The Kennedy Assassination (2)

A lot of good argument occurred in the responses to my Kennedy piece, an extract from One Hundred Days Of Summer which came out in May, 2010. The best response, though, was from Allthumbs, who put up a website on which were quoted everything that Oswald was heard saying after his arrest and before his murder — to his wife, his mother, his brother and various police officials. All records of his interrogation (of course) were destroyed, so thirteen hours of what he also said are missing from Friday and Saturday and Sunday.

What is attested that he did say, though, is pretty close to conclusive proof that he had no idea of what was happening to him; that he didn’t own a rifle, couldn’t afford one, did own a pistol, didn’t use it on Tippett, or on anyone else, hadn’t fired a weapon since he left Russia, was keen to get a lawyer, cared for his two little daughters, didn’t want to be ritually electrocuted in Dallas, was certain a particular lawyer could get him out of there, and had nothing against John Kennedy.

I’m a dialogue writer and certain things ring true. I decided Lindy Chamberlain was innocent when Michael on television said something like, ‘I came ito the tent, the baby was gone, a stool was knocked over, there was a light sprinking of blood on the tent walls and I looked, and I sat, and I thought: ‘This … is ridiculous!’ This was a genuine remembrance of an actual emotion, one he could not have made up.

Likewise these many, many Oswald quotes. He is hiding nothing, he doesn’t know anything, he didn’t even know Governor Connally was in the car: would he make that detail up? Of course he wouldn’t.

It’s on and you should read it.

And respond to it.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Never Enough Ellis

    As Doug faithfully reminds us, we will not resolve this matter to everyone’s satisfaction. For every claim there is a counter claim and I admit to enjoying both.

    That said Bob, there are few that would deny Oswald his Carcano. Take the infamous backyard photograph. Wait, I hear the howls of fake, composite, heads and bodies spliced in a poor rush to judgement.

    Except, Marina herself admits to taking the photograph to the Warren Commission in 1964. And for anyone now saying her testimony to the Warren Commission was unreliable, she repeated the claim on November 30, 2000, to Jack Duffy, no less, who leans toward a conspiracy theory himself. (For those unaware, Marina subscribes to a conspiracy theory that exonerates Oswald).

    He asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photograph of Oswald holding the Carcano. “Yes,” she answered evenly, “I did.” That settles that issue,” Duffy said.

    I don’t doubt your ear for veritas, but there’s an overwhelming case against Oswald and the majority of it is not sponsored by the CIA.

    • Except that it cannot be. The physics and the film evidence shows that Kennedy was shot from the front.

      • Oswald himself said it was a fake. Odd thing for him to say if his wife took it. More likely that she made her testimony in fear, or for money, and stuck to it lest she be, in this strange new country, be arrested for changing it.

        • Of course he would say it was fake, it had him standing with a rifle and a pistol strapped to his hip. From the statments made in the Police Station he said he never had a rifle. But he had a pistol and bullets in his pocket, and you take it to the cinema because “that’s what boys do”.

      • Am I in a parallel universe?

        I don’t give a flying fuck about the fucking photo of fucking Oswald. Read the fucking post.

        • Never Enough Ellis

          Okay Doug, I must have misinterpreted your intent. You’ve made up your mind, good luck to you. And perhaps a fuck may be preferable to considering the veracity of the backyard photo. If genuine, it shows Oswald a liar and in possession of the murder weapon.

          • A liar? Surely not! How could he live with himself?

            Undercover in Russia, undercover in New Orleans, making a fool of himself in Mexico City, buying a gun mail order (when any gunshop would sell him one no questions asked, no ID) posing for a photo with the gun later claimed to be ‘the weapon’, going off to the theatre and drawing attention to himself again, maybe killing a cop . . . quite a resume for a weedy, soppy little leftie, is it not?

            And a liar as well!


            • Never Enough Ellis

              The lie is a reference to Bob’s page of Oswald quotes, denying he owned a rifle.

              Either the science and Marina’s statement is maliciously wrong, or the photograph is as it appears and Oswald has lied to his interrogators. Considering what the photograph shows, and Oswald’s response when shown it. “Its a fake”. He was obviously aware of its significance.

  2. Never Enough Ellis

    I know what you mean, Doug. I’ll wager I’ve seen Zapruder’s main work (as opposed to his other films) as many times as your good self. I even have the high res dvd released a while back.

    It sure does look compelling and back then all my reference points were conspiratorial. The first book to turn my head was Posner’s Case Closed. Posner was put in stocks and pelted with bad fruit, but his book has a devastating clarity to its arguments. It was my first exposure to the Failure Analysis Associates presentation of trajectories and timing.

    Since then, I have become more familiar with the projection of brain and skull matter. I know you have posted on this matter, but there is a slight, but distinct forward and downward movement at Zapruder frames Z312 to 313, consistent with a shot from the rear with an elevated trajectory.

    Blood and brain tissue covered Connally and his wife. Three skull and five bullet fragments were all found in front of the President.

    The bullet that hit Kennedy weighed 161 grains. Kennedy’s head between ten and fourteen pounds. The transference of momentum only moves the head slightly (estimated at about 2inches)

    Of course what we notice is the 8.5 inch rearward snap. That was not caused by the bullet but by a well documented neuromuscular reaction. “The back muscles predominate over the lighter abdominal muscles and would have thrown him backward no matter where the bullet came from, whether it entered from the front, the