown paper sack on which was identified a latent palmprint of Oswald. (87) It contained fibers that were determined to be identical to certain fibers of a blanket in which Oswald had allegedly wrapped the rifle. (88) The committee concluded that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the book depository was the murder weapon. This determination, coupled with Warren Commission evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle, if accepted, proved conclusively that Oswald was the owner of the murder weapon. 54 Nevertheless, doubt has been cast on the evidence that Oswald owned the rifle in question. Critics of the Warren Commission have asserted that the chain of possession is meaningless, because more than one Mannlicher-Carcano was issued with the serial number C2766.(89) They have also argued that the photograph of Oswald holding the rifle is a fake and that his palmprint was planted on the barrel. (90) (b) The committee's approach The committee decided that one way to determine whether Oswald did, in fact, own the murder weapon was to test the reliability of the evidence used by the Warren Commission to establish ownership and to subject the available evidence to further scientific analysis. The committee posed these questions: Could the handwriting on the money order used to purchase the rifle and the application for the post office box be established with confidence as that of Lee Harvey Oswald? 9 Are the photographs of Oswald holding the rifle authentic, and is that rifle the one that was found in the book depository after the assassination? (1) Handwriting analysis.--With respect to the first issue, the com- mittee's questioned documents panel, composed of three experts with approximately 90 years of combined experience in the field of ques- tioned document examination, was provided with approximately 50 documents allegedly containing Oswald's handwriting. (91) The panel was asked to determine whether all of the documents were written by the same person. Among the documents provided to the panel was the money order sent to Klein's Sporting Goods Co. of Chicago to pay for a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, the application for the post office box to which the rifle was subsequently mailed, and two fingerprint cards signed by Oswald. (92) One of the cards was signed at the time of his enlistment in the Marine Corps on October 24, 1956; the other, dated August 9, 1963, was signed `by Oswald at the time he was arrested in New Orleans for disturbing the peace. (Although Oswald was fingerprinted when he was arrested in Dallas on Novem- ber 22, 1963, he refused to sign the card.) 10 The questioned documents panel determined that the money order and the post office box application were filled out and signed by the same person and that the handwriting on them was identical to the handwriting on the two fingerprint cards signed by Oswald. (94) On the basis of this analysis. the committee determined that Oswald bought the weapon in question from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. (2) The backyard photographs.--The photographs of Oswald hold- ing the rifle, with a pistol strapped to his waist and also holding copies of "The Militant" and "The Worker," were taken by his wife in the backyard of Oswald's home on Neeley Street in Dallas in March or April 1963, according to the testimony of Oswald's widow, Marina, ----------------------- 9 The committee also attempted to have its handwriting experts analyze other documents, such as the order for the rifle and the envelope in which it was mailed. The originals had, however, been destroyed, and microfilm copies that existed were not suitable for conclusive tests. 10 The fingerprints on all three cards were examined by the committee's fingerprint expert and determined to be those of the same person. (93) 55 given to the Warren Commission and the committee. 11 (95) There has been considerable controversy about the photographs. While in the custody of the Dallas police from November 22 to November 24, 1963, Oswald claimed that he did not own a rifle and that the photographs were composites, with his head superimposed over someone else's body.(96) The Warren Commission, however, concluded that the photographs were authentic.(97) Critics of the Commission have ques- tioned their authenticity for reasons generally based on alleged shadow inconsistencies, an indication of a grafting inbetween the mouth and chin, inconsistent body proportions and a disparate square-shaped chin.(98) To determine if evidence of fakery was present in these photographs, the photographic evidence panel first sought to determine if they could be established as having been taken with Oswald's Imperial Re- flex camera. This was done by studying the photographs (and the single available original negative) for unique identifying characteristics that would have been imparted by that camera. Once this was successfully done, the objects imaged in the photographs, as well as their shadows, were analyzed photogrammetrically. Finally, the materials were visually scrutinized, using magnification, stereoscopic analysis and digital image processing.(99) In its analyses, the photographic evidence panel worked with the original negative and first-generation prints of the photographs.(100) Only such materials contain the necessary and reliable photographic information. Incontrast, some of the critics who claimed the photo- graphs were faked relied on poor quality copies for their anal- yses.(101) Copies tend to lose detail and include defects that impair accurate representation of the photographic image. After subjecting these original photographic materials and the camera alleged to have taken the pictures to sophisticated analytical techniques, the photographic evidence panel concluded that it could find no evidence of fakery.(102) Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the rifle stored at the Na- tional Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963.(103) Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (ie., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification. --------------------- 11 Marina Oswald, because of her testimony, played a central but troubling role in the investigation of the Warren Commission. A great deal of what the Commission sought to show about Oswald rested on her testimony, yet she have incomplete and inconsistent statements at various times to the Secret Service, FBI and the Commission. Marina's role in the committee's investigation was less central, since the committee's examination of what happened in Dallas rested primarily on the results of scientific analysis. The committee found no evidence that would indicate that Marina had foreknowledge of the assassination or that she helped her husband in any way in his efforts to assassinate the President. In its investigation of conspiracy, the committee's undertaking was not furthered by Marina's testimony, since she professed to know little of Oswald's associates in New Orleans or Dallas. 56 In addition, the relative lengths of component parts of the alleged assassination rifle at the National Archives were compared to com- ponent parts of the rifle that appeared in various 1963 photographs, including the backyard photographs.(104) They were found to be entirely consistent, component part for component part, with each other. 12 Upon completion of its analysis, the photographic evidence panel concluded that the rifle depicted in the backyard photographs is the one that was found in the book depository after the assassination and that was stored at the National Archives. (105) In addition to the photographic analysis, the committee was able to employ handwriting analysis to aid in the determination of whether the photograph was anthentic. During the course of the committee's investigation, George de Mohrenschildt, who had been a friend of Oswald, committed suicide. The committee, pursuant to a subpena, obtained de Mohrenschildt's personal papers, which included another copy of the Oswald backyard photograph. This copy, unlike any of those previously recovered, had an inscription on the back: "To my dear friend George, from Lee." It was dated April 1963 and signed "Lee Harvey Oswald." (106) In an unpublished manuscript, de Mohrenschildt referred to this copy of the photograph and stated that after his return from Haiti, where he had been at the time of the assassination, he discovered the photograph among personal possessions that he had previously stored in a warehouse. (107) The committee examined the photograph to determine its authenticity and examined the handwriting to determine if Oswald had actually written the inscription and signed it. If Oswald did sign the photograph, his claim that he did not own the rifle and that the photograph was a fake could be discounted. The photographic panel found no evidence of fakery in the back- yard photographs, including the one found in de Mohrenschildt's effects.(108) The handwriting on the back of the de Mohrenschildt copy was determined by the questioned documents panel to be identical to all the other documents signed by Oswald, including the fingerprint cards. (109) Thus, after submitting the backyard photographs to the photo- graphic and handwriting panels, the committee concluded that there was no evidence of fakery in the photographs and that the rifle in the photographs was identical to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the depository on November 22, 1963. Having resolved these issues, the committee concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle from which the shots that killed President Kennedy were fired. 4. LEE HARVEY OSWALD, SHORTLY BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, HAD ACCESS TO AND WAS PRESENT ON THE SIXTH FLOOR OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING The Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald worked principally on the first and sixth floors of the Texas School Book Depository, gathering books listed on orders and delivering them to -------------------------- 12 Previous studies analyzing the relative lengths of the component parts of rifles shown in various post-assassination photographs that questioned the identification of the rifle failed to consider the effect of perspective on the way that an object is imaged in a photograph. 57 the shipping room on the first floor. (110) He had, therefore, ready access to the sixth floor and to the southeast corner window from which the shots were fired. The Commission reached this conclusion by inter- viewing Oswald's supervisors and fellow employees. (111) (a) Testimony of school book depository employees In its investigation, the committee also considered the statements and testimony of employees of the Texas School Book Depository who worked with and supervised Oswald. Roy Truly, superintendent of the depository, had stated to the Warren Commission that Oswald "had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day, after books."(112) Truly and others testified that Oswald normally had access to the sixth floor of the depository, and a number of them said that they saw and heard Oswald in the vicinity of the sixth floor throughout the morning of November 22, 1963. (113) (b) Physical evidence of Oswald's presence In determining whether Oswald was actually present on the sixth floor of the depository, the committee paid primary attention to scientific analysis of physical evidence. Materials were examined for fingerprints, including a long, rectangular paper sack that was dis- covered near the southeast corner window and cartons that were found stacked adjacent to the window. The paper sack, which was suitable for containing a rifle, showed a latent palmprint and fingerprint of Oswald; one of the cartons showed both a palmprint and fingerprint identified as belonging to Oswald, and the other showed just his palm- print. The determination that Oswald's prints were on the sack and cartons was originally made in the investigation that immediately followed the assassination. It was confirmed by a fingerprint expert retained by the committee. (114) The committee was aware that Oswald's access to the sixth floor during the normal course of his duties would have provided the op- portunity to handle these items at any time before the assassination. Nevertheless, the committee believed that the way the boxes were stacked at the window and the proximity of the paper sack to the window from which the shots were fired must be considered as evidence indicating that he handled the boxes in the process of preparing the so-called sniper's nest and that he had used the paper sack to carry the rifle into the depository. (c) Oswald's whereabouts As for Oswald's presence on the sixth floor shortly before the assas- sination, the committee considered the testimony of Oswald's fellow employees at the depository. Although a number of them placed him on the fifth or sixth floor just before noon, a half hour before the assassination, one recalled he was on the first floor at that same time. (115) The committee decided not to try to reconcile the testimony of these witnesses. Whether Oswald was on the first, fifth or sixth floor at noon, he could have still been on the sixth floor at 12:30. There was no witness who said he saw Oswald anywhere at the time of the assassina- tion, and there was no witness who claimed to have been on the sixth floor and therefore in a position to have seen Oswald, had he been there. 58 (1) Lovelady or Oswald?--It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the president's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository.(116) Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President. The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. (117) Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commis- sion members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission (118). The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photo- analyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the door- way and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day. (119) Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resem- blance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corre- sponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady- Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he af- firmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph.(12O) (2) Witness testimony.--The committee also considered witness testimony as to Oswald's whereabouts immediately following the assassination. Three witnesses were particularly significant. Deposi- tory Superintendent Roy Truly and Dallas Police Officer M.L. Baker both entered the depository right after the shots were fired. They encountered Oswald on the second floor, and in testimony to the War- ren Commission, they gave the time as 2 to 3 minutes after the shots. (121) A witness who personally knew Oswald, Mrs. Robert A. Reid, also a depository employee, testified to the Warren Commission that she also saw him on the second floor approximately 2 minutes after the assassination. (122) The testimony of these three witnesses was mutually corroborating- Since all were outside the depository when the shots were fired. their statements that it took them about 2 minutes to get to the second floor were reasonable.(123) It appeared equally reasonable that in those same 2 minutes Oswald could have walked from the sixth floor window to the rear stairway and down four flights of stairs to the second floor. The conclusion with respect to this evidence alone was not that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, but merely that the testimony of these witnesses appeared credible and was probative on the question of Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination- 59 5. LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S OTHER ACTIONS TEND TO SUPPORT THE CONCLU- SION THAT HE ASSASSINATED PRESIDENT KENNEDY The Warren Commission Concluded that shortly after the assassina- tion, Oswald boarded a bus, but when the bus got caught in a traffic jam, he disembarked and took a taxicab to his roominghouse.(124) The Commission also found that Oswald changed clothes at the room- inghouse and walked about nine-tenths of a mile away from it before he encountered Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. (125) After being stopped by Tippit, the Commission concluded, Oswald drew a revolver and shot Tippit four times, killing him. He then ran from the scene.(126) He was apprehended at approximately 1:50 p.m. in a nearby movie house, the Texas Theatre. (127) The committee found that while most of the depository employees were outside of the building at the time of the assassination and re- turned inside afterwards, Oswald did the reverse; he was inside before the assassination, and afterward he went outside. That Oswald left the building within minutes of the assassination was significant. Every other depository employee either had an alibi for the time of the assassination or returned to the building immediately thereafter. Oswald alone neither remained nor had an alibi. (a) The Tippit murder The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was ap- prehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13 (128) In addition, the committee's investigators interviewed witnesses present at the scene of the Tippit murder.(129) Based on Oswald's possession of the murder weapon a short time after the murder and the eyewitness identifications of Oswald as the gunman, the committee concluded that Oswald shot and killed Officer Tippit. The committee further concluded that this crime, committed while fleeing the scene of the assassination, was consistent with a finding that Oswald assas- sinated the President. The Warren Commission had investigated the possibility that Os- wald and Tippit were associated prior to the assassination. but it failed to find a connection. (130) Similarly, the committee's investigation un- covered no direct evidence of such a relationship, nor did it attribute any activity or association to Officer Tippit that could be deemed suspicious. The committee, however, did find and interview one witness who had not been interviewed by the Warren Commission or FBI in 1963-64. His name is Jack Ray Tatum, and he reported wit- nessing the final moments of the shooting of Officer Tippit. (131) Os- wald, according to Tatum, after initially shooting Tippit from his position on the sidewalk, walked around the patrol car to where Tippit -------------------- 13 Since Oswald's revolver had been partially modified to shoot different ammunition than the type it was manufactured to shoot, It was not possible for the panel to determine whether the bullets that killed Tippit were fired from it. The panel did determine that the characteristics of the bullets were consistent with their having been fired from Oswald's revolver. 60 lay in the street and stood over him while he shot him at point blank range in the head. This action, which is often encountered in gangland murders and is commonly discribed as a coup do grace, is more indica- tive of an execution than an act of defense intended to allow escape or prevent apporhension. Absent further evidence--which the com- mittee did not develop--the meaning of this evidence must remain uncertain. 14 (b) Oswald: A capacity for violence? The committee also considered the question of whether Oswald's words or actions indicated that he possessed a "capacity for violence." The presence of such a trait would not, in and of itself, prove much. Nevertheless, the absence of any words or actions by Oswald that in- dicated a capactity for violence would be inconsistent with the con- clusion that Oswald assassinated the President and would be of some significance. In this regard, the committee noted that Oswald had on more than one occasion exhibited such behavior. The most blatant example is the shooting of Officer Tippit. The man who shot Tippit shot him four times at close range and in areas that were certain to cause death. There can be no doubt that the man who murdered Officer Tippit in- tended to kill him, and as discussed above, the committee concluded that Oswald was that man. Another example of such behavior occurred in the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest. All of the police officers present--and Oswald himself--stated that Oswald physically attempted to resist arrest.(132) The incident is particulary significant, if, as some of the officers testified, Oswald attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to fire his revolver during the course of the struggle. Another incident considered by the committee in evaluating Os- wald's capacity for violence was the attempted murder of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963. The Warren Commission con- cluded that Oswald shot at Walker and that this demonstrated "his propensity to act dramatically and, in this instance violently, in fur- therance of his beliefs."(133) Many critics of the commission, how- ever, dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the shooter in the Walder case.(134) The committee turned to scientific analysis to cast light on the issue. As discussed earlier, the evidence is conclusive that Oswald owned a Mannlicher-Carano rifle. The committee's firearms panel examined the bullet fragment that was removed from the wall in the home of General Walker and found that it had characteristics similar to bul- lets fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.(135) In addition, neutron activation analysis of this fragment confirmed that it was probably a Mannlicher-bullet.(136) In addition, the committee considered the testimony of Marina Oswald, who stated, among other things, that Lee Harvey Oswald told her that he had shot at Walder.(137) Further, the committee's hand- writing experts determined that a handwritten note that, according to Marina Oswald's testimony, was written to her by Oswald prior to the --------------------- 14 The committee did verify from the Tippit autopsy report that there was one wound in the body that slanted upward from front to back. Though previously unexplained, it would be consistent with the observations of Jack Ray Tatum. 61 Walker shooting, was written by Oswald,(138) This undated note, although it did not mention General Walker, clearly indicated that Oswald was about to attempt an act during the course of which he might be killed or taken into custody.(139) 15 The committee concluded that the evidence strongly suggested that Oswald attempted to murder General Walker and that he possessed a capacity for violence. Such evidence is supportive of the committee's conclusion that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. (c) The motive Finding a possible motive for Oswald's having assassinated Presi- dent Kennedy was one of the most difficult issues that the Warren Commission addressed. The Commission stated that "many factors were undoubtedly involved in Oswald's motivation for the assassina- tion, and the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives."(140) The Commission noted Oswald's overriding hostility to his environment, his seeking a role in history as a great man, his commitment to Marxism, and his capacity to act decisively without regard to the consequences when such action would further his aims of the moment.(141) The committee agreed that each of the factors listed by the Warren Commission accurately characterized various aspects of Oswald's political beliefs, that those beliefs were a dominant factor in his life and that in the absence of other more compelling evidence, it con- cluded that they offered a reasonable explanation of his motive to kill the President. It is the committee's judgment that in the last 5 years of his life, Oswald was preoccupied with political ideology. The first clear mani- festation of this preoccupation was his defection to the Soviet Union in the fall of 1959 at the age of 20.(142) This action, in and of itself, was an indication of the depth of his political commitment. The words that accompanied the act went even further. Oswald stated to officials at the American Embassy in Moscow that he wanted to renounce his citizenship and that he intended to give the Russians any information concerning the Marine Corps and radar operations that he pos- sessed.(143) In letters written to his brother Robert, Oswald made it clear that in the event of war he would not hesitate ot fight on the side of the Russians against his family or former country.(144) The paramount importance of his political commitment was indicated in one letter in which he informed his family that he did not desire to have any further communications with them as he was starting a new life in Russia. It was also reflected in his attempt to commit suicide when he was informed he would not be allowed to remain in the Soviet Union. (145) In considering which were the dominant forces in Oswald's life, the committee, therefore, relied on Oswald's willingness ------------------ 15 With respect to the Walker shooting, reports of the Dallas Police Department, made at the time of the shooting and referred to in the Warren Report, reflected that there was one witness who stated he saw more than one person leaving the scene after the shooting. Another witness, according to police reports, stated he saw two men, two nights before the shooting, driving in the vicinity of the Walker house in a suspicious manner. These statements were never substantiated, and the case remains unsolved. Nevertheless, if they are true, a possible implication is that Oswald had associates who would engage in a conspiracy to commit murder. The committee conducted a limited investigation to see if leads could be developed that might assist in identifying these possible associates. No leads were developed, and this line of inquiry was abandoned. 62 to renounce his citizenship, to betray military secrets, to take arms against his own family, and to give up his own life, if necessary, for his political beliefs. Upon Oswald's return to the United States from the Soviet Union in 1962, although his fervor for that country might have diminished, his words and actions still revolved around ideological causes. Oswald made no attempt to hide or tone down his deep-seated feelings. He ex- pounded them to those with whom he associated, even when they could be expected to be opposed. He subscribed to Marxist and Communist publications such as "The Worker" and "The Militant," and he openly corresponded with the American Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party. (146) His devotion to his political beliefs was cogently symbolized by the photograph, authenticated by the committee's photographic and handwriting panels, in which he is defiantly hold- ing copies of "The Worker" and "The militant" and his rifle, with a handgun strapped to his waist. (147) His involvement in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was another example of Oswald's affinity for political action. (148) This organiza- tion was highly critical of U.S. policy toward the Cuban government of Fidel Castro Oswald not only professed to be a member of the orga- nization, but he characteristically chose to become a highly visible spokesman. He corresponded with the national office, distributed hand- bills on the streets of New Orleans and twice appeared on a local radio program representing himself as a spokesman for the organization. The committee fully recognized that during the course of Oswald's activities in New Orleans he apparently became involved with cer- tain anti-Castro elements, although such activities on Oswald's part have never been fully explained.(149) Considering the depth of his political commitment, it would not have been uncharacteristic for Os- wald to have attempted to infiltrate anti-Castro Cuban organiza- tions. (150) But the significant point is that regardless of his purpose for joining, it is another example of the dominance of political activity in Oswald's life. A short time before the assassination of the President, Oswald traveled to Mexico City, where he went to the Cuban Consulate and indicated an intense desire to travel to Cuba and Russia. (151) Once again, it appears that Oswald was ready to leave his family and his country to fulfill a political goal. Precisely why Oswald wanted to go to Cuba or Russia is not known, but it was certainly of significance that he chose those particular countries, both of which are Marxist. Finally, in considering the extent to which Oswald acted on behalf of his political beliefs, the Walker shooting also was relevant. As dis- cussed above, the committee concluded that Oswald attempted to murder Major General Walker in April 1963. In the city of Dallas, no one figure so epitomized anticommunism as General Walker. Consider- ing the various activities to which Oswald devoted his time, his efforts and his very existence, General Walker could be readily seen as "an ultimate enemy." It is known that Oswald was willing to risk death for his beliefs, so it is certainly not unreasonable to find that he might attempt to kill Walker, a man who was intensely opposed to his ideology. In analyzing Oswald's possible political motive, the committee con- sidered the fact that as one's position in the political spectrum moves 63 far enough to the left or right, what may otherwise be recognized as strikingly dissimilar viewpoints on the spectrum may be viewed as ideologically related. President Kennedy and General Walker hardly shared a common political ideology. As seen in terms of American po- litical thinking, Walker was a staunch conservative while the Presi- dent was a liberal. It can be argued, however, that from a Marxist's perspective, they could be regarded as occupying similar positions. Where Walker was stridently anti-Communist, Kennedy was the leader of the free world in its fight against communist. Walker was a militarist. Kennedy had ordered the invasion of Cuba and had moved to within a hairsbreadth of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. Consequently, it may be argued that Oswald could have seen Walker and Kennedy in the same ideological light. The depth and direction of Oswald's ideological commitment is, therefore, clear. Politics was the dominant force in his the right down to the last days when, upon being arrested for the assassination, he re- quested to be represented by a lawyer prominent for representing Com- munists. Although no one specific ideological goal that Oswald might have hoped to achieve by the assassination of President Kennedy can be shown with confidence, it appeared to the committee that his domi- nant motivation, consistent with his known activities and beliefs, must have been a desire to take political action. It seems reasonable to con- clude that the best single explanation for the assassination was his con- ception of political action, rooted in his twisted ideological view of himself and the world around him. 64 (blank page) B. SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT TWO GUNMAN FIRED AT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY; OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF TWO GUNMEN FIRING AT THE PRESIDENT; SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NEGATES SOME SPECIFIC CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS The committee tried to take optimum advantage of scientific analysis in exploring issues concerning the assassination. In many cases, it was believed that scientific information would be the most reliable infor- mation available, since some witnesses had died and the passage of time had caused the memories of remaining witnesses to fail and caused other problems affecting the trustworthiness of their testimony. As noted in the preceding section of this report, the committee turned to science as a major source of evidence for its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots from the Texas School Book De- pository, two of which hit President Kennedy. The evidence that was most relied upon was developed by committee panels specializing in the fields of forensic pathology, ballistics, neutron activation, analysis, handwriting identification, photography and acoustics. Of these, acoustics--a science that involves analysis of the nature and origin of sound impulses--indicated that the shots from the book depository were not the only ones fired at President Kennedy. (a) Warren Commission analysis of a tape The Warren Commission had also employed scientific analysis in its investigation and had recognized that acoustics might be used to re- solve some questions about the shots fired at the President. It had obtained a tape recording, an alleged on-the-scene account of the assas- sination made by Sam Pate, a Dallas radio newsman, but an FBI examination of the tape "failed to indicate the presence of any sounds which could be interpreted as gunshots."(1) The FBI also informed the Commission that the newsman had stated that most of the tape was not recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, but was recorded in a studio several days later after he had been dismissed by his station, KBOX. (2) The Commission independently submitted the tape for analysis to Dr. Lawrence Kersta of Bell Telephone Acoustics & Speech Research Laboratory. As reported in a letter from Kersta to the Commission on July 17, 1964,(3) spectograms (visual representations of tonal qualities in the sounds) were made of a key 8-second portion of the tape. The spectograms indicated there were six nonvoiced noises-- one nonvoiced "spike" (a scientific term for a graphic display of a noise) followed by three other nonvoiced spikes of different acoustical characteristics occurring .86 seconds, 1.035 seconds and 1.385 seconds after the first. These, in turn, were followed by two events apparently caused by sound and believed to have been related to the previous ones. (65) 66 Dr. Kersta did not indicate in his letter that he had found shots, and the results of his tests were not mentioned in the Warren Report. The committee was unable to locate the Kersta spectographs in the National Archives until late 1978 (they had been mistled), but it did obtain the tape recording made on November 22, 1963, by KBOX reporter Sam Pate. On May 11, 1978, the committee submitted the tape to an acoustical consultant for analysis, with these results:(4) While a portion of the tape was recorded on November 22, 1963, in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza, it was thought not to be con- temporaneous with the assassination. Other portions of the tape, moreover, seemed to have been recorded, at least in large part, in a studio, since appropriate background noise was not present. And even if the tape had been made during the firing of the shots and had recorded them, Kersta's spectographic analysis would not have found them. The committee's consultant advised that spectographic analysis is appropriate only for detecting tonal, or harmonic, sound. To identify a gunshot, the analysis must be able to portray a waveform on an oscilloscope or similar such device. (b) Dallas Police Department recordings To resolve questions concerning the number, timing, and origin of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza, the committee asked its acoustical consultant to examine recordings not analyzed acoustically by the Warren Commission, specifically, Dallas Police Department dispatch transmissions for November 22, 1963. These transmissions, received over the police radio network from officers in the field, were recorded at Dallas police headquarters. Two recording systems were in use at the time--a Dictabelt for channel 1, and a Gray Audograph disc recording for channel 2.2 (5) The committee held 2 days of public hearings on September 11, 1978 and December 29, 1978--in which it attempted to present the essential evidence from the acoustical analysis. Because of time limita- tions, it was not possible to present all of the evidence in the hearings. (1) Analysis by Bolt Beranek and Newman.--In order to identify the nature and origin of sound impulses in a recording, acoustical analysis may include, among other means of examination, a delinea- tion and study of the shape of its electrical waveforms and a precise measurement and study of the timing of impulses on the recording. In May 1978, the committee contracted with Bolt Beranek and New- man Inc. (BBN) of Cambridge, Mass. to perform this sort of anal- ysis. The study was supervised by Dr. James E. Barger, the firm's chief scientist. Bolt Beranek and Newman specializes in acoustical analysis and performs such work as locating submarines by analyzing underwater sound impulses. It pioneered the technique of using sound recordings --------------------------- 1 Transcripts of the Dallas dispatch transmissions had been provided to the Warren Commission by the FBI and the Dallas Police Department. They were used to resolve issues not related to the number, timing or origin of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza. It did not appear that an acoustical analysis of these tapes or Dictabelts was performed for the Commission by the FBI or any other agency or private organization. 2 Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated, and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters dispatcher. 67 to determine the timing and direction of gunfire in an analysis of a tape that was recorded during the shootings at Kent State University in 1970. In a criminal case brought against members of the National Guard by the Department of Justice, the analysis of the tape by BBN, combined with photographs taken at the time of the shootings, were used by the prosecution in its presentation to a grand jury to help establish which guardsmen were the first to fire shots. The firm was also selected by Judge John J. Sirica to serve on a panel of technical experts that examined the Watergate tapes in 1973. The Dallas police dispatch materials given to BBN to analyze in May 1978 were as follows: The original Dictabelt recordings made on November 22, 1963, of transmissions over channel 1; A tape recording of channel 1 Dictabelts; A tape recording of transmissions over channel 2.3 (7) These materials were obtained by a committee investigator in March 1978, from Paul McCaghren, who in 1963 was a Dallas police lieutenant who had submitted investigative reports and materials on the assassination to Chief Curry. (8) In 1969, a newly appointed chief of police had ordered that a locked cabinet outside his office be opened. It contained reports and materials concerning the assassination that had been submitted to Curry; among the items were the Dictabelt recordings and tapes of the November 22, 1963, dispatch transmissions. McCaghren, who in 1969 was director of the Intelligence Division, had then taken custody of the materials and retained them until he gave them to the committee's investigator in 1978. (9) There was no evidence that any of the materials had been tampered with while in the police department's or McCaghren's possession. To the human ear, the tapes and Dictabelts contain no discernible sounds of gunfire. The dispatcher's voice notations of the time of day indicate that channel 2 apparently was not in use during the period when the shots were fired. Channel 1 transmissions, however, were in- advertently being recorded from a motorcycle or other police vehicle whose radio transmission switch was stuck in the "on" position. (10) BBN was asked to examine the channel 1 Dictabelts and the tape that was made of them to see if it could determine: (1) if they were, in fact, recorded transmissions from a motorcycle with a microphone stuck in the "on" position in Dealey Plaza; (2) if the sounds of shots had been, in fact, recorded; (3) the number of shots; (4) the time in- terval between the shots; (5) the location of the weapon or weapons used to fire the shots; and (6) the type of weapon or weapons used. BBN converted the sounds on the tape into digitized waveforms and produced a visual representation of the waveforms.(11) By em- ploying sophisticated electronic filters, BBN filtered out "repetitive noise," such as repeated firings of the pistons of the motorcycle engine. (12) It then examined the tape for "sequences of impulses" that might be significant. (A "sequence of impulses" might be caused by a loud noise--such as gunfire--followed by the echoes from that --------------------------- 3 Prior to the BBN analysis of the original Dictabelt and tapes, the firm was given a tape that had been supplied to the committee by a Warren Commission critic in the belief that it was an original. BBN determined that this tape was a second generation copy of the original. Because it was an imperfect copy, it was not used in the BBN work.(6) 68 loud noise.) Six sequences of impulses that could have been caused by a noise such as gunfire were initially identified as having been transmitted over channel 1. (13) Thus, they warranted further analysis. These six sequences of impulses, or impulse patterns, were subjected to preliminary screening tests to determine if any could be conclu- sively determined not to have been caused by gunfire during the assassination. The screening tests were designed to answer the follow- ing questions:(14) Do the impulse patterns, in fact, occur during the period of the assassination? Are the impulse patterns unique to the period of the assassina- tion? Does the span of time of the impulse patterns approximate the duration of the assassination as indicated by a preliminary analy- sis of the Zapruder film? (Are there at least 5.6 seconds between the first and last impulse? 4) Does the shape of the impulse patterns resemble the shape of impulse patterns produced when the sound of gunfire is recorded through a radio transmission system comparable to the one used the Dallas police dispatch network? Are the amplitudes of the impulse patterns similar to those pro- duced when the sound of gunfire is recorded through a transmis- sion system comparable to the one used for the Dallas police dis- patch network? All six impulse patterns passed the preliminary screening tests.(15) BBN next recommended that the committee conduct an acoustical reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza to determine if any of the six impulse patterns on the dispatch tape were caused by shots and, if so, if the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Deposi- tory or the grassy knoll. (16) The reconstruction would entail firing from two locations in Dealey Plaza--the depository and the knoll-- at particular target locations and recording the sounds through nu- merous microphones. The purpose was to determine if the sequences of impluses recorded during the reconstruction would match any of those on the dispatch tape. If so, it would be possible to determine if the impulse patterns on the dispatch tape were caused by shots fired during the assassination from shooter locations in the depository and on the knoll. (17) The theoretical rationale for the reconstruction was as follows: The sequence of impulses from a gunshot is caused by the noise of the shot, followed by several echoes. Each combination of shooter lo- cation, target location and microphone location produces a sequence of uniquely spaced impulses. At a given microphone location, there would be a unique sequence of impulses depending on the location of the noise source (gunfire) and the target, and the urban environment of the surrounding area (echo-producing structures in and surround- ing Dealey Plaza). The time of arrival of the echoes would be the ------------------- 4 The 5.6-second standard was based on a preliminary examination of the Zapruder film that showed evidence of Kennedy and Connally reacting to their wounds. The difference between approximate impact moments was calculated using the 18.3 frame per second rate of the Zapruder camera. This 5.6-second standard was derived before the photographic evidence panel had reported the results of its observations of the Zapruder film. 69 significant aspect of the sequence of impulses that would be used to compare the 1963 dispatch tape with the sounds recorded during the 1978 reconstruction. (18) The echo patterns in a complex environment such as Dealey Plaza are unique, so by conducting the reconstruction, the committee could obtain unique "acoustical fingerprints" of various combinations of shooter, target and microphone locations. The fingerprint's identifying characteristic would be the unique time-spacing between the echoes. If any of the acoustical fingerprints produced in the 1978 reconstruc- tion matched those on the 1963 Dallas police dispatch tape, it would be a strong indication that the sounds on the 1963 Dallas police dis- patch tape were caused by gunfire recorded by a police microphone in Dealey Plaza. (19) At the time of the reconstruction in August 1978, the committee was extremely conscious of the significance of Barger's preliminary work, realizing, as it did, that his analysis indicated that there possibly were too many shots, spaced too closely together, 5 for Lee Harvey Os- wald to have fired all of them, and that one of the shots came from" the grassy knoll, not the Texas School Book Depository. The committee's awareness that it might have evidence that Os- wald was not a lone assassin affected the manner in which it con- ducted the subsequent phase of the investigation. For example, it was deemed judicious to seek an independent review of Barger's analysis before proceeding with the acoustical reconstruction. So, in July 1978, the committee. contacted the Acoustical Society of America to solicit recommendations for persons qualified to review the BBN anal- ysis and the proposed Dallas reconstruction. The society recommended a number of individuals, and the committee selected Prof. Mark Weiss of Queens College of the City University of New York and his re- search associate, Ernest Aschkenasy. Professor Weiss had worked on numerous acoustical projects. He had served, for example, on the panel of technical experts appointed by Judge John J. Sirica to examine the White House tape recordings in conjunction with the Watergate grand jury investigation. Aschkenasy had specialized in developing computer programs for analyzing large. volumes of acoustical data. Weiss and Aschkenasy reviewed Barger's analysis and conclusions and concurred with them. In addition, they agreed that the acoustical reconstruction was necessary, (20) and they approved Barger's plan for conducting it. The committee authorized an acoustical reconstruction, to be con- ducted on August 20, 1978. Four target locations were selected, based on:(21) The estimated positions of the Presidential limousine according to a correlation of the channel 1 transmissions with the Zapruder film, indicating that the first shot was fired between Zapruder frames 160 and 170 and that the second shot was fired between Zapruder frames 190 and 200; 6 The position of the President at the time of the fatal head shot (Zapruder frame 312); and ------------------------ 5 For example, the time between two of the impulse patterns that might represent gunfire was less than a second too brief an interval to have permitted Oswald to fire two shots. 6 The committee ultimately determined that the shots were fired a few Zapruder frames earlier than it believed to be the case in August 1978. 70 Evidence that a curb in Dealey Plaza may have been struck by a bullet during the assassination. Two shooter locations were selected for the reconstruction :(22) The sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository, since substantial physical evidence and wit- ness testimony indicated shots were fired from this location; and The area behind a picket fence atop the grassy knoll, since there was considerable witness testimony suggesting shots were fired from there. 7 A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was fired from the depository, since it was the type of weapon found on the sixth floor on November 22, 1963. Both a Mannlicher-Carcano (chosen mainly because it fires a medium velocity supersonic bullet) and a pistol, which fires a subsonic bullet, were fired from the grassy knoll, since there was no evidence in August 1978 as to what type of weapon, if any, may have been fired from there on November 22, 1963.8 (22) Microphones to record the test shots were placed every 18 feet in 36 different locations along the motorcade route where a motorcycle could have been transmitting dur- ing the assassination. (25) A recording was made of the sounds received at each microphone location during each test shot, making a total of 432 recordings of impulse sequences (36 microphone locations times 12 shots), or "acous- tical fingerprints," for various target-shooter-microphone combina- tions. Each recorded acoustical fingerprint was then compared with each of the six impulse patterns on the channel 1 dispatch tape to see if and how well the significant points in each impulse pattern matched up. The process required a total of 2,592 comparisons (432 recordings of impulse sequences times six impulse patterns), an extensive effort that was not completed until 4 days before Barger was to testify at a committee public hearing on September 11, 1978. The time of the arrival of the impulses, or echoes, in each sequence of impulses was the characteristic being compared, not the shape, am- plitude or any other characteristic of the impulses or sequence. (27) If a point (representing time of arrival of an echo) in a sequence of the 1963 dispatch tape could be correlated within plus or minus 6/1,000 of a second to a point in a sequence of the reconstruction, it was considered a match. (28) A plus or minus 6/1,000 of a second "window" was chosen, because the exact location of the motorcycle was not known. Since the microphones were placed 18 feet apart in the 1978 reconstruction, no microphone was expected to be in the exact location of the motorcycle microphone dur- ing the assassination in 1963. Since the location was not apt to be ex- actly the same, and the time of arrival of the echo is unique at each spot, the +-6/1,000 of a second "window" would allow for the contin- gency that the motorcycle was near, but not exactly at, one of the microphone locations selected for the reconstruction.(29) Those sequences of impulses that had a sufficiently high number of points that matched (a "score" or correlation coefficient of .6 or higher) were considered significant.(30) The "score" or correlation ------------------------ 7 The committee noted the absence of physical evidence of shots from the grassy knoll. 8 As is discussed infra, there are important differences between the impulse patterns caused by a subsonic bullet, as opposed to a supersonic bullet. 71 coefficient was set at this level to insure finding all sequences that might represent a true indication that the 1963 dispatch tape con- tained gunfire. Setting it at this level, however, also allowed a se- quence of impulses on the dispatch tape that might have been caused by random noise or other factors to be considered a match and there- fore significant. (31) Such a match, since it did not in fact represent a true indication of gunfire on the 1963 dispatch tape, would be con- sidered an "invalid match." (32) Of the 2,592 comparisons between the six sequences of impulses on the 1963 police dispatch tape and the sequences obtained during the acous- tical reconstruction in August 1978, 15 had a sufficient number of matching. points (a correlation coefficient of .6 or higher) to be con- sidered significant.(33) The first and sixth sequence of impulses on the dispatch tape had no matches with a correlation coefficient over .5. The second sequence of impulses on the dispatch tape had four significant matches, the third sequence had five, the fourth sequence had three, and the fifth sequence had three.(34) Accordingly, im- pulses one and six on the dispatch tape did not pass the most rigorous acoustical test and were deemed not to have been caused by gunfire from the Texas School Book Depository or grassy knoll.(35) Addi- tional analysis of the remaining four impulse sequences was still neces- sary before any of them could be considered as probably represent- ing gunfire from the Texas School Book Depository or the grassy knoll. The locations of the microphones that recorded the matches in the 1978 reconstruction were plotted on a graph that depicted time and distance. It was observed that the location of the microphones at which matches were recorded tended to cluster around a line on the graph that was, in fact, consistent with the approximate speed of the motor- cade (11 mph), as estimated from the Zapruder film. (36) For example, of the 36 microphones placed along the motorcade route, the one that recorded the sequence of impulses that matched the third impulse on the 1963 dispatch tape was farther along the route than the one that recorded the impulses that matched the second impulse on the dispatch tape. The location of the microphones was such, it was further ob- served, that a motorcycle traveling at approximately 11 miles per hour would cover the distance between two microphones in the elapsed time between impulses on the dispatch tape. This relationship between the location of the microphones and the time between impulses was con- sistent for the four impulses on the dispatch tape, a very strong indi- cation, the committee found, that the impulses on the 1963 dispatch tape were picked up by a transmitter on a motorcycle or other vehicle as it proceeded along the motorcade route. Applying a statistical for- mula, Barger estimated that since the microphones clustered around a line representing the speed of the motorcade, there was a 99 percent probability that the Dallas police dispatch tape did, in fact, contain impulses transmitted by a microphone in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. (37) Some of the matches found between the 1978 reconstruction and the dispatch tape were, however, thought to be clearly "invalid," that is, they did not represent a true indication of gunfire from the Texas School Book Depository or the grassy knoll. In one case, for example, there was a match for a shot in the reconstruction that had been aimed 72 at a target located in a different direction from where the Presidential limousine was located at the moment, the limousine's location having been established by a correlation of the dispatch tape and the Zapruder film. (38) Only an unlikely misfire could explain why an assassin would fire in the opposite direction. By applying similar principles of logic, six matches were ruled out. This left three matches for impulse pattern one, three for impulse pattern two, one for impulse pattern three and two for impulse pattern four. (39) The remaining matches for impulse patterns one, two and four on the dispatch tape were for rifle firings from the Texas School Book Depository in the 1978 reconstruction, while the match for impulse pattern three was for a rifle firing from the grassy knoll. These matches did not, however, prove conclusively that the impulses on the 1963 dispatch tape did, in fact, represent gunfire from the depository or grassy knoll. There still was a chance that random or other noise could have produced the pattern on the dispatch tape that matched the pattern obtained in the reconstruction, therefore being invalid as well. Based on statistical probabilities, including the obser- vation that the locations of the microphones that picked up the match- ing impulse patterns tended to cluster along a line on the graph that approximated .the speed of the motorcycle, Barger estimated there was 50 percent chance that anyone of the matches was invalid. (40) Con- sequently, Barger testified before the committee in September 1978 that the probability of there having been a shot from the grassy knoll was only 50 percent.(411) He based this estimate on there being only one match for impulse three, combined with his conclusion that there was a 50-50 chance that any one match, including the one for impulse pattern three, had been caused .by random noise. and was invalid. (412) (Barger was also saying, however, that if the match for impulse oat- tern three was valid, it meant that a shot was fired at President Ken- nedy from the grassy knoll.) 9 (2) Weiss-Aschkenasy analysis.--In mid-September 1978, the com- mittee asked Weiss and Aschkenasy, the acoustical analysts who had reviewed Barger's work, if they could go beyond what Barger had done to determine with greater certainty if there had been a shot from the grassy knoll. Weiss and Aschkenasy conceived an analytical extension of Barger's work that might enable them to refine the probability estimate. (45) They studied Dealey Plaza to determine which struc- tures were most got to have caused the echoes received by the micro- phone in the 1978 acoustical reconstruction that had recorded the match to the shot from the grassy knoll. They verified and refined their identifications of echo-generating structures by examining the results of the reconstruction. And like BBN, since they were analyzing the arrival time of echoes, they made allowances for the temperature dif- ferential, because air temperature affects the speed of sound. (46) Bar- get then reviewed and verified the identification of echo-generating sources by Weiss and Aschkenasy. (47) Once they had identified the echo-generating sources for 9. shot from the vicinity of the grassy knoll and a microphone located near the -------------------- 9 With repect to the other shots. Barger estimated there was an 88 percent chance that impulse pattern one represented a shot from the book depository (based on three matches), 88 percent again for impulse pattern two (three matches and a 75 percent chance that impulse pattern font represented a shot from the depository (two matches). (43) At the time of his testimony in September 1978, Barger estimated that the probability of all four impulses actually representing gunshots was only 29 percent. (44) 73 point indicated by Barger's tests, it was possible for Weiss and Asch- to predict precisely what impulse sequences (sound finger- prints) would have been created by various specific shooter and micro- Phone locations in 1963. (48) (The major structures in Dealey Plaza in 1978 were located as they had been in 1963.) Weiss and Aschkenasy determined the time of sound travel for a series of sound triangles whose three points were shooter location, microphone location and echo-generating structure location. While the location of the structures would remain constant, the different combinations of shooter and mi- crophone locations would each produce a unique sound travel pattern, or sound fingerprint. (149) Using this procedure, Weiss and Aschkenasy could compare acoustical fingerprints for numerous precise points m the grassy knoll area with the segment identified by Barger on the dis- patch tape as possibly reflecting a shot fired from the knoll. (50) Because Weiss and Aschkenasy could analytically construct what the impulse sequences would be at numerous specific shooter and micro- phone locations, they decided to look for a match to the 1963 police dispatch tape that correlated to within ñ1/1.000 of a second, as op- posed to +-6/1.000) of a second, as Barger had done.(51) By looking for a match with such precision, they considerably reduced the possi- bility that any match they found could have been caused by random or other noise,(52) thus substantially reducing the percentage proba- bility of an invalid match. Weiss and Aschkenasy initially pinpointed a combination of shooter- microphone locations for which the early impulses in pattern three matched those on the dispatch tape quite well, although later impulses in the pattern did not. Similarly, they found other microphone loca- tions for which later impulses matched those on the dispatch tape, while the earlier ones did not. They then realized that, a microphone mounted on a motorcycle or other vehicle would not have remained stationary during the period it was receiving the echoes. They com- puted that the entire impulse pattern or sequence of echoes they were analyzing on the dispatch tape occurred over approximately three- tenths of a second, during which time the motorcycle or other vehicle would have, at 11 miles per hour, traveled about five feet. By taking into account the movement of the vehicle. Weiss and Aschkenasy were able to find a sequence of impulses representing a shot from the grassy knoll in the reconstruction that matched both the early and late im- pulses on the dispatch tape. (53) Approximately 10 feet from the point on the grassy knoll that was picked as the shooter location in the 1978 reconstruction and four feet from a microphone location which, Barger found, recorded a shot that. matched the dispatch tape within +-6/1,000 of a second, Weiss and Aschkenasy found a combination of shooter and microphone locations they needed to solve the problem. It represented the initial position of a microphone that would have received a series of impulses matching those on the dispatch tape to within +-1/1.000 of a second. The micro- phone would have been mounted on a vehicle that was moving along the motorcade route at 11 miles per hour. Weiss and Aschkenasy also considered the distortion that a wind- shield might cause to the sound impulses received by a motorcycle ----------------------- 10 Weiss and Aschkenasy examined only the impulse sequence that Barger indicated had come from the grassy knoll. Due to time constraints, they did not analyze the three impulse sequences indicating shots fired from the Texas School Book Depository. 74 microphone. They reasoned that the noise from the initial muzzle blast of a shot would be somewhat muted on the tape if it traveled through the windshield to the microphone. Test firings conducted un- der the auspices of the New York City Police Department confirmed this hypothesis. Further, an examination of the dispatch tape reflected similar distortions on shots one, two, and three, when the indicated positions of the motorcycle would have placed the windshield between the shooter and the microphone.11 On shot four, Weiss and Aschkenasy found no such distortion. (55) The analysts' ability to predict the ef- fect of the windshield on the impulses found on the dispatch tape, and having their predictions confirmed by the tape, indicated further that the microphone was mounted on a motorcycle in Dealey Plaza and that it had transmitted the sounds of the shots fired during the assassination. Since Weiss and Aschkenasy were able to obtain a match to within +-1/1,000 of a second, the probability that such a match could occur by random chance was slight. Specifically, they mathematically com- puted that, with a certainty factor of 95 percent or better, there was a shot fired at the Presidential limousine from the grassy knoll. (56) Barget independently reviewed the analysis performed by Weiss and Aschkenasy and concluded that their analytical procedures were correct. (57) Barger and the staff at BBN also confirmed that there was a 95 percent chance that at the time of the assassination a noise as loud as a rifle shot was produced st the grassy knoll. When questioned about what could cause such a noise if it were not a shot, Barger noted it had to be something capable of causing a very loud noise--greater than a single firecracker.(58) Further, given the echo patterns ob- tained, the noise had to have originated at the very spot behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll that had been identified,(59) indicat- ing that it could not have been a backfire from a motorcycle in the motorcade. (60) In addition, Barger emphasized, the first part of the sequence of im- pulses identified as a shot from the grassy knoll was marked by an N-wave, a characteristic impulse caused by a supersonic bullet. (61) The N-wave, also referred to as a supersonic shock wave, travels faster than the noise of the muzzle blast of a gun and therefore arrives at a listening device such as a microphone ahead of the noise of a muzzle blast. The presence of the N-wave was, therefore, a significant addi- tional indication that the third impulse on the police dispatch tape represented gunfire, and, in particular, a supersonic bullet.(62) The weapon may well have been a rifle, since most pistols except for some. such as a .44 magnum--fire subsonic bullets. The N-wave was further substantiation for a finding that the third impulse represented a shot fired in the direction of the President. Had the gun been discharged when aimed straight up or down, or away from the motorcade, no N-wave would have appeared. (63) Of the im- pulse patterns on the dispatch tape that indicated shots from the book depository, those that would be expected to contain an N-wave, given the location of the vehicle's microphone, did so, further corroborating the conclusion that these impulses did represent supersonic bullets. (64) ----------------------- 11 The motorcycle was traveling 120 feet behind the Presidential limousine when the shots were fired. This put shots one and two from the book depository, as well as shot three from the grassy knoll, in front of the motorcycle windshield. 75 When questioned about the probability of the entire third impulse pattern representing a supersonic bullet being fired at the President from the grassy knoll, Barger estimated there was a 20 percent chance that the N-wave, as opposed to the sequence of impulses following it, was actually caused by random noise.(65) Accordingly, the mathe- matical probability of the entire sequence of impulses actually repre- senting a supersonic bullet was 76 percent, the product of a 95 percent chance that the impulse pattern represented noise as loud as a rifle shot from the grassy knoll times an 80 percent chance that the N-wave was caused by a supersonic bullet. (66) The committee found no evidence or indication of any other cause of noise as loud as a rifle shot coming from the grassy knoll at the time the impulse sequence was recorded on the dispatch tape, and therefore concluded that the cause was probably a gunshot fired at the motorcade. (3) Search for a motorcycle.---As the work of Weiss and Aschkenasy produced strong indications of a shot from the grassy knoll, the com- mittee began a search of documentary and photographic evidence to determine if a motorcycle or other vehicle had been in the locations in- dicated by the acoustical tests. Earlier in its investigation, the committee had interviewed many Dallas police officers who had ridden in the presidential motorcade, al- though the purpose of the interviews was not to determine the location of a motorcycle that might have had its radio transmitting switch stuck in the "on" position. Among the officers who were interviewed, one who subsequently testified in a public hearing was H.B. McLain. In his interview on September 26, 1977, McLain said that he had been riding to the left rear of Vice President Johnson's car and that just as he was completing his turn from Main onto Houston Street, he heard what he believed to have been two shots. (67) Sergeant Jimmy Wayne Courson was also interviewed on September 26. 1977. He stated that his assign- ment in the motorcade was in front of the press bus, approximately six or seven cars to the rear of the presidential limousine, and that as he turned onto Houston Street, he heard three shots about a second apart. (68) Neither officer was asked specifically whether his radio was on channel one or two, or whether his microphone switch might have been stuck in the transmit position. The committee obtained Dallas Police Department assignment rec- ords confirming that McLain and Courson had both been assigned to the left side of the motorcade, (69) and it discovered photographic evi- dence (70) that Courson was riding to the rear of McLain, and. as Cour- son recalled,(71) he was in the vicinity of the press bus. The avail- able films revealed that throughout the motorcade the spacing of the motorcycles varied, but that McLain was generally several car lengths ahead of Courson and therefore much closer to the presidential and Vice Presidential limousines. (72) No photographs of the precise loca- tions of the two officers at the moment of the assassination were, at that time, found. Photographs taken shortly before the assassination, however, did indicate that McLain was on Houston Street heading toward Elm as the presidential limousine was turning onto Elm in front of the Texas School Book Depository. (12) (73) At the time of the assassina- -------------------- 12 Subsequent to the committee's final vote on its findings. additional photographic evidence of the actions of Officer McLain was received by the committee by Robert Groden, a consultant to the committee.(74) It supported the committee's conclusion with respect to McLain's testimony, but since it was not received until after the vote, it was not relied upon in this report. 76 tion, therefore, he would have been in the approximate position of the transmitting microphone, as indicated by the acoustical analysis. The committee reviewed transcripts of the Dallas police dispatch tapes for both channel one and channel two. It did not find any voice Transmissions from McLain on either channel on November 22, 1963. (As noted, it was determined that the shots fired during the assassina- tion were recorded over channel one. If it could have been established that McLain was transmitting over channel two, then the gunfire transmissions could not have come from his motorcycle radio.) McLain was asked by the committee to come to Washington to testify. He was shown all of the photographic evidence that the committee had assembled, as well as the Dallas police records of the mororcade assignments. McLain testified before the committee on December 29, 1978, that he was assigned to ride on the left side of the motorcade; that since he would slow down at corners, often stopping momentarily, and then speed up during straight stretches, his exact, position in the motorcade varied; and that he was the first motorcycle to the rear of the Vice presidential limousine. (75) He further stated that he was the officer in the photographs taken of the motorcade on Main and Houston Streets, and that at the time of the assassination he would have been in the approximate position of the open microphone near the corner of Houston and Elm, indicated by the acoustical analysis. (76) He did not recall using his radio dur- ing the motorcade nor what channel it was tuned to on that day. (77) He stated it unusally was tuned to channel one. (78) The button on his transmitter receiver, he acknowledged, often got stuck in the "on" position when he was unaware of it, but he did not know if it was stuck during the motorcade. (79) McLain testified before the committee that he recalled hearing only one shot and that he thereafter heard Chief Curry say to go to the hospital. (80) McLain testified it was possible that he heard the broad- cast of Chief Curry (which would have been on channel two) over the speaker of his own radio, or over the speaker of the radio of another motorcycle.(81) Following the hearing, the committee secured a copy of the daily assignment sheet for motorcycles from the Dallas Police Department and found that McClain had been assigned motorcycle number 352 and call sign 155 on November 22, 1963.(82) preliminary photographic enhancement of the films taken on Houston and Main Streets indicated that the number on the rear of the motorcycle previously identified as having been ridden by McLain was, in fact, 352. (83) 13 ---------------------------- 13 During his public testimony, McLain also identified photographs of motorcycles on Elm Street (JFK Exhibit 675), and at Parkland Hospital (JFK Exhibits 674, 676, 677, and 678) as possibly portraying his motorcycle. One of the pictures at Parkland Hospital (JFK Exhibit 674) apparently indicates that the microphone button was turned to channel one. With respect to the photograph on Elm Street, McLain stated that the other motorcycle in the picture appeared to be ridden by Sergeant Courson. At that time, counsel cautioned that the photographs were being introduced for a limited purpose, since they had not been analyzed by any photographic experts; it was unclear if the cycle in each photograph was that of McLain; and the channel selector, even if it was on channel one, could have been switched after the shots were fired. Preliminary photographic analysis of those pictures conducted by one expert in the time available after the hearing cast doubt upon the accuracy of at least McLain's identification of Courson in Exhibit F-674 may have been on channel two instead of one. Because the committee was unable to conduct comprehensive and thorough analyses of those photographs, it did not rely on Exhibits F-674, F-675, F-676, F-677 or F-678 in forming any conclusions. 77 The committee recognized that its acoustical analysis first estab- lished and then relied on the fact that a Dictabelt had recorded trans- missions from a radio with a stuck microphone switch located in Dealey Plaza. The committee realized that the authenticity of the tape and the location of the stuck microphone were both of great impor- tance to the acoustical analysis. Consequently, it sought to verify that the tape in fact contained a broadcast from an open motorcycle micro- phone in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. The findings of the acoustics experts may be challenged by raising a variety of questions, questions prompted, for example, by the sound of sirens on the tape,(84) by statements by Officer McLain subsequent to his hearing testimony in which he denied that it was his radio that was transmitting, (85)"by what appears to be the sound of a carillon bell on the tape, (86) and by the apparent absence of crowd noise. The committee carefully considered these questions as they bore on the au- thenticity of the tape and the location of the stuck microphone. Approximately 2 minutes after the impulse sequences that, accord- ing to the acoustical analysis, represent gunfire, the dispatch tape con- tains the sold of sirens for approximately 40 seconds. The sirens appear to rise and then recede in intensity, suggesting that the position of the microphone might have been moving closer to and then farther away from the sirens, or that the sirens were approaching the micro- phone and then moving away from it. (87) If the sirens were approaching the microphone and then moving away from it, it could be suggested that the motorcycle with the stuck transmitter was stationary on the Stemmons Freeway and not in Dealey Plaza. The sirens would appear to increase and then decrease as some vehicles in the motorcade, with their sirens turned on, drove along the freeway on the way to Parkland Hospital, approaching and then passing by the motorcycle with the stuck microphone. According to a transcript of channel two transmissions, approximately 3 1/2 min- utes after the assassination Dallas Police Department dispatcher Gerald D. Henslee stated that an unknown motorcycle on Stemmons Freeway appeared to have its microphone switch stuck open on chan- nel one.(88) The committee interviewed Henslee on August 12, 5978. He told the committee he had assumed the motorcycle was on the free- way from the noise of the sirens. (89) Other Dallas police officers have also speculated that the motorcycle may have been standing near the Trade Mart. Officer McLain's acknowledged actions subsequent to the assassina- tion might explain the sound of sirens on the tape. McLain was in fact probably on Stemmons Freeway at the time Henslee noted that an unknown motorcycle appeared to have its microphone switch stuck open. McLain himself testified that following the assassination, he sped up to catch the front cars of the motorcade that had entered Stemmons Freeway en route to Parkland Hospital. (90) In any event, it is certain he left the plaza shortly after the assassination. The cars in the motorcade had their sirens on, and this could account for the sound of the sirens increasing as McLain drew closer to them, whether he left Dealey Plaza immediately or shortly after the assassination. 14 A ------------------ 14 McLain's microphone was so constructed that it would pick up only the siren of the motorcycle on which it was mounted or one of a motorcycle or other vehicle that was no more than 300 feet away. 78 variety of other actions might also account for the sound appearing to recede. Officer McLain might have fallen back after catching the cars, he might have passed by the cars, or he might have arrived at the hospital shortly after catching up, at a time when the sirens were being turned down as the cars approached the hospital. Subsequent to his hearing testimony, McLain stated that he believed he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order to proceed to Parkland Hospital. He said that everyone near him had their sirens on immediately. (91) Should his memory be reliable, the broadcast of the shots during the assassination would not have been over his radio, because the sound of sirens on the tape does not come until approxi- mately 2 minutes later. The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren. Since those riding in the motorcade near Chief Curry had their sirens on, there may have been no particular need for McLain to turn his on, too. The acoustical analysis pinpointing the location of the microphone, the confirmation of the location of the motorcycle by photographs, his own testimony as to his location, and his slowing his motorcycle as it rounded the corner of Houston and Elm (as had been previously indicated by the acousti- cal analysis),(92) and the likelihood that McLain did not leave the plaza immediately, but legged behind momentarily after the assassina- tion, led the committee to conclude it was Officer McLain whose radio microphone switch was stuck open. Further, the committee noted. it would have been highly improbable for a motorcycle on Stemmons Freeway to have received the echo pat- terns for the four impulses that appear on the dispatch tape. As noted in more detail below, to contend that the microphone was elsewhere carries with it the burden of explaining all that appears on the tape. To be sure, those who argue the microphone was in Dealey Plaza must explain the sounds that argue it was not. Similarly, those who contend it was not in Dealey Plaza must explain the sounds that indicate it was. As Aschkenasy testified, the echo patterns on the tape would only have been received by a microphone located in a physical environment with the same acoustical characteristics as Dealey Plaza. (93) It is extremely unlikely that the echo patterns on the tape, if received from elsewhere, would so closely parallel the echo patterns characteristic of Dealey Plaza. The tape contains the faint sound of a carillon-like bell about 7 seconds after the last impulse believed to have been a shot, but no such bell was known to have been in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza. Accord- ingly, the possibility that the motorcycle with the stuck radio trans- mitter might not have been in Dealey Plaza was considered. The committee found that the radio system used by the Dallas Police De- partment permitted more than one transmitter to operate at the same time, and this frequently occurred.(94) The motorcycle whose radio transmitted the sound of a bell was apparently not positioned in Dealey Plaza, but this did not mean that the transmissions of Runshots were also from a radio not in Dealey Plaza. The logical explanation was that the dispatch tape contains the transmissions of two or more radios. (95) The absence of identifiable crowd noise on the tape also might raise questions as to whether the motorcycle with the stuck transmitter was in Dealey Plaza. The lack of recognizable crowd noise, however, may be explained by the transmission characteristics of the microphone. 79 Dallas police motorcycle. radios were equipped with a directional microphone and were designed to transmit only very loud sounds. A human voice would transmit only if it originated very close to the front of the mike. The chief objective of this characteristic was to allow a police officer, when speaking directly into the microphone, to be heard over the sound of his motorcycle engine. Background noise, such as that of a crowd, would not exceed the noise level from the much closer motorcycle engine, and it would not be identifiable on a tape of the radio transmission. The sound of a rifle shot is so pronounced, however, that it would be picked up even if it originated considerably farther away from the microphone than other less intense noise sources, such crowd. (96) (c) Other evidence with respect to the shots To address further the question of whether the dispatch tape con- tained sounds from a microphone in Dealey Plaza with a stuck trans- mitting switch, the committee reviewed independent evidence. It rea- soned that if the timing, number and location of the shooters. as shown On the tape, were corroborated or independently substantiated in whole or in part by other scientific or physical evidence--that is, the Zapruder film, findings of the forensic pathology and firearms panels, the neutron activation analysis and the trajectory analysis--the validity of the acoustical analysis and the authenticity of the tape could be established. Conversely, any fundamental inconsistency in the evidence would undermine the analysis and the authenticity of the tape. The tape and acoustical analysis indicated that, in addition to the shot from the knoll, there were three shots fired at President Kennedy from the Texas School Book Depository. This aspect of the analysis was corroborated or independently substantiated by three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, cartridge cases that had been fired in Oswald's rifle,(97) along with other evidence related to the number of shots fired from Oswald's rifle. This corroboration was considered sig- nificant by the committee, since it tended to prove that the tape did indeed record the sounds of shots during the assassination. Further corroboration or substantiation was sought by correlating the Zapruder film to the acoustical tape. The Zapruder film contains visual evidence that two shots struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.(98) The committee attempted to correlate the observable reactions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the film to the time spacing of the four impulses found in the recording of the channel one transmission. The correlation between the film and the re- cording however, could only be approximate because it was based on the estimated real-time characteristics of the recording (calculated from the frequent time annotations made by the dispatcher) (99) and the average running time of the film (between 18.0 and 18.5, or an average of 18.3 frames per second). 15 -------------------- 15 The 18.3 frame per second rate of the Zapruder film was an average of the 18.0 to 18.5 frame per second rate determined in 1964 by the FBI under laboratory conditions in which the camera was set and run in the manner that Zapruder said he had operated it at the time of the assasssination. (100) Given the 18.0 to 18.5 frame per second average running speed of the film, a differential of four frames is a differential of less than a quarter of a second. For this reason, an absolute correlation between events in the recording and the observable reactions on the film was not expected. If there were no reasonable correlation between the tape and film, however, substantial questions concerning the authenticity of the tape could be raised. (A more detailed explanation of the calculation of Zapruder frames based on the running speeds of the camera is set forth in vol. V of the HSCA-JFK hearings, at pp. 722-724.) 80 The committee correlated the film to the tape in two ways. The first assumed the fourth shot was the fatal head shot to the President and occurred at frame 312. Its results are as follows:(101) Bullet reached Acoustical determi- limousine at Za- nation of source Channel time pruder frame No. of impulse Impulse pattern I .. 12:30:47.0 157-161 TSBD. Impulse pattern II ... 12:30:48.6 188-191 TSBD. Impulse pattern III .. 12:30:54.6 295-296 Grassy knoll. Impulse pattern IV ... 12:30:55.3 312 TSBD. The committee believed that the fourth impulse pattern probably represented that fatal head shot to the President that hit at Zapruder frame 312. Nevertheless, the possibility of frame 312 representing the shot fired from the grassy knoll, with the fourth shot consequently oc- curring at frame 398, was also considered. The problem with this pos- sibility is that it appeared to be inconsistent with other scientific evidence that established that all the shots that struck the President and he Governor came from the Texas School Book Depository. The forensic pathology panel concluded that there was no evidence that the President or Governor was hit by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll and that only two bullets, each fired from behind, struck them.(102) Further, neutron activation analysis indicated that the bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist during sur- gery, those removed from the President's brain during the autopsy, and those found in the limousine were all very likely fragments from Mann- licher-Carcano bullets. (103) It was also found that there was evidence of only two bullets among all the specimens tested--the fragments re- moved from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery were very likely from the almost whole bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hos- pital, and the fragments removed from the President's brain during the autopsy very likely matched bullet fragments found in the limou- sine.(104) The neutron activation analysis findings, when combined with the finding of the committee that the almost whole bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital as well as the larger fragment found in the limousine were fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle,(105) established that only two bullets struck the President and the Governor, and each was fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and owned by Oswald. The committee considered whether proper synchronization of the tape to the film should assume that. the shot from the grassy knoll hit the President at Zapruder from 312. It did so because Dr. Michael Ba- den, chairman of the committee's forensic pathology panel, acknowl- edged there was a possibility, although highly remote, that the head wound depicted in Zapruder frame 312 could have been caused by a shot from the grassy knoll, and that medical evidence of it had been de- stroyed by a shot from the rear a fraction of a second later. (106) 16 The --------------------- 16 In addition, the blur analysis conducted by the photographic evidence panel appeared to be more consistent with the grassy knoll shot striking the President. The analysis reflected no significant panning errors by Zapruder after frame 296. Such errors would have been expected if the third (grassy knoll) shot occurred 0.7 second before the fatal head shot. Assuming the head shot was the grassy knoll shot, Zapruder made significant panning errors after both the third and fourth shots. (See Blur Analysis. Appendix to the HSCA-JFK hearings, vol. VI, par. 81ff.) 81 significance of this, the committee reasoned, was the realization that it could mean that the President's fatal head wound was caused by the shooter from the grassy knoll, not Oswald. Since the medical, ballistics and neutron activation analysis evidence, taken together, established that the President was struck by two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the committee sought to determine if such shots could have struck the President, given the known position of his body, even the grassy knoll shot struck him st Zapruder frame 312. The results correlating the acoustical tape to the film, assuming the shot from the knoll was at Zapruder frame 312, are as follows :(107) Acoustical determination Zapruder frame of origin Impulse pattern I ..............173-177 TSBD. Impulse pattern II ..............205-208 TSBD. Impulse pattern III ...............312 Grassy knoll. Impulse pattern IV ..............328-329 TSBD. It was determined by medical, ballistics and neutron activation evidence that the President was struck in the head by a bullet fired from a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Deposi- tory. For that bullet to have destroyed the medical evidence of the President being hit at Zapruder frame 312, it would have had to have struck at Zapruder frame 328-329. But a preliminary trajectory analy- sis, based on the President's location and body position at frame 328- 329 failed to track to a shooter in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the depository within a minimum margin of error radius,(108) thus indicating it was highly unlikely the President was struck in the head at Zapruder frame 328 by a shot fired from the sixth floor southeast corner window of the depository. Further, there is no Visual evidence in the Zapruder film of the President being struck in the head at Zapruder frames 173-177 or 205-208, the frames at which shots one and two would have been fired if the shot from the knoll was a hit to the head at frame 312. Accordingly, if the shot from the grassy knoll occurred at frame 312, no shot fired from the Texas School Book Depository would have struck the President in the head at any time. Such a finding is contrary to the weight of the scientific evidence. The committee concluded, therefore, that the shot fired from the grassy knoll was not the shot visually represented at Zapruder frame 312: that the shot from the grassy knoll missed President Ken- nedy;17 and that the most accurate synchronization of the tape and the film would be one based on a correlation of impulse pattern four on the tape with the fatal head shot to the President at frame 319 of the Zapruder film. When the tape and film are so synchronized, the sequence on the film corroborated or substantiated the timing of the shots indicated on the 1963 tape. According to the more logical synchronization, the first shot would have occurred at approximately Zapruder frame 160. This would also ---------------------- 17 The committee noted there was no physical evidence of where a shot from the grassy knoll might have hit. Since a shot from the Texas School Book Depository hit the President in the head less than one second after the shot from the knoll, there would have been little apparent reason for a gunman on the knoll to fire a second shot. 82 be consistent with the testimony of Governor Connally, who stated that he heard the first shot and began to turn in response to it. (109) His reactions, as shown in Zapruder frames 162-167, reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right. (110) The photographic evidence panel's observations were also relevant to the acoustics data that indicated that the second shot hit the lim- ousine's occupants at about Zapruder frames 188-191. The panel noted that at approximately Zapruder frame 200 the President's movements suddenly freeze, as his right hand seemed to stop abruptly in the midst of a waving motion Then during frames 200-202, his head moves rapidly from right to left. The sudden interruption of the presidents hand-waving motion, coupled with his rapid head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President Ken- nedy's reaction to some "severe external stimulus." (111) Finally, the panel observed that Governor Connally's actions dur- ing frames 222-226, as he is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view, indicated he was also reacting to some "severe external stimulus." 18 (112) Based upon this observation and upon the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally within the limousine, the panel concluded that the relative alinement of the two men was consistent with the theory that they had been struck by the same bullet. (113) The forensic pathology panel, with one member in dissent, stated that the medical evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that a single bullet caused the wounds to the Governor and the President. (114) The committee conducted a trajectory. analysis for the shot that it ultimately concluded struck both the Governor and the President. It was based on the location of the limousine and the body positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally at Zapruder frame 190 and the bullet's course as it could be determined from their wounds. 19 When President Kennedy's entry and exit wounds were used as ref- erence points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 13 foot radius of a point approximately 14 feet west of the building's southeast corner and approximately 2 feet below the sixth floor window-sills. (115) When President Ken- nedy's exit wound and Governor Connally's entrance wound were used as the reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 7-foot radius of a point ap- proximately 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the sixth floor window sills. (116) The committee's examination of the synchronization of the tape to the Zapruder film, therefore, demonstrated that the timing of the impulses on the tape matched the timing of events seen in the film. Further, the other scientific evidence available to the committee was -------------------- 18 The panel reached no conclusion concerning Governor Connally's reactions, If any, from Zapruder frame 207 to frame 221, since during this .82-second interval he was behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's field of view. Connally could conceivably have started his reaction at frames 200-206, but too little of his body is visible during these frames to permit such a finding. 19 Because the committee concluded that the shot from the grassy knoll did not hit the President at Zapruder frame 312, it did not undertake a trajectory analysis for the second shot from the depository, one that would have occurred in the area of Zapruder frames 205-208 if the shot from the grassy knoll had hit the President at Zapruder frame 312. 83 consistent with the reactions viewed in the film and the timing of the shots indicated by the acoustical analysis. The synchronization of the 1963 dispatch tape with the film, based on a fatal hit to the Presi- dent's head at frame 312 having been fired from the Texas School Book Depository, along with related evidence, corroborated or in- dependently substantiated that the tape is one of transmissions from a microphone that recorded the assassination in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Despite the existence of adequate corroboration or substantiation of the tape's authenticity., the committee realized that other questions were posed by the timing sequence of the impulses on the tape. The acoustical analysis had indicated both the first and second impulse patterns were shots from the vicinity of Texas School Book Deposi- tory, but that there were only 1.66 seconds between the onset of each of these impulse patterns. The committee recognized that 1.66 seconds is too brief a period for both shots to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, given the results of tests performed for the Warren Commis- sion that found that the average minimum firing time between shots was 2.3 seconds.(117) The tests for the Warren Commission, however, were based on an assumption that Oswald used the telescopic sight on the rifle. (118) The committee's panel of firearms experts, on the other hand, testified that given the distance and angle from the sixth floor window to the location of the President's limousine, it would have been easier to use the open iron sights.(119) During the acoustical reconstruction performed for the committee in August, the Dallas Police Depart- ment marksmen in fact used iron sights and had no difficulty hitting the targets. The committee test fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the open iron sights. It found that it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds.(12O) One gunman, therefore, could have fired the shots that caused both impulse pattern 1 and impulse pattern 2 on the dispatch tape. The strongest evidence that one gunman did, in fact, fire the shots that caused both impulse patterns was that all three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository came from Oswald's rifle.(121) In addition, the fragments from the two bullets that were found were identified as having been fired from Oswald's rifle. (122) Accordingly, the 1.66 seconds between the onset of the first and second impulse patterns on the tape are not too brief a period of time for both of these patterns to represent gunfire, and for Oswald to have been the person responsible for firing both shots. To explore further whether the tape contained sounds transmitted from a microphone in Dealey Plaza, the committee reviewed evidence produced by its photographic evidence panel. The panel conducted a "jiggle analysis" of the Zapruder film on the theory that Zapruder's panning errors, which would be apparent as a blur in the film, might have been caused by his reaction to the sound of gunfire. An original jiggle analysis, performed without knowledge of the results of the acoustical analysis, showed strong indications of shots occurring at about frame 190 and at about frame 310. (123) The photographic evi- dence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gunfire at about 84 frame 160. Little evidence of another shot was found in the jiggle anal- ysis, 20 but the expert who performed it testified that since the third and fourth shots occurred within less than a second of each other, it might be difficult to differentiate between them. In summary, the various scientific projects indicated that there was a high probability that two gunmen were firing at the President- Scientifically, the existence of the second gunman was established only by the acoustical study, but its basic validity was corroborated or in- dependently substantiated by the various other scientific projects. The committee had its photographic evidence panel examine evidence that might-also reveal that there was in fact more than one gunman shooting at the President. Each item of relevant photographic evidence available to the committee was evaluated to determine whether image enhancement techniques (digital image processing, photo- optical/chemical enhancement, and autoradiographic enhancement) might show additional gunmen. (125) As the use of nonoriginal photo- graphic materials frequently introduces image distortion that pre- cludes accurate photointerpretation, only original photographic terials were subjected to image enhancement techniques. (126) Simi- larly, since opaque film, such as photographic print paper, does not have the dynamic range (of brightness) of properly processed trans- parent film, it was not as suitable for enhancement. (127) There was considerable witness testimony, as well as a large body of critical literature, that had indicated the grassy knoll as a source of gunshots. Accordingly, this area received particular emphasis in the photographic interpretation analysis. The panel directed its attention to that portion of the knoll that extended from the retaining wall situated by the pergola to the stockade fence to the west of the wall. This analysis included enhancement of photographs taken by Mary Moorman, Philip Willis and Orville Nix, as well as Zapruder. Mary Moorman, a bystander, had taken a Polaroid photograph of the grassy knoll at approximately the time of Zapruder frame 313. (128) As far as the committee knew, it was the one photograph taken at the moment of the fatal head shot that showed the area that the acoustical anal sis indicated was the location of the second gunman. Viewing the photograph with the naked eye, one could detect images that might be construed as something significant behind the stockade fence. These images may, however, only represent parts of a tree, or they may be photographic artifacts. Due to the poor quality of the photograph and its deterioration over the years, it was not possible to determine the nature of the images with the naked eye. The photo- graph, because of this poor quality and because it was taken on opaque film that is less suitable for photographic enhancement, was considered by the photographic evidence panel to be of limited usefulness.(129) Prior to the acoustical analysis, it was the subject of only limited clarification efforts, none of which involved computer technology.(130) Enhancement attempts in the region of the retaining wall produced no significant increase in detail and no evidence of any human form. (131) Because the stockade fence region of the photograph was of even ----------------------- 20 Indication of a shot from the grassy knoll might have been expected in the jiggle analysis at about frame 295. 85 poorer quality than the retaining wall area, no enhancement attempts were recommended. (132) Subsequent to the acoustical analysis, the author of the section of the photograph evidence panel's report that addressed the question of whether there were other gunmen in Dealey Plaza indicated that the likelihood of successfully enhancing this print was extremely remote. (133) The significance of the Moorman film may, therefore, be largely neg- ative. It was not possible to draw anything positive from the film 15 years after it was taken. Nevertheless, if the film did not contain im- ages that might be construed to be a figure behind the fence, it would be a troubling lack of corroboration for the acoustical analysis. At the same time, the committee noted, the Department of Justice might con- sider further enhancement, if it is deemed to be feasible. Zapruder frame 413, showing a bush situated between Zapruder and the presidential limousine, was also analyzed by the photographic evi- dence panel. Image enhancement techniques successfully established the presence of a human head visible among the leaves of the bush in Zapruder's field of view. (134) photogrammetric analysis determined that this so called gunman in the bush was actually located on the other side of the bush from Zapruder. (135) It is probably one of the men who can be seen in other photographs standing in the middle of the sidewalk that runs from the top of the grassy knoll down to Elm Street. Consequently, he was not, as had been alleged, in a position to have been a hidden gunman. Further, the linear feature associated with this person, alleged by Warren Commission critics to be a rifle, is actually in front of the leaves on the same side of the bush as Zap- ruder. (136) Analytical photogrammetry and image enhancement with special color analysis attributed this linear feature to natural sur- roundings. The narrow portion of the linear feature (the alleged rifle barrel) was established to be one of a number of twigs in the bush. (137) All of them were characterized by the same general direction and spacing, consistent with the natural growth patterns of the bush. (138) The thicker part of the linear feature (the alleged rifle "stock") was a hole in the bushes through which a portion of the Presidential limousine was visible. (139) Willis photograph No. 5 was the third knoll photograph enhanced and evaluated by the panel. The relevant area of analysis was the re- taining wall situated approximately 41 feet to the east of the point of the stockade fence that, according to the acoustics analysis, was the source of gunfire. A fleshtone comparison performed by analyzing measurements of color values on an object located behind the west end of the retaining wall confirmed that the image perceived was actually a human being. (140) The panel did perceive "a very distinct straight- line feature" near the region of this person's hands, but it was unable to deblur the image sufficiently to reach any conclusion as to whether the feature was, in fact, a weapon. (141) Photographic enhancement of selected portions of a film taken by Orville Nix was also performed by the panel. One object in the vicinity of the retaining wall near the pergola was carefully studied, but the panel could not identify it as a human being and decided that the image was more likely the result of light and shadow patterns. (142) 86 The Nix frames analyzed included those that purportedly depict a gunman in a "classic" firing stance. This individual" is located by the southwest corner of the pergola beyond the retaining wall, approxi- matly 41 feet north of the point of the the stockade fence that, according to the acoustics study, was the source of the gunfire. The panel was able to conclude that this image was not, in fact, a human being. Its conclusion was based on both a shadow analysis and its inability to attribute flesh, ones or motion to the alleged gunman.(143) None of the photographs of the grassy knoll that were analyzed by the photographic evidence panel revealed any evidence of a puff of smoke or flash of light,(144) as reported by several people in the crowd. The committee's analysis of available photographic evidence, there- fore, did not confirm or preclude the presence of a gunman firing at the President from behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll. In addition to photographs of the knoll area, the committee enhanced photographic materials of the Texas School Book Depository taken by Robert Hughes, Tom Dillard, and James Powell. These were ex- amined for an evidence with respect to the source of the shots fired from the depository, as well as any evidence of conspiratorial activity before or after the assassination. (The committee was not aware of the existence of any photographs of the sixth floor southeast corner win- dow of the depository at the actual moment of the assassination.) The Hughes film, taken moments before the first shot was fired at the Presi- dent, was enhanced for the purpose of determining whether any mo- tion could be discerned in the sixth floor southeast corner window where Oswald was alleged to have been positioned. Although motion in this window was alleged, the panel concluded that it was only appar- ent rather than real. (115) This conclusion was based upon the rapid- ity of the perceived motion, its lack of consistent direction, and the fact that the object disappears from view during a two-frame (ap- proximately one-ninth of a second) sequence.(146) Accordingly, the motion was attributed to photographic artifact.(147) An appearance of motion in an adjacent set of windows was also attributed to a photo- graphic artifact.(148) The question of motion of both sets of windows is similarly raised by the film taken by Charles L. Bronson several minutes before the assassination. Because this film was not made available to the com- mittee until December 2 1978, it was not reviewed by the full panel. In a preliminary examination of the film by several members of the panel, it was observed that the characteristics of the Bronson film were similar to those of the Hughes film that were examined by the entire panel. The apparent motion in the window seemed to be ran- dom and therefore not likely to be caused by human motion.(149) Because of the high quality of the Bronson film, the panel members recommended it be subjected to computer analysis.(150) The com- mittee recommended, in turn, that the Bronson film be subjected to anal is by the Department of Justice. Enhancement efforts with respect to the Dillard and Powell photo- graphs, taken shortly after the assassination, successfully generated considerable detail within the depository window.(151) Based upon its review of these materials, the panel was able to conclude that at 87 the time these photographs were taken, no human forms were present in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the depository.(152) No photographs of the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository were taken at the time of the assassination, photographic evidence did not confirm or preclude a firing by an assassin from the window. Photographs of the sixth floor window taken shortly before and after the assassination did not reveal evidence of human forms. Allegations that these photographs contain evidence of there having been more than one gunman on the sixth floor were not supported by the enhancement efforts. In summary, the photographic evidence with respect to the grassy knoll and the Texas School Book Depository did not confirm or preclude that a gunman fired at the president from either location. None of the scientific evidence available to the committee photog- raphy, forensic pathology, ballistics, neutron activation analysis-- was inconsistent with the acoustical evidence that established a high probability that two gunmen fired at the President. Witness testimony on the shots.--The committee, in con- junction with its scientific projects, had a consultant retained by Bolt Beranek and Newman analyze the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, to advise the committee what weight, if any, it should give such testimony, and to relate the testimony to the acoustics evidence the committee had obtained. The statements of 178 persons who were in Dealey Plaza, all of whom were available to the Warren Commission, were analyzed:(153) 49 (27.5 percent) believed the shots had come from the Texas School Book Depository; 21 (11.8 percent) believed the shots had come from the grassy knoll; 30 (16.9 percent.) believed the shots had originated elsewhere; and 78 (43.8 percent) were unable to tell which direction the shots were fired from. Only four individuals believed shots had originated from more than one location. (154) Some comment on these statistics is called for. The committee noted that a significant number of witnesses reported that shots originated from the grassy knoll. The small number of those who thought shots originated from both the book depository and grassy knoll might be ex- plained by the fact that the third and fourth shots were only seven- tenths of a second apart. Such a brief interval might have made it difficult for witnesses to differentiate between the two shots, or to distinguish their direction. While recognizing the substantial number of people who reported shots originating from the knoll, the committee also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time, some of them several days, even weeks, after the assassination. By that time, numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been published. The committee believed that the witnesses' memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern- ing the events of November 22, 1963.(155) Consequently standing alone, the statistics are an unreliable foundation upon which to rely with great confidence for any specific finding. It was of obvious im- 88 portance, however, that some witness testimony would corroborate the acoustical finding of a shot from the grassy knoll. If no testimony indicated shots from the knoll, there would have been a troubling lack of corroboration for the acoustical analysis. The Warren Commission had available to it the same testimony concerning shots from the knoll, but it believed it should not be credited because of "the difficulty of accurate perception." (156) The Commission stated, "***the physical and other evidence" only compelled the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. (157) The Commission noted, however, that the three cartridge cases that were found, when taken together with the witness testimony, amounted to a pre- ponderance of evidence that three shots were fired. (158) Nevertheless, the Commission held, "* * * there is no credible evidence to indicate shots were fired from other than the Texas School Book Deposi- tory."(159) It therefore discounted the testimony of shots from the grassy knoll. While recognizing that the Commission was correct in acknowledg- ing the difficulty of accurate witness perception, the committee ob- tained independent acoustical evidence to support it. Consequently, it was in a position where it had to regard the witness testimony m a different light. The committee assembled for the purpose of illustration the sub- stance of the testimony of some of the witnesses who believed the shots may have come from somewhere in addition to the depository. A Dallas police officer, Bobby W. Hargis, was riding a motorcycle to the left and slightly to the rear of the limousine. Hargis described the direction of the shots in a deposition given to the Warren Com- mission on April 8, 1964: Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered * * * I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas School Book Depository, and these two places was (sic) the primary place that, could have been shot from. (160) Hargis stated that after the shooting he saw a man fall to the ground at the base of the incline and cover his child. He also saw other people running. Hargis himself stopped his motorcycle and ran up the incline. (161) The man Officer Hargis saw lying on the ground was probably William Eugene Newman. Newman and his wife and child were ob- serving the motorcade from the curb near the west end of the concrete standard on Elm Street. Newman gave this description of their actions after hearing the shots to the sheriff's department on November 22, 1963: Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed that we were in direct path of fire . . . I thought the shots had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from 89 where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall look- ing toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden. (162) Abraham Zapruder, since deceased, was standing on a concrete abutment on the grassy knoll, just beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign, aiming his 8 millimeter camera at the motorcade. He testified in deposition given to the Commission on July 22, 1964, that he thought a shot may have come from behind him, but then acknowledged in response to questions from Commission counsel that it could have come from anywhere. He did, however, differentiate among the effects the shots had on him. One shot, he noted, caused reverberations all around him and was much more pronounced than the others. (163) Such a difference, the committee noted, would be consistent with the differing effects Zapruder might notice from a shot from the knoll, as op- posed to the Texas School Book Depository. A Secret Service agent, Paul E. Landis, Jr., wrote a statement on the shooting, dated November 30, 1963. Landis was in the follow-up car, behind the Presidential limousine, on the outside running board on the right. He indicated that the first shot "sounded like the report of high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder." (164) According to his statement, the shot he identified as number two might have come from a different direction. He said: I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere, towards the front, right-hand side of the road. (165) Another witness, S.M. Holland, since deceased, also noted signs of a shot coming from a group of trees on the knoll. Holland was standing on top of the railroad overpass above Elm Street. Testifying deposition cared he heard four shots. After the first, he said, he saw Governor Connally turn around. (166) Then there was another report. The first two sounded as if they came from "the upper part of the street." The third was not as loud as the others. Holland said: There was a shot, a report. I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing, you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots. (167) When counsel for the Warren Commission asked Holland if he had any doubts about the four shots, he said: I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from those trees either. (168) These witnesses are illustrative of those present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, who believed a shot came from the grassy knoll. 90 (1) Analysis of the reliability of witness testimony.--The commit- tee also conducted, as part of the acoustical reenactment in Dealey Plaza in August 1978, a test of the capacity of witnesses to locate the direction of shots, hoping the experiment might give the com- mittee an independent basis with which to evaluate what weight, if any, to assign to witness testimony. Two expert witnesses were asked to locate the direction of shots during the test,(169) and Dr. David Green, the BBN consultant, supervised the test and prepared a report on the reactions of the expert witnesses. Green concluded in the report, "* * * it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions relative to the reports of witnesses in the plaza as to the possible locus of any assassin." (170) Nevertheless, he stated that "it is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll" during the assassination, since such a shot would be easy to "localize." Green cited as support for his con- clusion the fact that only four of the 178 Dealey Plaza witnesses pointed to maor than one location as the origin of the shots.(171) In its evaluation of Green's conclusions, the committee considered the different circumstances affecting the expert: witnesses in the test and the actual witnesses to the assassination. The expert witnesses in August 1978 were expecting the shooting and knew in advance that guns would be fired only from the Texas School Book Depository and the grassy knoll and they had been fold their assignment was to determine the direction of the shots. Further, there was no test in which shots were fired within seven-tenths of a second of each other, so no reliable conclusion could be reached with respect to the possi- bility that such a brief interval would cause confusion. Dr. Green's report also reflects that even though the two trained observers cor- rectly identified the origin of 90 percent of the shots, their own notes indicated something short of certainty.(172) Their comments were phrased with equivocation: "Knoll? "Over my head. Not really on knoll or even behind me;" "Knoll/underpass;" and "Knoll? Not really confident." Their comments, in short, frequently reflected am- biguity as to the origin of the shots, indicating that the gunfire from the grassy knoll often did not solred very different from shots fired from the book depository. An analysis by the committee of the statements of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, moreover, showed that about 44 percent were not able to form an opinion about-the origin of the shots,(173) attesting to the ambiguity showed in the August 1978 experiment. Seventy percent of the witnesses in 1963 who had an opinion as to origin said it was either the book depository or the grassy knoll.[21] (174) Those witnesses who thought the shots originated from the grassy knoll represented 30 percent of those who chose between the knoll and the book depository and 21 percent of those who made a decision as to origin. Since most of the shots fired on November 22, 1963 (three out of four, the committee determined) came from the book depository, the fact that so many witnesses thought they heard shots from the knoll lent additional weight to a conclusion that a shot came from there. ------------------------ [21] The interviews of witnesses to the assassination may have reflected a tendency to make a "forced choice" between the two locations caused by the actions of police and other spectators in Dealey Plaza indicating the knoll and the depository were the two shooter locations, an attitude that was substantiated by press reports of shooter locations that, in some instances, preceded interviews with witnesses. 91 The committee, therefore, concluded that the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 supported the finding of the acoustical analysis that there was a high probability that a shot was fired at the President from the grassy knoll. There were also witness reports of suspicious activity in the vicinity of the knoll.(175) (e) Certain conspiracy allegations While the committee recognized, as discussed in section C, that a finding that two gunmen fired at the President did not in itself estab- lish that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a con- spiracy, it did establish, in the context of common experience, the probability that a conspiracy did exist that day. Consequently, the committee sought to employ scientific analysis to examine some con- spiracy theories about the assassination. The scientific analysis that could be applied to these conspiracy allegations refuted each one of them. The committee had its photographic evidence panel investigate allegations concerning certain specific individuals who had been linked to the assassination and were allegedly present in Dealey Plaza. For ensic anthropologists were asked to compare photographs of these known subjects with those of unidentified persons photographed in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. The anthropological studies involved comparisons of morphological traits (wrinkles, scars, and shape of ears, nose, et cetera) and facial dimensions and statural measurements to the extent that these could be derived from the photo- graphs examined and other related documents available to the committee.(176) The first photograph examined contained an individual appearing in a press photograph of motorcade spectators on Houston Street. (177) Some critics had contended the individual appeared to be Joseph A. Milteer, a militant conservative who had been secretly recorded on tape by a police informant 2 weeks prior to the assassina- tion as he described a plan to assassinate the President. 22 The anthro- pologists concluded, however, that based on available photographs and records of Milteer's height, the individual in the photograph could not have been Milteer.(178) Press photographs of three "tramps" apprehended by the Dallas police near Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination were analyzed and compared with photographs of a number of persons, including E. Howard Hunt, 23 Frank Sturgis, Thomas Vallee, Daniel Carswell, and Fred Lee Chrisman, each of whom had been alleged by critics to be linked to the assassination. Of all the subjects compared, only Fred Lee Chrisman, a conservative active in New Orleans at the time of the assassination, was found to have facial measurements consistent with any of the tramps. (180) Anthropologists could not make a positive identification of Chrisman, (181) however. The committee could not establish any link between Chrisman and the assassination. In addi- --------------------- 22 The committee's analysis of the response by the Secret Service to the threat posed by Milteer's alleged plan is described in section D1 of this report. 23 During the course of the committee's investigation, a rumor was circulating that the committee had uncovered a memorandum in CIA files indicating Hunt was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The rumor was not founded on fact. In addition, Hunt gave the committee a sworn deposition (179) in which he denied the allegation, and the committee found no evidence that contradicted Hunt's deposition. 92 tion, the committee independently determined that Chrisman was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.(182) The committee sought, by employing scientific analysis, to explore other allegations of conspiratorial activity-Establishing the authen- ticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays was of fundamental importance, not only because these evidentiary materials were a pri- mary basis for the committee's findings concerning the nature and causes of the president's head wounds, but because allegations that they had been altered raised implications of a wide-based conspiracy operating at high levels of the U.S. Government. As it has been noted, the committee found that the X-rays and photographs had not been altered. Another conspiratorial theory that implied there was an extensive and sophisticated conspiracy rested on the allegation that the photographs of Oswald in his backyard holding a rifle were com- posites. Similar conspiratorial implications were raised by the allega- tion that the rifle currently in the National Archives was a different rifle than that seen in the backyard photographs of Oswald with rifle, as well as other photographs of the rifle taken on November 22 and November 23, 1963. As discussed in section A 3, scientific analysis performed by the committee refuted each of these allegations.(183) The final conspiratorial theory the committee investigated by scien- tific analysis was the so-claled "two Oswald theory." This was an assertion by some critics that the Lee Harvey Oswald who returned from Russia in 1962 was a different person than the Lee Harvey Oswald who defected to Russia in 1959. (184) Forensic anthropolo- gists analyzed and compared the number of photos of Oswald taken different times during his life for any indication that they were not photographs of one and the same individual. Based on an analysis of facial dimensions, they found all the photographs consistent with those of a single individual. (185) In addition the photographic evidence panel conducted height and proportion studies of various Oswald photographs, utilizing test pho- tographs of subjects against a height chart. (186) The panel noted that significant variations can arise from this type of measurement due to differences in orientation and distance of the subject from the camera. (187) The panel explained," * * * unless the subject photo- graphed is standing directly with his back against the height chart. et correct distance from the properly positioned camera equipped with an appropriate lens, it is unreasonable to assume that the resulting picture is ever a precisely accurate indicator of both his height. and head size." (188) The panel noted that because of the impediments to accuracy, the use of height charts in pictures is no longer a common practice in law enforcement or industrial security work.(189) The committee also engaged the services of three handwriting ex- perts to explore the "two Oswald theory." These experts viewed docu- ments purported to have been written by Lee Harvey Oswald. They examined documents from the years 1956 to 1963 to determine if the handwriting of the man who joined the Marines in 1956 was the same as that of the man who had applied fore passport in 1959, tried to re- voke his American citizenship in 1959, returned to the United States 93 in 1962, journeyed to Mexico in late September 1963, and ordered the rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book De- pository on November 22 1963. A careful examination of these docu- ments demonstrated that the man who signed those items was the same man throughout the entire 7-year peried.(190) Accordingly, on the basis of the committee's scientific analysis, there was no evidence to support the allegation that Lee Harvey Oswald who returned from Russia in 1962 was a different person than the Lee Harvey Os- wald who defected to Russia in 1959. (f) Summary of the evidence Where it was available, the committee extensively employed scien- tific analysis to assist it in the resolution of numerous issues. The committee considered all the other evidence available to evaluate the scientific analysis. In conclusion, the committee found that the scientific accoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John f. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence did not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President, but it did negate some specific conspiracy allegations. 94 (blank page) C. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAIL- ABLE TO IT, THAT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS PROBABLY AS- SASSINATED AS A RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE THE OTHER GUNMAN OR THE EXTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes." (1) That defini- tion is adequate. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more recise definition. If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill president Kennedy, and at least one of them took action in fur- therance of the plan, and it resulted in president Kennedy's death, the President would have been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "con- spiracy" technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal pur- poses," it also, in fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many peo- ple, and its use has vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication, extent and ultimate purpose of the partner- ship. For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with no readily discernible motive. Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy" is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here, as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.1 A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in dealey Plaza unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words, a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred. The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example, largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant association (2) be- tween Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evi- dence of conspiracy.(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy. Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination, there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts. Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's asso- ciates is necessary. The Warren Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant Oswald associ- ------------------- 1 It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however, raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the plain truth causes discomfort. (95) 96 ates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy. There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agree- ment to the criminal purpose by the associate. It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may con- note widely varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner. (4) It reasoned, there- fore, that since Oswald had no significant associations with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination, there could not have been a conspiracy. (5) With respect to Jack Ruby, 2 the Warren Commission similarly found no significant associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections between Ruby and or- ganized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations, there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9) The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of con- spiracy in the Kennedy assassination. On the basis of extensive sci- entific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza wit- nesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at president Kennedy. Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Com- mission, it found certain of these contacts to be of investigative sig- nificance. The Commission apparently had looked for evidence of con- spiratorial association. Finding none on the face of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however, con- ducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibil- ity of a benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates, the committee examined the very fact of the con- tact to see if it contained investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took a close look at the associates to deter- mine whether conspiratorial activity in the assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn about the associ- ates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should, therefore, be examined more closely. 3 Third, the committee examined groups-political organizations, na- tional governments and so on--that might have had the motive, op- portunity and means to assassinate the President. The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy and investigated it with reference to known facts to de- termine if it had any bearing on the assassination. ------------------ 2 The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife; (6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged from "mild mannered" to "violent." (7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried. He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business. His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised his clientele. 3 The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were unknown to the Warren Commission. 97 The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assas- sinate the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assas- sinate President Kennedy would have been one of major significance. As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved in the assassination. Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination. Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not pre- elude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to sup- port a finding that any individual members were involved. The rami- fications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be signifi- cant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example had been involved. The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired si- multaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the other. It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theo- retical possibility is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same place is that they were acting in con- cert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy. The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it, was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors: (1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. (2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable. (3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associa- tions of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more lim- ited conspiracy could not be ruled out. (4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "un able to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. 98 The photographic and other scientific evidence available to the com- mittee was insufficient to permit the committee to answer these ques- tions. In addition, the committee's other investigative efforts did not develop evidence from which Oswald's conspirator or conspirators could be firmly identified. It is possible, of course, that the extent of the conspiracy was so limited that it involved only Oswald and the second gunman. The committee was not able to reach such a con- clusion, for it would have been based on speculation, not evidence. spects of the inestigation did suggest that the conspiracy may have been relatively limited, but to state with precision exactly how small was not possible. Other aspects of the committee's investigation did suggest, however, that while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people. These aspects of the committee's investigation are discussed elsewhere. If the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was limited to Oswald and a second gunman, its main societal significance may be in the realization that agencies of the U.S. Government inadequately investigated the possibility of such a conspiracy. In terms of its im- plications for government and society, an assassination as a conse- quence of a conspiracy composed solely of Oswald and a small number of persons, possibly only one, and possibly a person akin to Oswald in temperament and ideology, would not have been fundamentally different from an assassination by Oswald alone. [4] --------------------------- 4 If the conspiracy was, in fact, limited Oswald, the second gunman, and perhaps one or two others the committee believes it was possible they shared Oswald's left-wing political disposition. A consistent pattern in Oswald's life (see section A 5) was a propensity for actions with political overtones. It is quite likely that an assassination conspiracy limited to Oswald and a few associates was in keeping with that pattern. Further, it is possible that associates of Oswald in the Kennedy assassination had been involved with him in earlier activities. Two possibilities: the attempt on the life of Gen. Edwin A. Walker in April 1963. With respect to the Walker incident, there was substantial evidence that Oswald did the shooting (section A5), although at the time of the shooting it was not sufficient to implicate Oswald or anyone else. It was not until after the Kennedy assassination that Oswald became a suspect in the Walker attack, based on the testimony of his widow Marina. Marina's characterization of Oswald is more consistent with his having shot at Walker alone than his having assistance, although at the time of the shooting there was testimony that tended to indicate more than one person was involved. Further it is not necessary to believe all of what Marina said about the incident or to believe that Oswald told her all there was to know since either of them might have been concealing the involvement of others. According to a general offense report of the Dallas police, Walker reported at approximately 9:10 p.m. on April 10, 1963, that a bullet had been fired through a first floor window of his home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas. Detectives subsequently found that a bullet had first shattered a window, then gone through a wall and had landed on a stack of papers in an adjoining room. In their report the detectives described the bullet as steel-jacketed, of unknown caliber. Police located a 14-year-old boy in Walker's neighborhood who said that after hearing the shot, he climbed a fence and looked into an alley to the rear of Walker's home. The the boy said he then saw some men speeding down the alley in a light green or light blue Ford, either a 1959 or 1960 model. He said he also saw another car, a 1958 Chevrolet, black with white down the side, in a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's house. The car door was open, and a man was bending over the back seat, as though he was placing something on the floor of the car. On the night of the incident, police interviewed Robert Surrey, an aide to Walker. Surrey said that on Saturday, April 6, at about 9 p.m., he had seen two men sitting in a dark purple or brown 1963 Ford at the rear of Walker's house. Surrey also said the two men got out of the car and walked around the house. Surrey said he was suspicious and followed the car, noting that it carried no license plate. If it could be shown that Oswald had associates in the attempt on General Walker, they would be likely candidates as the grassy knoll gunman. The committee recognized, however, that this is speculation, since the existence, much less identity, of an Oswald associate in the Walker shooting was hardly established. Further, the committee failed in its effort to develop productive leads in the Walker shooting. With respect to the Cuba literature incident, Oswald was photographed with two associates distributing pro-Castro pamphlets in August 1963. As a result of a fight with anti-Castro Cubans, Oswald was arrested, but his associates were not. Of the two associates, only one was identified in the Warren Commission investigation (Warren Report. p. 292). Although the second associate was clearly portrayed in photographs (see Pizzo Exhibits 453-A and 453-B. Warren Commission Report, Vol. XXI, P 139), the Commission was unable to indentify him as was the case with the committee. 99 1. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO IT, THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSAS- SINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY With the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of Presi- dent Kennedy, speculation arose over the significance of Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union from October 1959 to June 1969, and his activities while living in that country. Specifically, these troubling questions were asked: Had Oswald been enlisted by the KGB, the Soviet secret police ?. Could the assassination have been the result of a KGB plot? (1) (a) United States-Soviet relations To put these concerns in context, it is necessary to look at Soviet- American relations in the 1960's. United States-Soviet relations had, in fact, been turbulent during the Kennedy Presidency. There had been major confrontations: over Berlin, where the wall had come to symbolize the barrier between the two superpowers; and over Cuba, where the emplacement of Soviet missiles had nearly started World War III. (2) A nuclear test-ban treaty m August 1963 seemed to signal detente, but in November, tension was building again, as the Soviets harassed, American troop movements to and from West Berlin.(3) And Cuba was as much an issue as ever. In Miami, on November 18, President Kennedy vowed the United States would not countenance the estab- lishment of another Cuba in the Western Hemisphere.(4) (b) The Warren Commission investigation The Warren Commission considered the possibility of Soviet com- plicity in the assassination, but it concluded there was no evidence of it.(5) In its report, the Commission noted that the same conclusion had been reached by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, among others.(6) Rusk testified before the Commission on June 10, 1964: I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union considered that it had any interest in the removal of President Kennedy * * * I can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort. (c) The committee's investigation The committee, in analyzing Oswald's relationship to Russian in- telligence, considered: Statements of both Oswald and his wife, Marina, about their life in the Soviet Union;(7) Documents provided by the Soviet Government to the Warren Commission concerning Oswald's residence in the Soviet Union; (8) Statements by Soviet experts in the employ, current or past, of the Central Intelligence Agency;(9) Files on other defectors to the Soviet Union; (10) and Statements by defectors from the Soviet Union to the United States. (11) 100 (1) Oswald in the U.S.S.R.--The committee reviewed the docu- ments Oswald wrote about his life in the Soviet Union, including his diary and letters to his mother, Marguerite, and brother, Robert. They paralleled, to a great extent, the information in documents pro- vided to the Warren Commission by the Soviet Government after the assassination. (13) These documents were provided to the Commission in response to its request that the Soviet Government give the Com- mission any "available information concerning the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald during his residence from 1959 to 1962 in the Soviet Union, in particular, copies of any official records concerning him."(14) Two sets of documents, totaling approximately 140 pages, were turned over to the Commission by the Soviets in November 1963 and in May 1964.(15) They were routine, official papers. None of them appeared to have come from KGB files, and there were no records of interviews of Oswald by the KGB, nor were there any surveillance reports. Unfortunately, the authenticity of the documents could not be established. The signatures of Soviet officials, for example, were illegible.(16) Nevertheless, the Soviet documents and Oswald's own statements give this account of Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union: He lived there from October 1959 to June 1962. He attempted suicide on learning he would not be permitted to remain in the U.S.S.R. He worked in a radio plant in Minsk. He met and married Marina. He was originally issued a residence visa for stateless persons and later issued a residence visa for foreigners. He obtained exit visas for himself and his family before depart- ing the Soviet Union. Neither the documents nor Oswald's own statements indicate that he was debriefed or put under surveillance by the KGB. The committee interviewed U.S. officials who specialize in Soviet intelligence, asking them what treatment they would have expected Oswald to have received during his defection. (17) For the most part, they suspected that Oswald would have routinely been debriefed by the KGB and that many persons who came in contact with Oswald in the U.S.S.R. would have been connected with the KGB.(18) (2) Treatment of defectors by the Soviet Government.--The com- mittee examined the CIA and FBI files on others who had defected in the same period as Oswald and who had eventually returned to the United States.(19) The purpose was to determine the frequency of KGB contact and whether the treatment of Oswald appeared to be significantly different from the norm. The defectors studied by the committee were selected because their backgrounds and other charac- teristics were similar to Oswald's, on the theory that their treatment by the KGB could be expected to parallel that of Oswald, if he was not a special case, a. recruited assassin, for example. The examination of the defector files was inconclusive, principally because the case of nearly every defector. was unique. (20) In addition, the files available on the experiences of the defectors were often not adequate to extract meaningful data for the purpose of this investiga- 101 tion, since, they were compiled for other reasons. (21) As to contacts with the KGB, the experiences of American defectors appeared to have varied greatly. Some reported daily contact with Soviet intelligence agents, while others did not mention ever having been contacted or debriefed.(22) (3) Yuri Nosenko.--Of all the areas investigated by the committee with respect to possible Soviet involvement in the assassination, none seemed as potentially rewarding as an examination of statements made by KGB officers who had defected to the United States. In determining how the KGB treats American defectors, an ex-KGB officer would certainly be of great interest. In this regard, the committee had access to three such men, one of whom, Yuri Nosenko, claimed to possess far more than general information about American defectors. In January 1964,[5] Nosenko, identifying himself as a KGB officer, sought asylum in the United States. (23) He claimed to have worked in the KGB Second Chief Directorate whose functions, in many re- spects, are similar to those of the FBI.(24) According to Nosenko, while working in 1959 in a KGB department dealing with American tourists, he learned of a young American who sought to defect to the Soviet Union. The American was Lee Harvey Oswald. (25) Nosenko stated he had worked extensively on the Oswald case, and he provided the FBI and CIA with data pertaining to Oswald's re- quest to defect and remain in the Soviet Union, the initial rejection of that request by the KGB, Oswald's suicide attempt and a subsequent decision to permit him to remain in Russia. (26) Although the KGB, according to Nosenko, was well aware of Oswald, it made no attempt to debrief or interview him.(27) Never was any consideration given by the KGB to enlist Oswald into the Soviet intelligence service. (28) The committee was most interested in Nosenko's claim that in 1963, after Oswald was arrested in the assassination, he had an opportunity to see the KGB file on the suspected assassin. As a result, Nosenko said, he was able to state categorically that Oswald was not a Soviet agent and that no officer of the KGB had ever interviewed or debriefed him. (29) Nosenko's testimony, however, did not settle the question of Soviet complicity in the assassination. From the time of his defection, some U.S. intelligence officers suspected Nosenko was on a disinformation mission to mislead the American Government. Since other CIA officials believed Nosenko was a bona fide defector, a serious disagree- ment at the top level of the Agency resulted. (30) The Warren Commission found itself in the middle of the Nosenko controversy--and in a quandary of its own, since the issue of Nosenko's reliability bore significantly on the assassination investiga- tion.(31) If he was telling the truth, the Commission could possibly write off Soviet involvement in a conspiracy. [6] If, on the other hand, Nosenko was lying, the Commission would be faced with a dilemma. While a deceitful Nosenko would not necessarily point to Soviet com- plicity, it would leave the issue in limbo. The Warren Commission ------------------------- [5] Nosenko had first contacted the U.S. Government in June 1962. [6] The Commission as well as the committee recognized that Nosenko could have been candid and that the connection between Oswald and the KGB could have been compartmentalized, that is, known only to a select few people, not including Nosenko. 102 chose not to call Nosenko as a witness or to mention him in its report, apparently because it could not resolve the issue of his reliability. (32) The committee, on the other hand, reviewed all available statements and files pertaining to Nosenko. (33) It questioned Nosenko in detail about Oswald. finding significant inconsistencies in statements he had given the FBI, CIA and the committee. (34) For example, Nosenko told the committee that the KGB had Oswald under extensive sur- veillance, including mail interception, wiretap and physical observa- tion. Yet, in 1964, he told the CIA and FBI there had been no such surveillance of Oswald.(35) Similarly, in 1964, Nosenko indicated there had been no psychiatric examination of Oswald subsequent to his suicide attempt, while in 1978 he detailed for the committee the re- ports he had read about psychiatric examinations of Oswald.(36) The committee also found that the CIA had literally put Nosenko in solitary confinement from 1964 to 1968. (37) Strangely, while he was interrogated during this period, he was questioned very little about Oswald. (38) The Agency did not seem to realize Nosenko's importance to an investigation of the assassination. While Richard Helms, then the CIA's Deputy Director for Plans, did tell Chief Justice Warren about Nosenko, the Agency's interest in him seemed to be largely limited to its own intelligence-gathering problem:did the KGB send Nosenko to the United States to deceive the CIA on many matters, only one of them perhaps related to the assassination? (39) In the end, the committee, too, was unable to resolve the Nosenko matter. The fashion in which Nosenko was treated by the Agency--his interrogation and confinement--virtually ruined him as a valid source of information on the assassination. Nevertheless, the committee was certain Nosenko lied about Oswald--whether it was to the FBI and CIA in 1964, or to the committee in 1978, or perhaps to both.(40) The reasons he would lie about Oswald range from the possibility that he merely wanted to exaggerate his own importance to the disin- formation hypothesis with its sinister implications. Lacking sufficient evidence to distinguish among alternatives, [7] the committee decided to limit its conclusion to a characterization of Nosenko as an unreliable source of information about the assassina- tion, or, more specifically, as to whether Oswald was ever contacted, or placed under surveillance, by the KGB. (4) Opinions other defectors.--In addition to interviewing Nosenko, the committee questioned two other former KGB officers who had defected to the United States. While neither could base an opinion on any personal experience with that part of the KGB in which Nosenko said he had served, both said that Oswald would have been of interest to the Soviet intelligence agency, that he would have been debriefed and that he may have been kept under surveillance.(41) (5) Marina Oswald.--The committee not only considered a possible connection between Oswald and the KGB, it also looked into charges that his widow, Marina, was an agent of the KGB, or that she at least influenced her husband's actions in the assassination on orders from -------------------------- [7] Beyond those reasons for falsification that can be attributed to Nosenko himself, there has been speculation that the Soviet Government, while not involved in the assassination, sent Nosenko an a mission to allay American fears. Hence, while his story about no connection between Oswald and the KGB might be false, his claim of no Soviet involvement in the assassination would be truthful. 103 Soviet officials. The committee examined Government files on Marina, it questioned experts on Soviet affairs and former KGB officers, and it took testimony from Marina herself.(42) The committee could find no evidence to substantiate the allegations about Marina Oswald Porter. Mrs. Porter testified before the committee that Oswald had never been contacted directly by the KGB, though she assumed that he and she alike had been under KGB surveillance when they lived in the Soviet Union. (6) Response of the Soviet Government.--Finally, the committee attempted to obtain from the Soviet Government any information on Oswald that it had not provided to the Warren Commission. In re- sponse to a committee request relayed by the State Department, the Soviet Government informed the committee that all the information it had on Oswald had been forwarded to the Warren Commission. (43) The committee concluded, however, that it is highly probable that the Soviet Government possessed information on Oswald that it has not provided to the U.S. Government. It would be the extensive in- formation that most likely was gathered by. a KGB surveillance of Oswald and Marina while they were living m Russia. It is also quite likely that the Soviet Government withheld files on a KGB interview with Oswald. 8 (d) Summary of the evidence Its suspicions notwithstanding, the committee was led to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination. In the last, analysis, the Committee agreed with the testimony of former Secretary of State Dean Rusk. To wit, there is no evidence that the Soviet Government had any interest in removing President Kennedy, nor is there any evidence that it planned to take advantage of the President's death before it happened or at- tempted to capitalize on it after it occurred. In fact, the reaction of the Soviet Government as well as the Soviet people seemed to be one of genuine shock and sincere grief. The committee believed, therefore, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination. 2. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO IT, THAT THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY When the leader of a great nation is assassinated, those initially suspected always include his adversaries. When President John F. Kennedy was struck down by rifle fire in Dallas in November 1963, many people suspected Cuba and its leader, Fidel Castro Ruz, of in- volvement in the assassination, particularly after it was learned that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, had sought to travel to Cuba in September 1963.(1) To evaluate those suspicions properly, it is ------------------------ 8 The committee concluded that it should not necessarily be inferred from the failure of the Soviet Government to cooperate with the committee that it was involved in the assassination. Just as agencies of the U.S. intelligence community are reluctant to share their confidential files, a similar response might be expected to come from the KGB. The Soviet Government, it could be argued, would have little to gain and much to lose by turning over its files. While the committee recognized the logic of this argument, it regretted that the Soviet Government, in the interest of historical truth, did not cooperate. 104 necessary to look at Cuban-American relations in the years immedi- ately before and after President Kennedy took office. (a) United States-Cuban relations The triumphant arrival of Fidel Castro in Havana on, January 1, 1959, marking a victorious climax of file revolution he had led, was ini- tially heralded in the United States as well as in Cuba. Castro was hailed as a champion of the people, a man who would lead a free and democratic Cuba. While some suspected that Castro had Communist leanings, the majority of the American public supported him. (2) The appointment of Philip Bonsal as U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, replacing Earl E.T. Smith, who was personally wary of Castro, was a clear signal that the United States was interested in amicable relations with the revolutionary government. On appointing Bonsal President Eisen- hower expressed the hope for an "ever closer relationship between Cuba and the United States."(3) By the end of 1959, however, United States-Cuban relations had de- teriorated to the point that there was open hostility between the two countries. (4) President Kennedy was to inherit the problem in 1961, and by the time of his assassination on November 22, 1963, the antago- nism had developed into a serious international crisis. To begin with, the United States deplored the mass executions of officials of the Batista government that Castro had deposed. (5) In re- ply, Castro charged that the United States had never voiced objections to killing and torture by Batista. He said the trials and sentences would continue. (6) In his revolutionary economic policies. Castro took steps that severely challenged the traditional role of the United States. In March 1959, the Cuban Government took over the United States- owned Cuban Telephone Co. in May. U.S. companies were among those expropriated in the Cuban Govermnent's first large-scale na- tionalization action, also in May, the agrarian reform law resulted in the expropriation of large landholdings, many of them U.S.- owned. (7) Vice President Nixon met with Castro in Washington in April. Castro left the meeting convinced that Nixon was hostile. For his part, Nixon recommended to President Eisenhower that the United States take measures to quash the Cuban revolution. (8) Disillusionment with Castro also spread to significant elements of the Cuban populace. In June. the chief of the Cuban Air Force, Maj. Pedro Diaz Lanz, fled to the United States, charging there was Com- munist influence in the armed forces and the Government of Cuba. (9) A few weeks later, Manuel Urrutria Lleo, the President of Cuba, stated on Cuban national television that communist was not concerned with the welfare of the people and that it constituted a throat to the revolu- tion. In the succeeding flurry of events, President Urrutria resigned after Castro accused him of "actions bordering on treason."(10) By the summer of 1960, Castro had seized more than $700 million in U.S. property; the Eisenhower administration had canceled the Cuban sugar quota; Castro was cementing his relations with the Soviet Union. having sent his brother Raul on a visit to Moscow Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a top Castro lieutenant. had proclaimed publicly that the revolution was on a course set by Marx: and CIA Director Allen Dulles had said in a speech that communist had pervaded Castro's 105 revolution. (11) On March 17, 1960, President Eisenhower quietly au- thorized the CIA to organize, train, and equip Cuban refugees as a guerrilla force to overthrow Castro. (12) On January 2, 1961, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Cuba.(13) A period of increased tension followed. It was marked by an exchange of bitter statements by the new U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, and the Cuban Premier. Castro charged CIA com- plicity in counterrevolutionary activity against his Government and publicly predicted an imminent U.S. invasion. (141) In his state of the Union address on January 30, Kennedy said: In Latin America, Communist agents seeking to exploit that region's peaceful revolution of hope have established a base on Cuba, only 90 miles from our shores. Our objection with Cuba is not over the people's drive for a better life. Our objection is to their domination by foreign and domestic tyrannies * * *. President Kennedy said further that "* * * Communist domination in this hemisphere can never be negotiated." (15) (1) Bay of Pigs.--After much deliberation, President Kennedy gave the go-ahead for a landing of anti-Castro Cubans, with U.S. sup- port, at the Bay of Pigs on the southern coast of Las Villas Province. It was launched on April 17, 1961, but it was thwarted by Cuban troops, said to have been commanded by Castro himself. (16) On President Kennedy's orders, no U.S. military personnel actually fought on Cuban soil, but U.S. sponsorship of the landing was readily apparent. President Kennedy publicly acknowledged "sole responsi- bility" for the U.S. role in the abortive invasion. (17) After the Bay of Pigs debacle, the tension continued to escalate. As early as April 20, President Kennedy reaffirmed, in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, that the United States was resolved not to abandon Cuba to communist.(18) On May 1, Secre- tary of State Dean Rusk told the Senate Foreign Relations Subcom- mittee on Latin American Affairs that if the Castro regime engaged in acts of aggression, the United States would "defend itself." (19) On May 17, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring Cuba to be "a clear and present danger" to the Western Hemisphere. (20) Throughout 1961 and 1962, U.S. policy was to subject Cuba to eco- nomic isolation and to support stepped-up raids by anti-Castro guerril- las, many of which were planned with the assassination of Castro and other Cuban officials as a probable consequence, if not a specific objec- tive. (21) The Cuban Government, in turn, assumed often correctly-- that the raids were instigated and directed by the U.S. Govern- ment.(22) In preparation for another large-scale attack, the Castro regime sought and received increased military support from the Soviet Union.(23) (2) Cuban missile crisis.--All-out war between the United States and the U.S.S.R. was narrowly averted in the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962. On October 22, President Kennedy announced that U.S. photographic reconnaissance flights had discovered that work was underway in Cuba on offensive missile sites with a nuclear strike capa- bility. (24) On October 23, the President issued a proclamation impos- 106 ing a quarantine on the delivery of offensive weapons to Cuba, to be enforced by a U.S. naval blockade. (25) Negotiations conducted between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in an end to the immediate crisis on November 20, 1962.(26) To most observers, President Kennedy had won the con- frontation with Castro and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.9 War had been averted, however narrowly. Russian IL-28 bombers were to be withdrawn from Cuba, and progress was being made on the removal of offensive missiles and other weapons.(27) The Soviets and the Cubans gained a "no invasion" pledge that was conditional upon a United Nations inspection to verify that Soviet offensive weapons had been removed from Cuba. (28) Because Castro never allowed the inspec- tion, the United States never officially made the reciprocal pledge not to invade Cuba.(29) There is evidence that by the fall of 1963, informal overtures for better United States-Cuban relations had been authorized by President Kennedy. (30) Talks between United States and Cuban officials at the United Nations were under consideration. In addition, the United States had attempted in the period after the missile crisis to stem the anti-Castro raids by, at least publicly, refusing to sanction them.(31) But covert action by the United States had neither ceased nor escaped Castro's notice, and the rhetoric indicated that the crisis could explode anew at any time. (32) On September 7, 1963, in an interview with Associated Press re- porter Daniel Harker, Castro warned against the United States "aid- ing terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders," and added that U.S. leaders would be in danger if they promoted any attempt to eliminate the leaders of Cuba. (33) On November 18, in Miami, Fla., just 4 days before his assassination, President Kennedy stated: * * * what now divides Cuba from my Country * * * is the fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independ- ence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond this hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign im- perialism, an instrument of the policy of others. a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republics. This, and this alone, divides us. (34) (b) Earlier investigations of Cuban complicity When President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the basic outlines of the recent history of United States-Cuban rela- tions, if not the specific details, were known to every American who even occasionally read a newspaper. Thus, when speculation arose as to the possibility of conspiracy, Fidel Castro and his Communist gov- ernment were natural suspects. While rationality may have precluded any involvement of the Cuban Government, the recognition that Castro had been among the late President's most prominent enemies compelled such speculation. ---------------------------- 9 When it became known to anti-Castro Cuban exiles that Kennedy had agreed to stop the raids on Cuba the exiles considered the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal anything but a victory. To them, it was another betrayal (see section C 3 for details). 107 (1) The Warren Commission investigation.--Investigative efforts into the background of Lee Harvey Oswald led to an early awareness of his Communist and pro-Castro sympathies, his activities in support of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and a trip he made in Septem- ber 1963 to Mexico City where he visited the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban consulate. (35) All of this information had been gathered prior to the beginning of the Warren Commission's investigation, and it was sufficient to alert the Commission to the need to investigate the possibility of a con- spiracy initiated or influenced by Castro. The report of the Warren Commission reflects that it was indeed considered, especially with re- spect to the implications of Oswald's Mexico City trip. (36) In addi- tion, the Warren Commission reviewed various specific allegations of activity that suggested Cuban involvement, concluding, however, that there had been no such conspiracy. (37) For the next few years, suspi- cions of Cuban involvement in the assassination were neither wide- spread nor vocal. Nevertheless, beginning with a 1967 column by Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, press reports that. suggested Castro's in- volvement in the assassination began to circulate once again. (38) Spe- cifically, they posed the theory that President Kennedy might have been assassinated in retaliation for CIA plots against the life of the Cuban leader. (2) The U.S. Senate investigation.--Thereafter, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to In- telligence Activities was formed to investigate the performance of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.(39) The Senate committee detailed two general types of operations that the CIA had directed against Castro. One, referred to as the AMLASH operation, involved the CIA's relationship with an important Cuban figure (code-named AMLASH) who,(40) while he was trusted by Castro, professed to the CIA that he would be willing to organize a coup against the Cuban leader. The CIA was in contact with AMLASH from March 1961 until June 1965. (41) A second plot documented by the Senate com- mittee was a joint effort by the CIA and organized crime in America. It was initiated in 1960 in a conversation between the agency's Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Bissell, and the Director of Security, Col. Sheffield Edwards. According to the Senate committee, this operation lasted until February 1963. (42) The Senate committee concluded from its review of the joint opera- tions of the CIA and organized crime that "* * * Castro probably would not have been certain that the CIA was behind the underworld attempts." (43) Nor, in the view of the Senate committee, would Castro have distinguished between the CIA-underworld plots and the numer- ous other plots by Cuban exiles which were not affiliated in any way with the CIA. (44) By-emphasizing these two conclusions, the Senate committee apparently intended to suggest that the efforts by the CIA and organized crime to eliminate Castro would not have resulted any retaliation against officials of the United States.(45) The Senate committee identified the AMLASH operation as being "clearly different" from the CIA-underworld plots.(46) It was still in progress at the time of the assassination, and it could clearly be traced to the CIA, since AMLASH's proposed coup had been endorsed 108 by the CIA, with the realization that the assassination of Castro might be a consequence.(47) Nevertheless, the Senate committee found "* * * no evidence that Fidel Castro or others in the Cuban Govern- ment plotted President Kennedy's assassination in retaliation for U.S. operations against Cuba."(48) The Senate committee left the door open, however, starting, "* * * the investigation should continue in cer- tain areas, and for that reason (the committee) does not reach any final conclusions." (49) (3) The CIA's response to the Senate.--In response to publication of the report of the Senate committee, a special internal CIA task force was assigned in 1977 to investigate and evaluate the critical questions that had been raised. The task force first considered the re- taliation thesis. It advanced the position that the Senate committee had essentially ignored the history of adversarial relations between the United States and Cuba which, if provocation were the issue, provided adequate grounds to support a theory of possible retaliation without the necessity of reaching for specific Agency programs such as the Mafia and AMLASH plots. (50) In essence, the task force report sug- gests, those plots were only one aspect of a large picture and in them- selves were not sufficient to have provoked retaliation. (51). The 1977 CIA task force then specifically responded to the Senate committee with respect to the AMLASH operation: Whatever the relationship with AMLASH, following the death of President Kennedy, there is every indication that during President Kennedy's life AMLASH had no basis for believing that he had CIA support for much of anything. Were he a provocateur reporting to Castro, or if he was merely careless and leaked what he knew, he had no factual basis for leaking or reporting any actual CIA plot directed against Castro. (52) With respect to the CIA-sponsored organized crime operations, the CIA task force noted: It is possible that the CIA simply found itself involved in providing additional resources for independent operations that the syndicate already had underway * * * [I]n a sense CIA may have been piggy-backing on the syndicate and in addition to its material contributions was also providing an aura of official sanction. (53) The task force argued, therefore, that the plots should have been seen as Mafia, not CIA, endeavors. A conclusion of the Senate committee had been that further investi- gation was warranted, based in Dart on its finding that the CIA had responded inadequately to the Warren Commission's request for all possible relevant information. The CIA had not told the Commission of the plots. (54) In response, the 1977 CIA task force observed: While one can understand today why the Warren Commis- sion limited its inquiry to normal avenues of investigation, it would have served to reinforce the credibility of its effort had it taken a broader view of the matter. CIA, too, could have considered in specific terms what most saw in general terms-- the possibility of Soviet or Cuban involvement in the JFK 109 assassination because of the tensions of the time * * * The Agency should have taken broader initiatives, then, as well. That CIA employees at the time felt--as they obviously did-- that the activities about which they knew had no relevance to the Warren Commission inquiry does not take the place of a record of conscious review. (55) (c) The committee's analysis of the CIA task force report The committee believed its mandate compelled it to take a new look at the question of Cuban complicity in the assassination. The Warren Commission had expressed its view, as follows: * * * the investigation of the Commission has thus pro- duced no evidence that Oswald's trip to Mexico was in any way connected with the assassination of President Kennedy, nor has it uncovered evidence that the Cuban Government had any involvement in the assassination. (56) There are two ways that this statement may be read: The Warren Commission's investigation was such that had a conspiracy existed, it would have been discovered, and since it was not, there was no conspiracy. The Warren Commission's investigation, limited as it was, simply did not find a conspiracy. Although the Commission inferred that the first interpretation was the proper one, the committee investigated the possibility that the second was closer to the truth. Similarly, the committee investigated to see if there was a factual basis for a finding made by the Senate Select Committee that the CIA plots to assassinate Castro could have given rise to crucial leads that could have been pursued in 1963 and 1964, or, at a minimum, would have provided critical additional impetus to the Commission's investigation. (57) As previously noted, although the 1977 CIA Task Force Report at least nominally recognized that the Agency, in 1962-64, "* * * could have considered in specific terms what most saw then in general terms-- the possibility of Soviet or Cuban involvement in the assassination be- cause of the tensions of the time," and that the Agency "should have taken broader initiatives then," the remainder of the Task Force Report failed to specify what those broader initiatives should have been or what they might have produced. It did, however, enumerate four areas for review of its 1963-64 performance: Oswald's travel to and from the U.S.S.R.; Oswald's Mexico visit in September-October 1963; The CIA's general extraterritorial intelligence collection re- quirements; and Miscellaneous leads that the Senate committee alleged the Agency had failed to pursue. (58) The 1977 Task Force Report reviewed the question of Agency op- erations directed at Cuba, including, in particular, the Mafia and AMLASH plots.(59) In each area, the report concluded that the Agency's 1963-64 investigation was adequate and could not be faulted, even with the benefit of hindsight.(60) The task force uncritically accepted the Senate committee's conclusions where they were favor- 110 able to the Agency, [10] and it critically rejected the Senate committee's conclusions (as in the case of AMLASH) wherever some possible investigative oversight was suggested. (62) The 1977 Task Force Report, in sum, did little more than suggest that any theoretically "broader initiatives" the Agency could have taken in 1963-64 would have uncovered nothing. They would only have served to head off outside criticism. That conclusion is illustrated in the following passage of the report: * * * [our] findings are essentially negative. However, it must be recognized that CIA cannot be as confident of a cold trail in 1977 as it could have been in 1964; this apparent fact will be noted by the critics of the Agency, and by those who have found a career in the questions already asked and yet to be asked about the assassination of President Kennedy. (63) The committee, of course, realized that the CIA's 1977 review might be correct, that broader initiatives might only have been window dress- ing and would have produced nothing of substance. But the 1977 re- port failed to document that fact, if it were a fact. For example, it provided no detailed resume of the backgrounds of those CIA case officers, Cubans and Mafia figures who plotted together to kill Castro. There is nothing in the report on the activities of the anti-Castro plotters during the last half of 1963. If the Agency had been truly interested in determining the possible investigative significance to the Kennedy assassination of such CIA-Cuban-Mafia associations, the com- mittee assumed it would have directed its immediate attention to such activities in that period. The task force report also noted that even without its taking broader initiatives, the CIA still sent general directives to overseas stations and cited, as an example, a cable which read: Tragic death of President Kennedy requires all of us to look sharp for any unusual intelligence development. Al- though we have no reason to expect anything of a particular military nature, all hands should be on the quick alert for the next few days while the new President takes over the reins.(64) The report, reasoned that the CIA's tasking of its stations was "necessarily general," since little was known at the time about which it could be specific. (65) The CIA task force further noted that 4 days after this general cable was sent, a followup request for any available information was sent to 10 specific stations. The task force argued, in any event, that such general requirements for intelligence-gathering would have been ade- quate, since "relevant information on the subject" would have been reported anyway. (66) Conspicuously absent from such self-exculpatory analysis was any detailed discussion of what specific efforts the Agency's stations actu- ally made to secure "relevant information" about the assassination. ----------------------- [10] For example, with respect to the Agency's investigation of Oswald's trip to Russia, the report summarily concluded, "Book V of the SSC Final Report, in not criticizing the Agency's performance in this aspect of the investigation, seems to have accepted it as adequate, and it will not be detailed here." (61) 111 For example, it became generally known that in 1963 the CIA had a station in Florida through which it monitored the activities of most of the anti-Castro Cuban groups operating in the United States. While the Florida station was mentioned, the task force report failed to make a comprehensive analysis of what requirements were placed on the sta- tion and the station's response. It might have been expected that the station would have been required to contact and debrief all of its Cuban sources. In addition, the station should have been asked to use all of its possible sources to determine if any operatives in the anti- Castro Cuban community had information about possible Cuban Gov- ernment involvement or about any association between Oswald and possible Cuban Government agents. Further, the station, or possibly other units of the CIA, should have been tasked to attempt to recon- struct the details of the travels and activities of known pro-Castro Cuban operatives in the United States for 60 or 90 days prior to the assassination. (Such undertakings might have been made without specific cables or memoranda requiring them. The Task Force Report implied such efforts were taken by the stations "on their own initia- tive." (67) But the Task Force Report failed to document or even discuss the details of such efforts or the responses of the stations to CIA headquarters.) The committee found that the CIA's 1977 Task Force Report was little more than an attempted rebuttal of the Senate Select Commit- tee's criticisms, and not a responsible effort to evaluate objectively its own 1963-64 investigation or its anti-Castro activities during the early 1960's or to assess their significance vis-a-vis the assassination. The committee made an effort to evaluate these questions through its own independent investigation. In investigating the implications of the CIA plots and the Warren Commission's ignorance of them, the committee conducted interviews, depositions and hearings for the purpose of taking testimony from pertinent individuals, conducted interviews in Mexico and Cuba, and reviewed extensive files at the CIA and FBI. (68) (1) AMLASH.---Turning first to the AMLASH operation, the committee received conflicting testimony as to whether, prior to the Kennedy assassination, it was considered to be an assassination plot. Former CIA Director Richard M. Helms, in his testimony before the committee, stated that the AM"LASH operation was not designed to be an assassination plot. (69) And, as already indicated, the 1977 Task Force Report concluded that AMLASH had "no factual basis for leaking or reporting any actual Central Intelligence Agency plot di- rected against Castro" during President Kennedy's life.(70) The committee, however, noted that such characterizations were probably both self-serving and irrelevant. The committee found that the evidence confirmed the Senate committee's report that AMLASH himself envisioned assassination as an essential first step in any over- throw of Castro. (71) It also noted that it was Castro's point of view, not the Agency's, that would have counted. The CIA's files reflect that as early as August 1962, AMLASH spoke to his CIA case officer about being interested in the "* * * sabotage of an oil refinery and the execution of a top ranking, Castro subordinate, of the Soviet Ambassador and of Castro himself."(72) The case officer, 112 in his report, while stating he made no commitments to AMLASH, acknowledged that he did tell AMLASH"* * * schemes like he en- visioned certainly had their place, but that a lot of coordination, plan- ning, information-collection, et cetera, were necessary prerequisites to insure the value and success of such plans."(73) Further, cables be- tween the case officer and CIA headquarters reflected that the Agency decided not to give AMLASH a "physical elimination mission as [a] requirement," but that it was something "he could or might try to carry out on his own initiative."(74) Thus, the CIA's relationship with AMLASH at least left him free to employ. assassination in the coup he was contemplating. That relationship could also have been viewed by Castro as one involving the CIA in his planned assassination. Ultimately, the CIA also provided AMLASH with the means of assassination and assurances that the U.S. Government would back him in the event his coup was successful.(75) CIA files reflect that AMLASH returned to Cuba shortly after the August 1962 meetings. (76) He next left Cuba and met with a CIA officer in September 1963. At that time, the CIA learned that AMLASH had not abandoned his intentions and that he now wanted to know what the U.S. "plan of action" was. (77) On October 11, the case officer cabled headquarters that AMLASH was determined to make the attempt on Castro with or without U.S. support.(78) On October 21, he reported that AMLASH wanted assurance that the United States would support him if his effort was successful.(79) On October 29, Desmond Fitz- Gerald, chief of the Special Affairs Staff, met with AMLASH, rep- resenting himself as a spokesman for Attorney General Robert Kennedy. FitzGerald gave AMLASH the assurance he had asked for, (80) although the CIA has argued that the support did not specifically include assassination. At the end of the meeting, according to the case officer's memoran- dum. AMLASH asked for "technical support" which, according to FitzGerald's memory, was described by AMLASH as being a high- powered rifle, or other weapon, to kill Castro. (81) Although the CIA files reflect that AMLASH did not receive the assurances of pre- assassination "technical support" he had asked for on October 29, the matter was further discussed, at least within the Agency, and on November 20 AMLASH was told that the meeting he "had requested" had been granted. (82) The technical support, as the Senate commit- tee reported, was actually offered to AMLASH on November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was assassinated. (83) Whether CIA officials chose to characterize their activity as an assassination plot, it is reasonable to infer that had Castro learned about the meetings between AMLASH and the CIA, he could also have learned of AMLASH's intentions, including the fact that his assassi- nation would be a natural and probable consequence of the plot. In a deposition to the committee, Joseph Langosch, in 1963 the Chief of Counterintelligence for the CIA's Special Affairs Staff,(84) recalled that, as of 1962, it was highly possible that Cuban intelligence was aware of AMLASH and his association with the CIA.(8.5) (SAS was responsible for CIA operations against the Government of Cuba and as such was in charge of the AMLASH operation. (86)) 113 The committee was unable to determine if that possibility was a reality. The Cuban Government informed the committee that it had come to believe that AMLASH was in fact Rolando Cubela (based upon its construction of a profile from biographic information on AMLASH made public by the Senate committee).(87) It stated it did not know of Cubela's intentions until 1966. (88) The committee was unable to confirm or deny the validity of the Cuban Government's belief that AMLASH was Cubela. Neverthe- less, the committee considered the statement that, if Cubela were AMLASH, the Cuban Government did not know of his intentions until 1966. On this point, the committee was unable to accept or reject the Cuban Government's claim with confidence. The committee merely noted that the statement was corroborated by other information known about the dates of Cubela's arrest and trial in Cuba and the charges against him. The Cuban Government's position must, however, be rec- ognized as potentially self-serving, since it must be assumed the Cuban Government would be inclined not to reveal any knowledge it may have had about AMLASH's assassination plans and the CIA prior to November 22, 1963. If it had indicated it knew, it would have con- tributed to the credibility. of the Senate's theories about possible Cuban involvement in the assassination as a retaliatory act. (89) The committee, while in Cuba, spoke to Rolando Cubela, who was serving a life sentence for acts against the Cuban Government. He confirmed the statements of the Cuban Government to the commit- tee(90) that he did not give the Cuban Government any information that would have led it to believe that the CIA was involved in a plot on Castro's life in 1963. In considering Cubela's testimony, the com- mittee took into account the possible influence of his confinement. After reviewing all the available evidence, the committee concluded that Castro may well have known about the AMLASH plot by No- vember 22, 1963, and, if so, he could have either documented or assumed it was backed by the United States and that it was directed at his life. The committee believed that the details of the AMLASH operation should have been provided to the Warren Commission, since the Commission might have been able to develop leads to participants in the Kennedy assassination. At a minimum, the existence of the plot, if it had been brought to the Commissions attention, would have served as a stimulus in the 1963-64 investigation. In conclusion, the committee believed a description of the activities of participants in the AMLASH plot should have been provided to the Warren Commission. It based this not only on the possibility that the plots could have increased Castro's motivation to conspire to assas- sinate President Kennedy (assuming he, in fact, was privy to the plot prior to November 22, 1963), but also because knowledge of the AMLASH plot might have increased the interest of the CIA, FBI, and Warren Commission in a more thorough investigation of the question of Cuban conspiracy In stating this view, the committee did question reject the suggestion in the CIA's 1977 Task Force Report that Castro already had significant motivation to assassinate President Kennedy, even if he were not aware of the AMLASH plot. The com- mittee noted however, that to the extent that that thesis was true, it did not negate the conclusion that the AMLASH plot was relevant 114 and that information about it should have been supplied to the Warren Commission. If it had been made available, it might have affected the course of the investigation. (2) CIA-Mafia Plots.--Turning next to the CIA-Mafia plots, the committee found in its investigation that organized crime probably was active in attempts to assassinate Castro, independent of any ac- tivity it engaged in with the CIA, as the 1977 Task Force Report had suggested. (91) The committee found that during the initial stages of the joint operation, organized crime decided to assist the CIA for two reasons: CIA sponsorship would mean official sanction and logis- tical support for a Castro assassination; and a relationship with the CIA in the assassination of a foreign leader could be used by orga- nized crime as leverage to prevent prosecution for unrelated offenses. (92) During the latter stages of the CIA-Mafia operation, from early 1969, to early 1963, however, organized crime may no longer have been interested in assassinating Castro. (93) The Soviet influence in Cuba had rendered the prospect of regaining the old Havana territory less likely, and there were fortunes to be made in the Bahamas and else- where.(94) There is reason to speculate that the Mafia continued to appear to participate in the plots just to keep the CIA interested, in hopes of preventing prosecution of organized crime figures and others involved in the plots. (95) This theory is supported by the actions of Robert Maheu, an FBI agent turned private investigator who had acted as a CIA-organized crime go-between, and John Roselli, a Mafia principal in the plots. (96) Maheu, for example, was the subject of an FBI wiretap inves- tigation in Las Vegas in the spring of 1962. He had installed a tele- phone wiretap, which he claimed was done as a favor to Mafia chieftain Sam Giancana, who was also involved in the anti-Castro plots.(97) Maheu's explanation to the FBI was that the tap was placed as part of a CIA effort to obtain Cuban intelligence information through organized crime contacts. The CIA corroborated Maheu's story, and the case was not prosecuted. (98) In addition, in 1966, Maheu used his contacts with the CIA to avoid testifying before a Senate committee that was conducting hearings into invasion of privacy. (99) As for Roselli, the committee considered it significant that public revelations about the plots corresponded with his efforts to avoid deportation in 1966 and 1971 and to escape prosecution for illegal gambling activities in 1967.(100) It was Roselli who managed the release of information about the plots and who proposed the so-called turnaround theory of the Kennedy assassination (Cuban exiles hired by the Mafia as hit men, captured by Castro. were forced to "turn around" and murder President Kennedy). (101) The committee found it quite plausible that Roselli would have manipulated public percep- tion of the, facts of the plots, then tried to get the CIA to intervene in his legal problems as the price for his agreeing to make no further disclosures. The allegation that President Kennedy was killed as a result of a Mafia-CIA plot that was turned around by Castro was passed to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson by Washington attorney Edward P. Mor- 115 gan; its ultimate source was Roselli.(102) The committee found little credibility in such an explanation for the President's death because, if for no other reason, it would have been unnecessarily risky The com- mittee determined from CIA files that, in 1963, the Cuban Govern- ment had agents of its own in nearly every country of the Western Hemisphere, including the United States, who undoubtedly would have been more dependable for such an assignment. Even if Castro had wanted to minimize the chance of detection by using hired non- Cuban killers, it a peared unlikely to the committee that he would have tried to force Mafia members or their Cuban exile confederates to engage in the assassination of an American head of state. The committee found it more difficult to dismiss the possibility that the Mafia, while it was not turned around by Castro, might have voluntarily turned around with him. By late 1962 and 1963. when the underworld leaders involved with the CIA in the plots had per- haps lost their motivation to assassinate Castro, they had been given sufficient reason by the organized crime program of the Department of Justice to eliminate President Kennedy. The committee's investigation revealed that Mafia figures are ra- tional, pragmatic "businessmen" who often realine their associations and form partnerships with ex-enemies when it is expedient.(103) While Castro, by 1963, was an old enemy of organized crime, it was more important that both Castro and the Mafia were ailing financially, chiefly as a result of pressures applied by the Kennedy administra- tion. (104) Thus, they had a common motive that might have made an alliance more attractive than a split based on mutual animosity. By 1963 also, Cuban exiles bitterly opposed to Castro were being frustrated by the Kennedy administration. (105) Many of them had come to conclude that the U.S. President was an obstacle requiring elimination even more urgently than the Cuban dictator.(106) The Mafia had been enlisted by the CIA because of its access to anti- Castro Cuban operatives both in and out of Cuba.(107) In its at- tempt to determine if the Mafia plot associations could have led to the assassination, the committee, therefore, recognized that Cuban an- tagonism toward President Kennedy did not depend on whether the Cubans were pro- or anti-Castro. The committee found that the CIA-Mafia-Cuban plots had all the elements necessary for a successful assassination conspiracy--people, motive and means, and the evidence indicated that the participants might well have considered using the resources at their disposal to in- crease their power and alleviate their problems by assassinating the President. Nevertheless, the committee was ultimately frustrated in its attempt to determine details of those activities that might have led to the assassination--identification of participants, associations, tim- ing of events and so on. Many of the key figures of the Castro plots had, for example, since died or, as in the case of both Giancana and Roselli, had been murdered. The committee was also unable to confirm in its investigation the findings of the Senate committee and the CIA that there were reasons to discount the dangers to President Kennedy that may have resulted from CIA associations with the Mafia in anti-Castro activities, The 116 committee did not agree with the Senate committee that Castro would not have blamed President Kennedy for the CIA-Mafia plots against his life. They were formulated in the United States, and the history of United States-Cuban relations shows that when Castro erred in his assumptions, it was in the direction of attributing more, not less, responsibility for attempts to depose him to U.S. Government actions than might have been merited. In its 1977 Task Force Report, the CIA commented on this reality: The United States provided a haven and base for Cuban exiles, who conducted their independent operations against the Castro government. Some of these exiles had the support of CIA, as well as from other elements of the U.S. Govern- ment, and still others had support from private sources. With or without official U.S. support these exiles spoke in forceful Latin terms about what they hoped to do. The Cuban intelli- gence services had agents in the exile community in America and it is likely that what they reported back to Havana as- signed to CIA responsibility for many of the activities under consideration, whether CIA was involved or not. (108) From its investigation of documents and from the testimony of offi- cials and others, the committee decided that the Senate committee was probably. mistaken in its conclusion that the CIA-Mafia plots were less significant than the AMLASH plot. In the judgment of the com- mittee, the CIA-Mafia plots, like the AMLASH plot, should have been aggressively explored as part of the 1963-64 investigation of the assas- sination of President Kennedy. At that time, it might still have been possible to determine precise dates of trips, meetings, telephone com- munications: and financial transactions, and the participants in these potentially pertinent transactions could have been questioned. At least in this one respect, the committee must concur with a sentiment ex- pressed in the 1977 CIA Task Force Report: Today, the knowledge of the persons involved directly in the various Cuban operations in the period preceding Pres- ident Kennedy's death cannot be recaptured in the form that it existed then. These persons are scattered, their memories are blurred by time, and some are dead. (109) The committee, moreover, was unable to accept the conclusion of the CIA and the Senate committee that the CIA-Mafia plots were ir- relevant because they had been terminated in February 1963, several months before the assassination. The record is clear that the relation- ships created by the plots did not terminate, nor had the threat to Castro abated by that time. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the inherently sinister relationships had become benign by Novem- ber 22, 1963. In June 1963, according to the interim report of the Senate com- mittee, Roselli had dinner with William Harvey, chief of the CIA's Cuban Task Force.(110) CIA files show that Roselli continued to maintain direct contact with Harvey at least until 1967, and he was in touch, at least indirectly, with the Agency's Chief of the Opera- tional Support Branch. Office of Security, as late as 1971. (111) The Task Force Report itself alluded to information that, as late as June 117 1964, gangster elements in Miami were offering $150,000 for Castro's life, an amount mentioned to the syndicate representatives by CIA case officers at an earlier date." (112) In the absence of documentation of the activities of Mafia plot par- ticipants between February 1963 and November 22, 1963--which had not been obtained in earlier investigations, and the committee was able to do no better--the committee found it difficult to dismiss the CIA- Mafia plots, even assuming they had been terminated in February 1963, as of no consequence to the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The plots, in short, should have been made known to the War- ren Commission. If they had been investigated in 1964, they might have provided insights into what happened in Dallas and resolved questions that have persisted. (3) Summary of the the evidence--By its conclusions about the AMLASH operation and the CIA-Mafia plots--that they were of possible consequence to the assassination investigation and therefore should have been revealed to the Warren Commission--the committee did not intend to imply it had discovered a link to the assassination. To the contrary, the committee was not able to develop evidence that Pres- ident Kennedy was murdered in retaliation for U.S. activities against Castro. What the committee did determine, however, was that there was no basis, in terms of relevance to the assassination, for the CIA to decide that the AMLASH operation and the CIA-Mafia plots were of no significance to the Warren Commission's investigation. On the other hand, the possibility that President Kennedy was assas- sinated in retaliation for anti-Castro activities of the CIA should have been considered quite pertinent, especially in light of specific allegations of conspiracy possibly involving supporters of the Cuban leader. (d) Cubana Airlines flight allegation The committee considered specific allegations of conspiracy involv- ing supporters of Castro. One such charge, referred to in book V of the Senate select com- mittee's report, concerns a Cubana Airlines flight from Mexico City to Havana on the evening of November 23, 1963. (113) It had been alleged that the flight was delayed 5 hours, awaiting the arrival at 9:30 p.m. of a private twin-engined aircraft.(114) The aircraft was supposed to have deposited an unidentified passenger who boarded the Cubans flight without clearing customs and traveled to Havana in the pilot's cabin. (115) The Senate committee reported that the Cubana flight departed at 10 p.m. This committee checked the times of key events that night by reviewing extensive investigative agency documents. It found the following facts: The Cubana flight was on the ground in Mexico City for a total of only about 4 hours and 10 minutes and thus could not have been delayed five hours. (116) The Cubana flight had departed for Havana at 8:30 p.m., about an hour before the arrival of the private aircraft reportedly carrying a mysterious passenger, so he could not have taken the flight. (117) 118 The committee found that extensive records of flight arrivals and departures at the Mexico City airport were available and deemed it doubtful that the alleged transfer of a passenger from a private air- craft to the Cubana flight could have gone unnoticed, had it oc- curred. (118) The committee concluded, therefore, that the transfer did not occur. (e) Gilberto Policarpo Lopez allegation More troubling to the committee was another specific allegation dis- cussed by the Senate committee. It concerned a Cuban-American named Gilberto Policarpo Lopez.(119) According to the account, Lopez obtained a tourist card in Tampa, Fla., on November 20, 1963, entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo on November 23, and flew from Mexico City to Havana on November 27. (12O) Further, Lopez was alleged to have attended a meeting of the Tampa chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee on November 17, 1963, and at a December meeting of the chapter, Lopez was reported to be in Cuba. (12l) The committee first examined the CIA files on Policarpo Lopez.(122) They reflect that in early December 1963, CIA head- quarters received a classified message stating that a source had re- quested "urgent traces on U.S. citizen Gilberto P. Lopez." (123) According to the source, Lopez had arrived in Mexico on Novem- ber 23 en route to Havana and had disappeared with no record of his trip to Havana. The message added that Lopez had obtained tourist card No. 24553 in Tampa on November 20, that he had left Mexico for Havana November 27 on Cubana Airlines, and that his U.S. pass- port number was 310162.(124) In another classified message of the same date, it was reported that the FBI had been advised that Lopez entered Mexico on Novem- ber 27 at Nuevo Laredo. (125) Two days later these details were added: Lopez had crossed the border at Laredo, Tex., on November 23; registered at the Roosevelt Hotel in Mexico City on November 25; and departed Mexico on November 27 on a Cubana flight for Havana. (126) Another dispatch noted that Lopez was the only passenger on Cubans flight 465 on November 27 to Havana. (127) It said he used a U.S. passport and Cuban courtesy visa. It noted, too: "Source states the timing and cir- cumstances surrounding subject's travel through Mexico and depar- ture for HaVana are suspicious." It was this dispatch that alerted headquarters to the source's "urgent" request for all available data on Lopez. (128) The same day as the dispatch, headquarters sent a cable identifying the Cuban-American as Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, born January 26, 1940. It added that Lopez was not identical with a Gilberto Lopez who had been active in pro-Castro groups in Los Angeles. (129) Headquarters was also told that there existed a "good" photograph of Lopez, showing him wearing dark .glasses. A copy of the photo- graph with "27 November 1963" stamped on the back was found in his CIA file by committee investigators in 1978. (130) In March 1964, CIA headquarters received a classified message: a source had reported in late February that an American citizen named 119 Gilberto Lopes 11 had been involved in the Kennedy assassination; that Lopes had entered Mexico on foot from Laredo, Tex., on Novem- ber 13 carrying U.S. passport 319962, which had been issued July 13, 1960; that he had been issued Mexican travel form. B24553 in Nuevo Laredo; that Lopes had proceeded by bus to Mexico City "where he entered the Cuban Embassy"; and that he left the Cuban Embassy on November 27 and was the only passenger on flight 465 for Cuba. (132) The following day, a classified message was sent to headquarters stating that the information "jibes fully with that provided station by [source] in early December 1963." (133) A file had been opened on Lopez at headquarters on December 16, 1963. (134) It contained a "Review of [material omitted] file on U.S. Citizen" by an operations officer of the responsible component of the agency. In the review, the file was classified as a "counterintelligence case, (that is, involving a foreign intelligence or security service)." The date of entry of that category in the agency's records is indicated as January 22, 1975. (135) The committee also reviewed an FBI investigation of Gilberto Poli- carpo Lopez in Key West, Fla., contained in a report dated August 1964.(136) In an interview, Lopez' cousin, Guillermo Serpa Rodriguez, had said that Lopez had come to the United States soon after Castro came to power, stayed about a year and returned to Cuba because he was homesick. He returned to the United States in 1960 or 1961 fearing he would be drafted into the Cuban militia. (137) The FBI also interviewed an American woman Lopez had married in Key West. She listed companies where he had been employed, in- cluding a construction firm in Tampa. She also said he began suffering from epileptic attacks, was confined for a time at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami in early 1963, and was treated by doctors in Coral Gables and Key West. She said she believed the epilepsy was brought on by concern for his family in Cuba. (138) Lopez' wife said she received a letter from him in about November 1963, saying he had returned to Cuba once more. She said she had been surprised, although he had mentioned returning, to Cuba before he left for Tampa in November 1963. In a later letter, Lopez told his wife he had received financial assistance for his trip to Cuba from an organization in Tampa. His wife explained that he would not have been able to pay for the trip without help. She said, however, he had not had earlier contacts with Cuban refugee organizations. (139) ------------------------ 11 The committee noted the discrepancies in this message, as follows: the spelling of Lopes, for Lopez; the November 13 date and passport number 319962, issued July 13, 1960; and Lopez entering Mexico on foot. In its 1977 Task Force Report, the CIA cited the several "inaccuracies," as they had been repeated in the report of the Senate Select Committee. as reason to refute the report itself. The TFR pointed out that Lopez' name had been misspelled "Lopes," that it had Lopez entering Mexico on foot, when the CIA had information that he had traveled by automobile; that it listed incorrect digits for Lopez' passport number: that it stated that Lopez' Mexican tourist visa had been issued in Nuevo Laredo. not Tampa; and it reported that he had stayed at the Cuban Embassy. Based on these inaccuracies, the TFR concluded, "the source was patently and extensively misinformed." The TFR therefore discounted the March cable that held that held the information "jibed" with what the CIA's source had earlier reported. (131) The discrepancies pointed out in the TFR were apparently intended to explain why the CIA had not taken more aggressive Investigative steps to determine whether there had been a connection between Lopez and the assassination. 120 Rodriguez said Lopez left Key West in late 1963 for Tampa with the hope of being able to re›urn to Cuba, explaining he was afraid he would be drafted into ›,he U.S. military. Rodriguez said Lopez had not been involved in pro-Castro activity in Key West, but that he was definitely pro-Castro, and he had once gotten into a fistfight over his Castro sympathies. (14O) The FBI had previously documented that Lopez had actually been in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba. Committee and had attended a meeting in Tampa on November 20, 1963. In a March 1964 report, it recounted that at a November 17 meeting of the Tampa FPCC, Lopez had said he had not been granted permission to return to Cuba but that he was awaiting a phone call about his return to his homeland. In that March report, a Tampa FPCC member was quoted as saying she called a friend in Cuba on December 8, 1963, and was told that Lopez had arrived safely. She also said that the Tampa chapter of the FPCC had given Lopez about $190 for the trip to Cuba and that he had gone to Cuba by way of Mexico because he did not have a passport. (141) The March 1964 FBI report stated that Lopez did have a U.S. pass- port--it had been issued in January. 1960 and was numbered 310162. His Mexican tourist card was numbered M8-24553 and was issued November 20, 1963 in Tampa. The report also confirmed that Lopez entered Mexico via. Laredo, Tex., by automobile on November 23, and he departed for Havana on November 27, the only passenger on a Cubana flight. He was carrying a Cuban courtesy visa.(142) Lopez' FBI file contained a memorandum from the Tampa office. Dated October 26, 1964, it read: It is felt that information developed regarding the subject is not sufficient to merit consideration for the Security Index. (143) The only information transmitted by the FBI to the Warren Com- mission. the committee determined, concerned a passport check on Lopez. Information sent to the Commission by the FBI on the Tampa chapter of the FPCC did not contain information on Lopez' activities. The CIA apparently did not provide any information to the Warren Commission on Lopez. (144) The committee concurred with the Senate select committee that this omission was egregious, since sources had reported within a few days of the assassination that the circumstances surrounding Lopez' travel to Cuba seemed "suspicious." Moreover, in March 1964, when the Warren Commission's investigation was in its most active stage, there were reports circulating that Lopez had been involved in the assassination. In its 1977 Task Force Report, the CIA responded to the charges of the Senate committee. It claimed that the agency had carried its in- vestigation of Lopez as far as it could, having questioned a Cuban defector about him. (145) The committee found that the absence of access to additional sources of information was not an adequate expla- nation for the agency's failure to consider more seriously the suspi- cions of its sources or to report what information it did have to the Warren Commission. Attempts in the Task Force Report to denigrate the information that was provided on Lopez were not an adequate substitute for enabling the Warren Commission itself to pursue the leads more aggressively. 121 From the information gathered by the FBI, there appeared to be plausible reasons both for Lopez' desire to return to Cuba and for his solicitation of financial aid from the Tampa FPCC chapter. Lopez' contacts in Florida appeared to have been innocent and not connected with the assassination, and while there was a suggestion in the Senate committee's report that Lee Harvey Oswald also was in contact with the Tampa FPCC chapter, the committee could find no evidence of it. Nor could the committee find any evidence that Oswald was in contact with Lopez. Lopez' association with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, how- ever, coupled with the facts that the dates of his travel to Mexico via Texas coincide with the assassination, plus the reports in Mexico that Lopez' activites were "suspicious," all amount to a troublesome cir- cumstance that the committee was unable to resolve with confidence. (f) Other allegations The committee also pursued allegations of Cuban complicity that were not suggested by the investigation of the Senate committee. For example, it looked into an allegation by one Autulio Ramirez Ortiz, who hijacked an aircraft to Cuba in 1961. Ramirez claimed that while being held by the Cuban Government, he worked in an intelligence facility where he found a dossier on Lee Harvey Oswald. (146) It was labeled the "Oswald-Kennedy" file and contained a photograph of "Kennedy's future assassin."(147) In the Spanish language manu- script of a book he wrote Ramirez claimed the Oswald file read, in part "* * * The KGB has recommended this individual * * * He is a North American, married to an agent of the Soviet organism who has orders to go and reside in the United States. Oswald is an adventurer. Our Embassy in Mexico has orders to get in contact with him. Be very careful."(148) The committee, in executive session, questioned Ramirez, who had been returned to the United States to serve a 20-year Federal sentence for hijacking.(149) He testified he was unable to describe the photo- graph he had allegedly seen and that the writing in the file was in Russian, a language he does not speak. (150) The committee sought from the FBI and CIA independent evidence of the accuracy of Ramirez' allegations, but there was no corroboration of the existence of an "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file to be found. On the other hand, in every instance where there was independent evidence of allegations made by Ramirez (the identities of Cuban officials named by him, for example) Ramirez' statements were found to be accurate.(151) In the end, however, the committee was forced to dismiss Ramirez' story about the "Osvaldo-Kennedy" file. The decisive factor was the committee's belief that the Cuban intelligence system in the 1961-63 period was too sophisticated to have been infiltrated by Ramirez in the manner he had described. While some details of his story could be corroborated, the essential aspects of his allegation were incredible. The committee also considered the allegation that appeared in an article in a 1967 issue of the National Enquirer, written by a British freelancer named Comer Clark.(152) Purportedly based on an exclu- sive interview with Castro, it quoted the Cuban President as admit- ting to having heard of threats by Oswald to assassinate president 122 Kennedy. According to Clark, Castro told him that while at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City in September 1963, Oswald vowed he would kill the President. (153) On a trip to Havana in April 1978. the committee met with Presi- dent Castro and asked him about the charge. Castro denied there had ever been an interview with Clark.(154) He also suggested that had such a threat been overheard by Cuban officials, they and he would have been morally obligated to transmit it to U.S. authorities.(155) The committee did not agree that the Cuban Government would have been obligated to report the threat. Nothing in the evidence indicated that the threat should have been taken seriously, if it had occurred, since Oswald had behaved in an argumentative and obnoxious fash- ion during his visit to the consulate. (156) Cuban officials would have been justified, the committee reasoned, to have considered the threat an idle boast, deserving no serious attention. The accuracy of Clark's account was also undermined by the com- mittee's investigation of his background. Clark had been the author of articles with such sensational titles as "British Girls as Nazi Sex Slaves," "I Was Hitler's Secret Love" and "German Plans to Kidnap the Royal Family." The committee was unable to question Clark him- self, as he had since died. (157) Despite the committee's doubts about the Clark interview with Castro, it was informed that the substance of it had been independently reported to the U.S. Government. A highly confidential but reliable source reported that Oswald had indeed vowed in the presence of Cuban consulate officials to assassinate the President. (158) This information prompted the committee to pursue the report fur- ther in file reviews and interviews. The files that were reviewed includ- ed records of conversations of relevant people at appropriate times and places. Only one of them provided any possible corroboration. It was the record of a reported conversation by an employee of the Cuban Embassy named Luisa Calderon. (159) The absence of other corrob- oration must be considered significant. A blind memorandum 12 provided by the CIA to the committee contained Calderon's pertinent remarks: 1. A reliable source reported that on November 22, 1963, several hours after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Luisa Calderon Carralero, a Cuban employee of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, and believed to be a member of the Cuban Directorate General of Intelligence (DGI), discussed news of the assassination with an acquaint- ance. Initially, when asked if she had heard the latest news, Calderon replied, in what appeared to be a joking manner, "Yes, of course, I knew almost before Kennedy." After further discussion of the news accounts about the assassination, the acquaintance asked Calderon what else she had learned. Calderon replied that they [assumed to refer to personnel of the Cuban Embassy] learned about it a little while ago. (160) ------------------------ 12 There is no indication on a blind memorandum of either origin or destination. 123 Luisa Calderon's statements on the day of the assassination could be construed as either an indication of foreknowledge or mere brag- gadocio. The preponderance of the evidence led the committee to find that it was braggadocio. While the committee attempted to interview Calderon in Cuba, it was unable to, since she was ill. (161) Neverthe- less, it forwarded interrogatories to her, which she responded to deny- ing foreknowledge of the assassination.(162) The committee also interviewed other employees of the Cuban consulate in Mexico City in 1963 all of whom denied the allegation.(163) While it may be argued that they had a reason to do so because of Castro's view that the Cuban Government would have had a moral obligation to report the threat had it occurred, these officials, in the committee's judgment, indicated by their demeanor that they were testifying truthfully. The committee also made a judgment about the risk that would have been incurred by Cubans had they testified falsely on this issue or by those who might have orchestrated their false testimony. Based on newspaper reporting alone, the Cuban Government might reasonably have believed that the committee had access to extensive information about conversations in the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and that such information might have provided convincing evidence of a cover- up. To have been caught in a lie in public testimony in the United States 13 would have been a major embarrassment for the Cuban Gov- ernment, one that might have implied more than moral responsibility for failing to report a threat against President Kennedy in advance of the assassination. On balance, the committee did not believe that Oswald voiced a threat. to Cuban officials. However reliable the confidential source may be, the committee found it to be in error in this instance. The committee investigated other aspects of Oswald's trip to Mexico City in September 1963 to see if it could develop information that bore on the question of a Cuban conspiracy. It considered the claim by the Cuban consul in Mexico City in 1963, Eusebio Azcue, that a man posing as Oswald applied for a Cuban visa. 14 It also investigated two plausible, though unsubstantiated, allegations of activities that had not previously been publicly revealed: That of a Mexican author, Elena Garro de Paz, who claimed that Oswald and two companions had attended a "twist" party at the home of Ruben Duran, brother-in-law of Silvia Duran, the secretary of Cuban consul Azcue who dealt with Oswald when he applied at the consulate for a Cuban visa.(164) That of a Mexican named Oscar Contreras who, in 1967, claimed he had met Oswald on the campus of the National Auton- omous University of Mexico. (165) The committee conducted extensive interviews with respect to these allegations. (166) The significance of the Elena Garro allegation, aside from its point- ing to Oswald associations in Mexico City that the Warren Commis- ------------------------- 13 In addition to a tape-recorded interview with President Castro in Havana, the committee heard testimony in public hearing from two former Cuban consuls in Mexico City, Eusebio Azcue and Alfredo Mirabal, and it tape-recorded an interview with Silvia Duran, a secretary at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City in 1963 who had had one or more encounters with Oswald. 14 Details of the issue of an alleged Oswald imposter are presented in section I D 4. 124 sion did not investigate, lay in her description of one of the compan- ions as gaunt and blond-haired. (167) These are characteristics that both Azcue and Silvia Duran attributed to the visitor to the Cuban consulate who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald. (168) Even though "gaunt and blond-haired" did not describe Oswald, Duran said that the American visitor was the man later arrested in the assassi- nation of the President. (169) Azcue, on the other hand, insisted that the visitor was not the individual whose published photograph was that of Oswald. (170) The committee was unable to obtain corroboration for the Elena Garro allegation, although Silvia Duran did confirm that there was a "twist" party at her brother-in-law's home in the fall of 1963 and that Elena Gerro was there. (171) She denied, however, that Oswald was there, insisting that she never saw Oswald outside of the Cuban consulate.(172) The committee was unable to check the story with official U.S. investigative agencies because they failed to pursue it, even though they were aware of it in 1964.15 The committee's investigation was sufficient, however, to develop a conclusion that the Elena Garro allegation had warranted investiga- tion when it was first received by the CIA in October 1964. Even in the late 1960's, at a time when Garro and others were available for questioning, there was still the potential for sufficient corroboration 16 to make the allegation worth pursuing. Further, while the allegation did not specifically show a Cuban conspiracy, it did indicate signifi- cant Oswald associations that were not known to the Warren Commission. The other Oswald association in Mexico City that might have proven significant, had it been pursued, was the one alleged by Oscar Con- treras, a student at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. The committee made an effort to investigate this allegation. Silvia Duran, for example, admitted to the committee. that she had advised Oswald he might obtain a Cuban visa if he could get a letter of recom- mendation from a Mexican in good standing with the Cuban revolu- tionary hierarchy. (175) The committee also learned that the chairman of the philosophy department at the National Autonomous University, Ricardo Guerra, held seminars from time to time at the Duran home on Kant, Hegel, and Marx. (176) The committee speculated that these circumstances might explain why Oswald contacted Contreras, who reported to Mexican authorities that Oswald approached him in Sep- ---------------------------- 15 The committee's investigation in Mexico City was further inhibited by the refusal of the CIA to make available its sources on the Elena Garro allegation, and, as a committee of the U.S. Congress in a foreign country, it was bound by a decision of the Mexican Government to permit its citizens to decide individually if they wished to meet with committee representatives (173) The CIA, moreover, had failed to pursue the Elena Garro allegation adequately in 1964. A review of the CIA file indicated that the allegation was treated skeptically because Agency officials apparently considered Elena Garro to be other than totally rational. Inquiries of sources were ordered, but the files do not indicate that any responses were actively solicited or, in fact, received. The Agency files on this aspect of the case are devoid of any substance that would suggest an active CIA investigation. The committee did ultimately locate Elena Garro In Europe, but attempts by telephone to persuade her to come to the United States to testify did not succeed. (174) 16 Elena Garro maintained that after the assassination she wanted to report her story to authorities but that she was warned of possible danger by a man named Manuel Calvillo. Elena Garro alleged that Calvillo placed her in the Hotel Vermont in Mexico City where she remained for several days. In 1967, the CIA did in fact receive confirmation of Elena Garro's stay at the Hotel Vermont immediately after the assassination. 125 tember 1963 following a roundtable discussion at the school of philosophy. 17 The committee's attempts to contact Contreras were frustrated. On two occasions, the Mexican Government said he would be available for an interview, but neither materialized. The committee also was unable to contract Guerra. who in 1978 was Mexico's Ambassador to East Ger- many. (177) The significance of the Contreras allegation, therefore, remains largely indeterminate. The committee also pondered what deductions might be drawn from Azcue's conviction that the man who applied for a Cuban visa was not Oswald. One possibility considered, although ultimately rejected by the committee, was that there was a sinister association between Oswald and the Castro regime that Azcue was attempting to conceal. The committee weighed the evidence on both sides of the Oswald- at-the-Cuban-consulate issue: That it was Oswald was indicated by the testimony of Silvia Duran and Alfredo Mirabal, who was in the process of succeeding Azcue as Cuban consul when the visit occurred in late Septem- ber 1963. They both identified Oswald from post-assassination photographs as the man who applied for a Cuban visa. That it was not Oswald was a possibility raised by the commit- tee's inability to secure a photograph of him entering or leaving the Soviet Embassy or the Cuban consulate. The committee ob- tained evidence from the Cuban Government that such photo- graphs were being taken routinely in 1963. Further, the committee found that Oswald paid at least five visits to the Soviet Embassy or the Cuban consulate. 18 (178) The committee also sought to understand the significance of a Secret Service investigation of threats against President Kennedy by pro- Castro Cubans. In April 1961, for example, when the President and Mrs. Kennedy were scheduled to address a special meeting of the Council of the Organization of American States, the State Depart- ment reported that Cuba would be represented by one Quentin Pino Machado. Machado, a Cuban diplomat, described as a character of ill repute, armed and dangerous, ultimately did not attend the meeting. (179) On November 27, 1963, a Miami Secret Service informant told Spe- cial Agent Ernest Aragon that if the assassination involved an inter- national plot in which Castro had participated, then Castro's agent in the plot would have been Machado, a well-known terrorist. There were -------------------------- 17 The Contreras story, as in the case of the Elena Garro allegation, was not adequately pursued when it first came to the attention of the CIA in 1967. At that time, the Agency was informed by the U.S. Consul in Tampico, Mexico, that Contreras had passed the information to him. An Agency employee later discussed the matter in more detail with the Consul and then met with Contreras himself. The CIA confirmed that Contreras had been a student in 1963 and was politically a strong supporter of Fidel Castro. The Contreras story was considered, according to Agency files, to be the first significant development in the investigation of the Kennedy assassination after 1965. Nevertheless, no attempt was made to determine who Contreras' associates were or how Oswald might have contacted him. Instead, the case was simply reported to the FBI. According to FBI files, no followup investigation was conducted. 18 The committee believed that photographs of Oswald might have been taken and subsequently lost or destoryed. The committee did obtain a photograph of a man whose description seemed to match that given by Azcue and Duran of the "gaunt and blond-haired" visitor to the Cuban consulate. They each stated, however, that he was not the man they had described as the one who, in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, had applied for a visa to Cuba. 126 rumors in the Miami Cuban community at the time that Machado had been assigned to escort Oswald from Texas to Cuba after the assassina- tion. The plan went awry, the report continued, because Oswald had not been wearing clothing of a prearranged color and because of the shooting of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit.(180) The reports on Machado, along with other suspicions of Castro complicity in the assassination, were forwarded only in brief sum- mary form by the Secret Service to the Warren Commission. The com- mittee could find no record of follow-up action. (181) The committee's investigation of actions by the Secret Service subsequent to the assassi- nation, however, revealed the most extensive work of the Agency to have been in response to reports of pro-Castro Cuban involvement. (182) (g) The committee's trip to Cuba The committee took its investigation to Cuba in the spring and sum- mer of 1978. It sought information on numerous allegations, such as those mentioned above, and it put to President Castro the question of Cuban involvement in the assassination. The committee found the Cuban Government to be cooperative, both in supplying written re- ports and documents in response to questions and by making a number of its citizens available for interviews. (183) While the committee was unable to interview Luisa Calderon personally, the Cuban Government did permit its former consuls in Mexico City, Eusebio Azcue and Al- fredo Mirabal, to come to Washington to testify in a public hearing of the committee. (184) In response to the question of Cuban complicity in the assassina- tion, Castro replied: That [the Cuban Government might have been involved in the President's death] was insane. From the ideological point of view it was insane. And from the political point of view, it was a tremendous insanity. I am going to tell you here that nobody, nobody ever had the idea of such things. What would it do? We just tried to defend our folks here, within our territory. Anyone who subscribed to that idea would have been judged insane * * * absolutely sick. Never, in 20 years of revolution, I never heard anyone suggest nor even speculate about a measure of that sort, because who could think of the idea of organizing the death of the President of the United States. That would have been the most perfect pretext for the United States to invade our country. which is what I have tried to prevent for all these years, m every possible sense. Since the United States is much more powerful than we are, what could we gain from a war with the United States? The United States would lose nothing. The destruction would have been here. (185) Castro added: I want to tell you that the death of the leader does not change the system. It has never done that. (186) In the interview, Castro also commented on his speech of Septem- ber 7, 1963, which on its face might have been viewed as an indication 127 that Castro may have been prompted to retaliate for a CIA-inspired attempt on his life: So, I said something like those plots start to set a very bad precedent, a very serious one--that could become a boomer- and against the authors of those actions * * * but I did not mean to threaten by that. I did not mean even that * * * not in the least * * * but rather, like a warning that we knew; that we had news about it; and that to set those precedents of plotting the assassination of leaders of other countries would be a very bad precedent * * * something very nega- tive. And, if at present, the same would happen under the same circumstances, I would have no doubt in saying the same as I said [then] because I didn't mean a threat by that. I didn't say it as a threat. I did not mean by that that we were going to take measures--similar measures-- like a retaliation for that. We never meant that because we knew that there were plots. For 3 years, we had known there were plots against us. So the conversation came about very casually, you know; but I would say that all these plots or attempts were part of the everyday life.(187) Finally, President Castro noted that although relations between the United States and Cuba were strained during the Kennedy ad- ministration, by 1963 there were definite hopes for reconciliation. (188) The committee confirmed from the historic record that, in 1963, the Cuban Government made several overtures. While, for the most part, Kennedy did not respond favorably, he did, in November, direct that the possibility of holding talks be explored by United Nations Dele- gate William Atwood with Cuban United Nations Ambassador Carlos Lechuga. (189) There was also reason to believe that French journalist Jean Daniel was asked by Kennedy to relay a peace message to Castro.(190) At least, that was how Castro interpreted it when he met with Daniel on November 20, 1963. (191) In his interview with the committee, Castro referred to these two developments toward rapprochement, as he viewed them, suggesting that he would not have had a motive to eliminate President Kennedy. Instead, it would have been to his advantage, Castro insisted, to have pursued the prospect for better relations that had been portended. (192) (h) Deficiencies of the 1963-64 investigation In attempting to resolve the question of possible Cuban conspiracy, the committee concluded that a definitive answer had to come, if at all, largely from the investigation conducted in 1963-64 by the War- ren Commission and the FBI and CIA. What the committee was able to do 15 years later could fill in important details, but it could not make up for basic insufficiencies. Unfortunately, the committee found that there were in fact significant deficiencies in the earlier investigation. The Warren Commission knew far less than it professed to know about Oswald's trip to Mexico and his possible association with pro-Castro agents in Mexico and elsewhere. This was true, in part, be- cause the Commission had demanded less of the FBI and CIA than called for in its mandate. (193) 128 For its part, the FBI mechanically ran out thousands of leads, but it failed to make effective use of its Cuban Section of the Domestic Intelligence Division or to develop and systematically pursue investi- gative hypotheses of possible Cuban complicity. It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming the case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the assassination. (194) With respect to the CIA, the committee determined that it could have been better equipped to investigate the question of Cuban com- plicity. 19 The CIA had, at the time, only limited access to Cuban intelligence defectors, and most of its information sources inside Cuba were better equipped to report on economic developments and troop movements than on political decisions, especially sensitive ones, such as those involving political assassination.(198) As the CIA admitted in its 1977 Task Force Report, it could have taken "broader initiatives" in pursuing the investigation. The com- mittee found that such initiatives could have included more compre- hensive instructions on debriefing Cuban sources and more explicit tasking of stations for specific investigative efforts. With respect to the CIA's investigation of possible Cuban com- plicity, however, the committee found that the Agency's shortcomings were not attributable to any improper motive. The committee found that the CIA did generally gather and analyze the information that came to its attention regarding possible Cuban involvement, at least until the Warren Commission made its report in 1964. Indeed, the committee noted that the Agency acted not only out of dedication, but out of a specific motivation related to Cuba. The officers, agents and employees in the Cuba-related divisions had devoted their careers to the overthrow of Castro, and evidence of his participation in the assassination, if it had existed and could have been brought to light, would have vindicated their long-frustrated efforts, of not, in fact, led directly to a U.S. invasion of Cuba and destruction of the Castro regime. That being said, the committee did not ignore the possibility that certain CIA officials who were aware that close scrutiny of U.S.- Cuban relations in the early 1960's could have inadvertently exposed the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro, might have attempted to prevent the CIA's assassination investigation or that of the Warren Commis- sion from delving deeply into the question of Cuban complicity. The committee determined, however, that only CIA Deputy Director Rich- ard Helms would have been in a position to have had both the requisite knowledge and the power to accomplish such a coverup, and it was satisfied, on the basis of its investigation, that it was highly unlikely he in fact did so. (199) ----------------------------- 19 With respect to the incident at the home of Sylvia Odio in Dallas (see sec. C 3), the CIA had developed since 1963 the ability to identify from physical descriptions possible intelligence agents who may have been involved. In fact, at the committee's request, the CIA attempted to identify Odio's visitors, and it determined that they may have been members of Cuban intelligence.(195) The committee showed photographs supplied by the CIA to Odio who stated they did not appear to be the visitors in question.(196) The committee came to the conclusion that had she been shown Photographs in 1963, when the event was clearer in her mind, she might have been able to make an identification. It is also regrettable that the CIA did not make use of a defector from Cuba who had worked in Intelligence and who might have been able to identify the Odio visitors. (197) 129 While noting the deficiencies in the CIA assassination investigation, the committee was impressed with certain overseas capabilities of the CIA in 1963. The Agency had, for example? comprehensive coverage of anti-Castro Cuban groups that, in turn, had extensive information sources in and out of Cuba. (200) Thus, while it was flawed in certain specific respects, the committee concluded that the CIA assassination investigation could, in fact, be relied on--with only limited reserva- tions-as s general indicator of possible Cuban involvement. That in- vestigation found no evidence of Cuban complicity. (i) Summary of the findings While the committee did not take Castro's denials at face value, it found persuasive reasons to conclude that the Cuban Government was not involved in the Kennedy assassination. First, by 1963 there were prospects for repairing the hostility that had marked relations between the two countries since Castro had come to power. Second, the risk of retaliation that Cuba would have incurred by conspiring in the assassination of an American President must have canceled out other considerations that might have argued for that act. President Castro's description of the idea as "insane" is appropriate. And there was no evidence indicating an insane or grossly reckless lack of judg- ment on the part of the Cuban Government. Third, the CIA had both the motive to develop evidence of Cuban involvement and access to at least substantial, if incomplete, information bearing on relevant as- pects of it, had such involvement existed. Its absence, therefore, must be weighed in the balance. Finally, the Cuban Government's coopera- tion with this committee in the investigation must be a factor in any judgment. In conclusion, the committee found, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. 3. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO IT, THAT ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN GROUPS, AS GROUPS, WERE NOT IN- VOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, BUT THAT THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN- DIVIDUAL MEMBERS MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED The committee investigated possible involvement in the assassi- nation by a number of anti-Castro Cuban groups and individual ac- tivists for two primary reasons: First, they had the motive, based on what they considered President Kennedy's betrayal of their cause, the liberation of Cuba from the Castro regime; the means, since they were trained and practiced in violent acts, the result of the guerrilla warfare they were waging against Castro; and the opportunity, whenever the President, as he did from time to time, appeared at public gatherings, as in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Second, the committee's investigation revealed that certain asso- ciations of Lee Harvey Oswald were or may have been with anti- Castro activists. The committee, therefore paid close attention to the activities of anti-Castro Cubans--in Miami, where most of them were concentrated and their organizations were headquartered,(1) and in New Orleans 130 and Dallas, where Oswald, while living in these cities in the months preceding the assassination, reportedly was in contact with anti-Castro activists.(2) The Warren Commission did not, of course, ignore Oswald's ties to anti-Castroites. From the evidence that was available in 1964, two Warren Commission staff attorneys, W. David Slawson and William Coleman, went so far as to speculate that Oswald, despite his public posture as a Castro sympathizer, might actually have been an agent of anti-Castro exiles.(3) Indeed, pressing for further investigation of the possibility, they wrote a memorandum which read in part: The evidence here could lead to an anti-Castro involvement in the assassination on some sort of basis as this: Oswald could have become known to the Cubans as being strongly pro-Castro. He made no secret of his sympathies, so the anti- Castro Cubans must have realized that law enforcement au- thorities were also aware of Oswald's feelings and that, therefore, if he got into trouble, the public would also learn of them * * * Second, someone in the anti-Castro organization might have been keen enough to sense that Oswald had a penchant for violence * * * On these facts, it is possible that some sort of deception was used to encourage Oswald to kill the President when he came to Dallas * * * The motive of this would, of course, be the expectation that after the President was killed, Oswald would be caught or at least his identity ascertained, the law enforcement authorities and the public would blame the assassination on the Castro government. and a call for its forceful overthrow would be irresistible * * *. (4) While it is seemingly in contradiction of Oswald's personal charac- ter and known public posture, the committee seriously considered, therefore, the possibility of an anti-Castro conspiracy in the assassina- tion (perhaps with Oswald unaware of ifs true nature). It is appro- priate to begin that consideration with an examination of the history of United States-Cuban relations from the perspective of the anti- Castro movement, beginning with the victorious end of the revolution on January 1, 1959. (5) (a) The anti-Castro Cuban perspective The anti-Castro movement began not long after Fidel Castro as- sumed control of Cuba. (6) At first. the Cuban people cheered the revo- lution and its leader for the defeat of the dictatorial Batista regime, but it was not long before many former supporters found reason to condemn the new premier's policies and politics. (7) Many Cubans were deeply disillusioned when it became apparent that the Castro govern- ment was renouncing the country's long affiliation with the United States and moving closer to the Soviet Union. (8) As Castro's pref- erence for Marxism became evident, underground opposition move- ments were born. (9) They survived for a time within Cuba, but as the effectiveness of Castro's militia system was recognized, they re- treated to the exile communities of Miami and other cities in the United States. (10) The U.S. Government was responsive to the efforts of exiles to re- move a Communist threat from the Caribbean, only 90 miles from the 131 Florida coast, and to recapture business investments lost to the na- tionalization of industry in Cuba. (11) An official, yet covert, program to train and equip exiles determined to overthrow Castro was sanc- tioned by President Eisenhower and his successor, President Kennedy, and carried out by the American intelligence agencies, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. (12). The Cuban exiles, dependent on the United States for arms and logistical support, had little choice but to put their trust in Washington. (13) Their trust collapsed however, at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961, when an exile invasion of Cuba was annihilated by Castro's troops. (14) The failure of American airpower to support the landing shattered the confidence of the anti-Castro Cubans in the U.S. Gov- ernment.(15) They blamed President Kennedy, and he publicly ac- cepted responsibility for the defeat. (16) President Kennedy's readiness to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs served to intensify the anger of the exiles.(17) In executive session before the committee, Manuel Antonio Varona, who in 1961 was the head of the united exile organization, the Revolutionary Demo- cratic Front, told of a tense and emotional encounter with the Presi- dent at the White House, as hope for the invasion was fading.(18) "We were not charging Mr. Kennedy with anything," Varona testi- fied.(19) "We knew he was not in charge of the military efforts di- rectly. Nevertheless, President Kennedy told us he was the one--the only one responsible." (20) A noted Cuban attorney, Mario Lazo, summed up Cuban feeling to- ward President Kennedy in his book, "Dagger in the Heart": The Bay of Pigs was wholly self-inflicted in Washington. Kennedy told the truth when he publicly accepted responsi- bility * * * The heroism of the beleaguered Cuban Brigade had been rewarded by betrayal, defeat, death for many of them, long and cruel imprisonment for the rest. The Cuban people * * * had always admired the United States as strong, rich, generous--but where was its sense of honor and the capacity of its leaders? (21) President Kennedy was well aware of the bitter legacy of the Bay of Pigs debacle. Far from abandoning the Cuban exiles, he set out to convince them of his loyalty to their cause. One of the most emo- tionally charged events of his relationship with the Cuban exiles oc- curred on December 29, 1962, at the Orange Bowl in Miami. (22) He had come to welcome the survivors of the invasion force, Brigade 2506, the 1,200 men who had been ransomed from Cuba after almost 20 months in prison.(23) The President was presented with the bri- gade flag in a dramatic and tumultuous scene. The euphoria was false and misleading. Although the Cuban exiles cheered President Kennedy that day, there also coursed through the crowd a bitter resentment among some who felt they were witnessing a display of political hypocrisy. Later, it would be claimed that the brigade feeling against President Kennedy was so strong that the presentation nearly did not take place, and it would be alleged (in- correctly, as it turned out) that the brigade flag given to Kennedy was actually a replica.(25) 132 It is not possible to know fully how the Bay of Pigs defeat changed President Kennedy's attitude toward Cuba, but when journalists Tay- lor Branch and George Crile wrote in Harper's Magazine about a massive infusion of U.S. aid to clandestine anti-Castro operations in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, they titled their article, "The Kennedy Vendetta."(26) What is known is that the period between the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis in October 196'2 can be characterized as the high point of anti-Castro activity. (27) Miami, the center of the exile community, became a busy staging ground for armed infiltrations Cuba.(28) While not every raid was supported or even known about in advance by Government agencies, the United States played a key role in monitoring, directing and supporting the anti-Castro Cubans. (29) Although this effort was cloaked in secrecy, most Cubans in the exile community knew what was happening and who was sup- porting the operations. (30) (1) The missile crisis and its aftermath.--At the time of the missile crisis in October 1969., the Cuban exiles were initially elated at the prospect of U.S. military action that might topple the Castro re- gime.(31) In the end, it seemed to the world that President Kennedy had the best of the confrontation with Castro and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev by demanding, and getting, the withdrawal of offensive missiles and bombers from Cuba. From the exiles' perspective, how- ever, they had been compromised, since as part of the bargain, Presi- dent Kennedy made a pledge not to invade Cuba. 20 (32) Anti-Castro forces in the United States were all the more embittered in the spring of 1963 when the Federal Government closed down many of their training camps and guerrilla bases. (34) In cases where gov- ernment raids intercepted the illegal arms transfers, weapons were confiscated and arrests were made.(35) Some anti-Castro operations did continue, however, right up to the time of the assassination, though the committee. found that U.S. backing had by that time been reduced. (36) (2) Attitude of anti-Castro Cubans toward Kennedy.--President Kennedy's popularity among the Cuban exiles had plunged deeply by 1963. Their bitterness is illustrated in a tape recording of a meeting of anti-Castro Cubans and right-wing Americans in the Dallas suburb of Farmer's Branch on October 1, 1963. (37) In it, a Cuban identified as Nestor Castellanos vehemently criticized the United States and blamed President Kennedy for the U.S. Government's policy of "non- interference" with respect to the Cuban issue. (38) Holding h copy of the September 26 edition of the Dallas Morning News, featuring a front-page account of the President's planned trip to Texas in No- vember, Castellanos vented his hostility without restraint: CASTELLANOS. * * * we're waiting for Kennedy the 22d, buddy. We're going to see him in one way or the other. We're going to give him the works when he gets in Dallas Mr. good ol' Kennedy. I wouldn't even call him President Kennedy He stinks. ----------------------------- 20 The United States never actually signed the pledge, since it was conditioned on United Nations inspection of the weapons withdrawal that Castro would not honor. The fine point of signing the pledge was of little importance to the Cuban exiles, however, who could point out later that no invasion did, in fact, occur.(33) 133 QUESTIONER. Are you insinuating that since this downfall came through the leader there [Castro in Cuba], that this might come to us * * * ? CASTELLANOS. Yes ma'am, your present leader. He's the one who is doing everything right now to help the United States to become Communist. (39) (b) The committee investigation The committee initiated its investigation by identifying the most violent and frustrated anti-Castro groups and their leaders from among the more than 100 Cuban exile organizations in existence in November 1963. (40) These groups included Alpha 66, the Cuban Rev- olutionary Junta (JURE), Commandos L, the Directorio Revolution- ary Estudiantil (DRE), the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) which included the Frente Revolucionario Democratico (FRD), the Junta del Gobierno de Cuba en el Exilio (JGCE), the 30th of Novem- ber, the International Penetration Forces (InterPen), the Revolution- ary Recovery Movement (MRR), and the Ejercito Invasor Cubano (EIC).(41) Their selection evolved both from the committee's inde- pendent field investigation and the examination of the files and rec- ords maintained by the Federal and local agencies then monitoring Cuban exile activity. These agencies included local police departments, the FBI, the CIA, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA), the Customs Serv- ice, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Defense. The groups that received the committee's attention were "action groups"--those most involved in military actions and propaganda campaigns. Unlike most others, they did not merely talk about anti- Castro operations, they actually carried out infiltrations into Cuba, planned, and sometimes attempted, Castro's assassination, and shipped arms into Cuba. These were also the groups whose leaders felt most betrayed by U.S. policy toward Cuba and by the President; they were also those whose operations were frustrated by American law enforce- ment efforts after the missile crisis. (1) Homer S. Echevarria.---For the most part the committee found that the anti-Castro Cuban leaders were more vociferous than poten- tially violent in their tirades against the President. Nevertheless, it was unable to conclude with certainty that all of the threats were benign. For example, one that the committee found particularly disturb- ing especially so, since it was not thoroughly looked into in the 1963- 64 investigation came to the attention of the Secret Service within days of the President's death, prompting the Acting Special Agent-in- Charge of the Chicago field office to write an urgent memorandum indicating he had received reliable information of "a group in the Chicago area who [sic] may have a connection with the J.F.K. assas- sination."(43) The memorandum was based on a tip from an inform- ant who reported a conversation on November 21, 1963, with a Cuban activist named Homer S. Echevarria.(44) They were discussing an illegal arms sale, and Echevarria was quoted as saying his group now ------------------------ 21 The committee uncovered no evidence that linked Castellanos to the assassination. His speech is quoted to illustrate the depth of feeling that existed in the Cuban exile community in 1963. 134 had "plenty of money" and that his backers would proceed "as soon as we take care of Kennedy." (45) Following the initial memorandum, the Secret Service instructed its informant to continue his association with Echevarria and notified the Chicago FBI field office. (46) It learned that Echevarria might have been a member of the 30th of November anti-Castro organization, that he was associated with Juan Francisco Blanco-Fernandez, mili- tary director of the DRE, and that the arms deal was being financed through one Paulino Sierra Martinez by hoodlum elements in Chicago and elsewhere. Although the Secret Service recommended further investigation, the FBI intitally took the position that the Echevarria case "was pri- marily a protection matter and that the continued investigation would be left to the U.S. Secret Service," (48) and that the Cuban group in question was probably not involved in illegal activities. (49) The Secret Service initially was reluctant to accept this position, since it had developed evidence that illegal acts were, in fact, involved. (50) Then, on November 29, 1963, President Johnson created the Warren Com- mission and gave the FBI primary investigative responsibility in the assassination.(51) Based on its initial understanding that the Presi- dent's order meant primary, not exclusive, investigative responsibility, the Secret Service continued its efforts;(52) but when the FBI made clear that it wanted the Secret Service to terminate its investiga- tion, (53) it did so, turning over its files to the FBI. (54) The FBI, in turn, did not pursue the Echevarria case. (55) While it was unable to substantiate the content of the informant's alleged conversations with Echevarria or any connection to the events. in Dallas, the committee did establish that the original judgment of the Secret Service was correct, that the Echevarria case did warrant a thorough investigation. It found, for example, that the 30th of Novem- ber group was backed financially by the Junta del Gobierno de Cuba en el Exilio (JGCE), a Chicago-based organization run by Paulino Sierra Martinez.(56) JGCE was a coalition of many of the more active anti-Castro groups that had been rounded in April 1963; it was dissolved soon after the assassination. 22 (57) Its purpose was to back the activities of the more militant groups, including Alpha 66 and the Student Directorate, or DRE, both of which had reportedly been in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. (58) Much of JGCE's finan- cial support, moreover, allegedly came from individuals connected to organized crime. (59) As it surveyed the various anti-Castro organizations, the committee focused its interest on reported contacts with Oswald. Unless an asso- ciation with the President's assassin could be established, it is doubtful that it could be shown that the anti-Castro groups were involved in the assassination. The Warren Commission, discounting the recommenda- tions of Slawson and Coleman. had either regarded these contacts as insignificant or as probably not having been made or else was not aware of them. (60) The committee could not so easily dismiss them. 22 The committee established--though it could make no judgment about there having been a connection--that many of the anti-Castro Cuban groups ceased their operations at about the time of President Kennedy's assassination. The Echevarria allegation is also discussed in section I D(l) (b) infra. 135 (2) Antonio Veciana Blanch.--The committee devoted a significant portion of its anti-Castro Cuban investigation to an alleged contact with Oswald that had been reported by Antonio Veciana Blanch, the founder of Alpha 66 which, throughout 1962 and most of 1963, was one of the most militant of the exile groups. (61) Its repeated hit-and-run attacks had drawn public criticism from President Kennedy in the spring of 1963, to which Veciana replied, "We are going to attack again and again." Veciana claimed to have had the active support of the CIA, and in 1976 he reported to a Senate investigator that from 1960 to 1973 his adviser, whom he believed to be a representative of the CIA, was known to him as Maurice Bishop. (62) Veciana stated that over their 13-year association, he and Bishop met on over 100 occasions and that Bishop actually planned many Alpha 66 operations. (63) He also said that he knew the man only. as Maurice Bishop and that all of their contacts were initiated by Bishop. (64) Veciana said that Bishop had guided him in planning assassination attempts of Castro in Havana in 1961 and in Chile in 1971; that Bishop had directed him to organize Alpha 66 in 1962; and that Bishop, on ending their relationship in 1973, had paid him $253,000 in cash for his services over the years. (65) Veciana also revealed that at one meeting with Bishop in Dallas in late August or early September 1963, a third party at their meeting was a man he later recognized as Lee Harvey Oswald. (66) Veciana also indicated to the committee that subsequent to the as- sassination, he had been contacted by Bishop, who was aware that Ve- cigna had a relative in Cuban intelligence in Mexico.(67) Bishop, according to Veciana, offered to pay Veciana's relative a large sum of money if he would say that it was he and his wife who had met with Oswald in Mexico City.(68) Veciana said he had agreed to con- tact his relative, but he had been unable to do so. (69) The committee pursued the details of Veciana's story, particularly the alleged meeting with Oswald. It conducted numerous file reviews and interviews with associates and former associates of Veciana, to try to confirm the existence of a Maurice Bishop or otherwise assess Ve- ciana's credibility. On a trip to Cuba, the committee interviewed Ve- ciana's relative, the Cuban intelligence agent. While the committee was unable to find corroboration for the con- tacts with Bishop, it did substantiate other statements by Veciana. For example, he did organize an attempted assassination of Castro in Havana in 1961, (70) and he probably did participate in another plot against Castro in Chile in 1971. (71) That Veciana was the principal organizer of the militant Alpha 66 organization was a matter of record. (72) The committee went to great lengths in its unsuccessful effort to substantiate the existence of Bishop and his alleged relationship with Oswald. It reviewed CIA files, but they showed no record of such an agent or employee. It circulated a sketch via the national news media, but no one responded with an identification. (73) It pursued a lead orig- inating with the Senate investigation that a former chief of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division of the Directorate of Operations bore a resemblance to the Bishop sketch.(74) The committee arranged for 136 a chance meeting between Veciana and the CIA officer, who had since retired. (75) Veciana said he was not Bishop. (76) In an executive ses- sion of the committee, the retired officer testified under oath that he had never used the name Maurice Bishop, had never known anyone by that name and had never known Veciana. (77) Veciana, also before a committee executive session, testified the officer was not Bishop al- though he bore a "paysical similarity."23 (78) A former Director of the CIA, John McCone, and an agent who had participated in covert Cuban operations, each told the committee they recalled that a Maurice Bishop had been associated with the Agency, though neither could supply additional details.(80) Subsequently, McCone was interviewed by CIA personnel, and he told them that his original testimony to the committee had been in error. (81) The agent did confirm, however, even after a CIA reinterview, that he had seen the man known to him as Maurice Bishop three or four times at CIA headquarters in the early 1960's. (82) He did not know his organiza- tional responsibilities, and he had not known him personally. (83) The agent also testified that he had been acquainted with the retired of- ficer who had been chief of the Western Hemisphere Division and that he was not Bishop. (84) The committee also requested flies on Bishop from the FBI and Department of Defense, with negative results.(85) It did discover, however, that Army intelligence had an operational interest in Ve- ciann as a source of information on Alpha 66 activities, and that Ve- ciana complied, hoping to be supplied in return with funds and weap- ons. (86) Veciana acknowledged his contacts with the Army, but he stated that the only relationship those contacts had to Bishop was that he kept Bishop informed of them. (87) The CIA's files reflected that the Agency had been in contact with Veciana three times during the early 1960's, but the Agency main- tained it offered him no encouragement.(88) (The committee could discover only one piece of arguably contradictory evidence--a record of $500 in operational expenses, given to Veciana by a person with whom the CIA had maintained a longstanding operational relation- ship. (89)) The CIA further insisted that it did not at any time assign a case officer to Veciana. 24 (90) The committee was left with the task of evaluating Veciana's story, both with respect to the existence of Maurice Bishop and the alleged meeting with Oswald, by assessing Veciana's credibility. It found several reasons to believe that Veciana had been less than candid: ------------------------------- 23 The committee suspected that Veciana was lying when he denied that the retired CIA officer was Bishop. The committee recognized that Veciana had an interest in renewing his anti-Castro operations that might have led him to protect the officer from exposure as Bishop so they could work together again. For his part, the retired officer aroused the founder of Alpha 66, committee's suspicion when he told the committee he did not recognize Veciana as the founder of Alpha 66, especially since the officer had once been deeply involved in Agency anti-Castro operations. Further a former CIA case officer who was assigned from September 1960 to November 1962 to the JM/WAVE station in Miami told the committee that the retired officer had in fact used the alias, Maurice Bishop. The committee also interviewed a former assistant of the retired officer but he could not recall his former superior ever having used the name or having been referred to as Bishop. (79) 24 The committee found it probable that some agency of the United States assigned a case officer to Veciana, since he was the dominant figure in an extremely active anti-Castro organization. The committee established that the CIA assigned case officers to Cuban revolutionaries of less importance than Veciana, though it could not draw from that alone an inference of CIA deception of the committee concerning Veciana, since Bishop could well have been in the employ of one of the military intelligence agencies or even perhaps of some foreign power. 137 First, Veciana waited more than 10 years after the assassina- tion to reveal his story. Second, Veciana would not supply proof of the $253,000 pay- ment from Bishop, claiming fear of the Internal Revenue Service. Third, Veciana could not point to a single witness to his meet- ings with Bishop, much less with Oswald. Fourth, Veciana did little' to help the committee identify Bishop. In the absence of corroboration or independent substantiation, the committee could not, therefore, credit Veciana's story of having met with Lee Harvey Oswald. (3) Silvia Odio. The incident of reported contact between Os- wald and anti-Castro Cubans that has gained the most attention over the years involved Silvia Odio, a member of the Cuban Revolutionary Junta, or JURE. (91) Mrs. Odio had not volunteered her information to the FBI.(92) The FBI initially contacted Mrs. Odio after hear- ing of a conversation she had had with her neighbor in which she de- scribed an encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald. (93) Subsequently, in testimony before the Warren Commission, she said that in late Sep- tember 1963, three men came to her home in Dallas to ask for help in preparing a fundraising letter for JURE.(94) She stated that two of the men appeared to be Cubans, although they also had charac- teristics that she associated with Mexicans. (95) The two individuals, she remembered, indicated that their "war" names were "Leopoldo" and "Angelo."(96) The third man, an American, was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald," and she was told that he was very much inter- ested in the anti-Castro Cuban cause. (97) Mrs. Odio stated that the men told her that they had just come from New Orleans and that they were then about to leave on a trip. (98) The next day, one of the Cubans called her on the telephone and told her that it had been his idea to introduce the American into the under- ground "* * * because he is great, he is kind of nuts." (99) The Cuban also said that the American had been in the Marine Corps and was an excellent shot, and that the American had said that Cubans "* * * don't have any guts * * * because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the freedom of Cuba actually."(100) Mrs. Odio claimed the American was Lee Harvey Oswald. (101) Mrs. Odio's sister, who was in the apartment at the time of the visit by the three men and who stated that she saw them briefly in the hall- way when answering the door, also believed that the American was Lee Harvey Oswald. (102) Mrs. Odio fixed the date of the alleged visit as being September 26 or 27.(103) She was positive that the visit occurred prior to October 1. (104) The Warren Commission was persuaded that Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the dates given by Mrs. Odio. (105) Nevertheless, it requested the FBI to conduct further investigation into her allegation, and it acknowledged that the FBI had not completed its Odio investi- gation at the time its report was published in September 1964. (106) How the Warren Commission treated the Odio incident is instruc- tive. In the summer of 1964, the FBI was pressed to dig more deeply into the Odio allegation. (107) On July 24, chief counsel J. Lee Rankin, 138 in a letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, noted, "... the Com- mission already possesses firm evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was on a bus traveling from Houston, Tex., to Mexico City, Mexico, on virtually the entire day of September 26."(108) J. Wesley Liebeler, the Warren Commission assistant counsel who had taken Mrs. Odio's deposition, disagreed, however, that there was firm evidence of Oswald's bus trip to Mexico City. (109) In a memorandum to another Commission attorney, Howard Willens, on September 14, 1964, Liebeler objected to a section of the Warren Report in which it was stated there was strong evidence that Oswald was on a bus to Mexico on the date in question.(110) Liebeler argued, "There really is no evidence at all that [Oswald] left Houston on that bus."(111) Liebeler also argued that the conclusion that there was "persuasive" evidence that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 24, 1963, a day for which his travel was unaccounted, was "too strong." (112) Liebeler urged Willens to tone down the language, of the report,(113) contend- ing in his memorandum:"There are problems. Odio may well be right. The Commission will look bad if it turns out that she is." (114) On August 23, 1964, Rankin again wrote to Hoover to say, "It is a matter of some importance to the Commission that Mrs. Odio's allega- tion either be proved or disproved." (115) Rankin asked that the FBI attempt to learn the identities of the three visitors by contacting mem- bers of anti-Castro groups active in the Dallas area, as well as leaders of the JURE organization. (116) He asked the FBI to check the pos- sibility that Oswald had spent the night of September 24, in a hotel in New Orleans, after vacating his apartment. (117) Portions of this investigation, which were inconclusive in supporting the Warren Commission's contention that Mrs. Odio was mistaken, were not sent to Rankin until November 9,(118) at which time the final report al- ready had been completed. (119) The FBI did attempt to alleviate the "problems." In a report dated September 26, it reported the interview of Loran Eugene Hall who claimed he had been in Dallas in September 1963, accompanied by two men fitting the general description given by Silvia Odio, and that it was they who had visited her. (120) Oswald, Hall said, was not one of the men.(121) Within a week of Hall's statement, the other two men Hall said had accompanied him. Lawrence Howard and William Sey- mour, were interviewed.(122) They denied ever having met Silvia Odio. (123) Later, Hall himself retracted his statement about meeting with Mrs. Odio. (124) Even though the Commission could not show conclusively that Oswald was not at the Odio apartment, and even though Loran Hall's story was an admitted fabrication, the Warren report published this explanation of the Odio incident: While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commis- sion has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September 1963. (125) Not satisfied with that conclusion, the committee conducted inter- views with and took depositions from the principals--Silvia Odio,(126) members of her family,(127) and Dr. Burton Einspruch, 139 (128) her psychiatrist. (Mrs. Odio had contacted Dr. Einspruch for consultation about problems that could not be construed to affect her perception or credibility.) (129) The committee also set up a confer- ence telephone call between Dr. Einspruch in Dallas and Silvia Odio in Miami, during which she related to him the visit of the three men. (130) Mrs. Odio and Dr. Einspruch concurred that she had told him of the nighttime meeting shortly after its occurrence, but prior to the president's assassination.(131) Loran Hall testified before the committee in executive session on October 5, 1977; Howard and Seymour were interviewed.(132) The FBI agent who wrote up the Hall story also testified before the committee. (133) From a review of FBI files, the committee secured a list of persons who belonged to the Dallas Chapter of JURE, and the committee attempted to locate and interview these individuals. Addi- tionally, staff investigators interviewed the leader of JURE, Manolo Ray, who was residing in Puerto Rico. (134) Further, the committee secured photographs of scores of pro-Castro and anti-Castro activists who might have fit the descriptions of the two individuals who, Mrs. Odio said, had visited her with Oswald. (135) The committee also used the resources of the CIA which con- ducted a check on all individuals who used the "war" names of "Leo- poldo" and "Angelo", and the name "Leon", or had similar names. (136) An extensive search produced the names and photographs of three men who might possibly have, been in Dallas in September 1963. (137) These photographs were shown to Mrs. Odio, but she was unable to identify them as the men she had seen. (138) The committee was inclined to believe Silvia Odio. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of the witnesses, it appeared that three men did visit her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro organization. Based on a judgment of the credibility of Silvia and Annie Odio, one of these men at least looked like Lee Harvey Oswald and was introduced to Mrs. Odio as Leon Oswald. The committee did not agree with the Warren Commission's con- clusion that Oswald could not have been in Dallas at the requisite time. Nevertheless, the committee itself could reach no definite conclusion on the specific date of the visit. It could have been as early as Septem- ber 24, the morning of which Oswald was seen in New Orleans,(139) but it was more likely on the 25th, 26th or 27th of September. If it was on these dates, then Oswald had to have had access to private trans- portation to have traveled through Dallas and still reached Mexico City when he did, judging from other evidence developed by both the Warren Commission and the committee. (140) (c) Oswald and anti-Castro Cubans The committee recognized that an association by Oswald with anti-Castro Cubans would pose problems for its evaluation of the assassin and what might have motivated him. In reviewing Oswald's life, the committee found his actions and values to have been those of a self-proclaimed Marxist who would be bound to favor the-Castro regime in Cuba, or at least not advocate its overthrow. For this reason, it did not seem likely to the committee that Oswald would have allied 140 himself with an anti-Castro group or individual activist for the sole purpose of furthering the anti-Castro cause. The committee recognized the possibility that Oswald might have established contacts with such groups or persons to implicate the anti-Castro movement in the assas- sination. Such an implication might have protected the Castro regime and other left-wing suspects, while resulting in an intensive investiga- tion and possible neutralization of the opponents of Castro. It is also possible, despite his alleged remark about killing Kennedy, that Oswald had not yet contemplated the President's assassination at the time of the Odio incident, or if he did, that his assassination plan had no relation to his anti-Castro contacts, and that he was associating with anti-Castro activists for some other unrelated reason. A variety of speculations are possible, but the committee was forced to acknowl- edge frankly that, despite its efforts, it was unable to reach firm con- clusions as to the meaning or significance of the Odio incident to the President's assassination. (1) Oswald in New Orleans.--Another contact by Lee Harvey Oswald with anti-Castro Cuban activists that was not only docu- mented, but also publicized at the time in the news media, occurred when he was living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, an espe- cially puzzling period in Oswald's life. His actions were blatantly pro-Castro, as he carried a one-man Fair Play for Cuba Committee cru- sade into the streets of a city whose Cuban population was predomi- nantly anti-Castro. Yet Oswald's known and alleged associations even at this time included Cubans who were of an anti-Castro persuasion and their anti-Communist American supporters. New Orleans was Oswald's home town; he was born there on Octo- ber 18, 1939.(141) In April 1963, shortly after the Walker shooting, he moved back, having lived in Fort Worth and Dallas since his re- turn from the Soviet Union the previous June.(142) He spent the first 2 weeks job hunting, staying with the Murrets, Lillian and Charles, or "Dutz," as he was called, the sister and brother-in-law of Oswald's mother, Marguerite. (143) After being hired by the Reily Coffee Co. as a maintenance man, he sent for his wife Marina and their baby daughter, who were still in Dallas, and they moved into an apart- ment on Magazine Street. In May, Oswald wrote to Vincent T. Lee, national director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, expressing a desire to open an FPCC chapter in New Orleans and requesting literature to distribute. (145) He also had handouts printed, some of which were stamped "L. H. Oswald, 4907 Magazine Street," others with the alias, "A. J. Hidell, P.O. Box 30016," still others listing the FPCC address as 544 Camp Street. (146) In letters written earlier that summer and spring to the FPCC headquarters in New York, Oswald had indicated that he intended to rent an office.(147) In one letter he mentioned that he had acquired a space but had been told to vacate 3 days later because the building was to be remodeled. The Warren Commission failed to discover any record of Oswald's having rented an office at 544 Camp and con- cluded he had fabricated the story. (149) In investigating Oswald after the assassination, the Secret Service learned that the New Orleans chapter of the Cuban Revolutionary 141 Council (CRC), an anti-Castro organization, had occupied an office at 544 Camp Street for about 6 months during 1961-62.(150) At that time, Sergio Arcacha Smith was the official CRC delegate for the New Orleans area.(151) Since the CRC had vacated the building 15 months before Oswald arrived m New Orleans, the Warren Commis- sion concluded that there was no connection with Oswald.(152) Nevertheless, the riddle of 544 Camp Street persisted over the years. Oswald lost his job at the Reily Coffee Co. in July, and his efforts to find another were futile.(153) Through the rest of the summer, he filed claims at the unemployment office. On August 5, Oswald initiated contact with Carlos Bringuier, a delegate of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE).(155) According to his testimony before the Warren Commission, Bringuier was the only registered member of the group in New Orleans. (156) Bringuier also said he had two friends at the time, Celso Hernandez and Miguel Cruz, who were also active in the anti-Castro cause. (157) Oswald reportedly told Bringuier that he wished to join the DRE, offering money and assistance to train guerrillas.(158) Bringuier, fearful of an infiltration attempt by Castro sympathizers or the FBI, told Oswald to deal directly with DRE headquarters in Miami. (159) The next day, Oswald returned to Bringuier's store and left a copy of a Marine training manual with Rolando Pelaez, Bringuier's brother-in-law. (160) On August 9, Bringuier learned that a man was carrying a pro- Castro sign and handing out literature on Canal Street. (161) Carry- ing his own anti-Castro sign, Bringuier, along with Hernandez and Cruz, set out to demonstrate against the pro-Castro sympathizer. (162) Bringuier recognized Oswald and began shouting that he was a traitor and a Communist.(163) A scuffle ensued, and police arrested all participants.(164) Oswald spent the night in jail.(165) On Au- gust 12, he pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace and was fined $10. (166) The anti-Castro Cubans were not charged. (167) During the incident with Bringuier, Oswald also encountered Frank Bartes, the New Orleans delegate of the CRC from 1962- 64.(168) After Bringuier and Oswald were arrested in the street scuffle, Bartes appeared in court with Bringuier. (169) According Bartes, the news media surrounded Oswald for a statement after the hearing. (170) Bartes then engaged in an argument with the media and Oswald because the Cubans were not being given an opportunity to present their anti-Castro views. (171) On August 16, Oswald was again seen distributing pro-Castro literature.(172) A friend of Bringuier, Carlos Quiroga, brought one of Oswald's leaflets to Bringuier and volunteered to visit Oswald and feign interest in the FPCC in order to determine Oswald's mo- tives. (173) Quiroga met with Oswald for about an hour.(174) He learned that Oswald had a Russian wife and spoke Russian himself. Oswald gave Quiroga an application for membership in the F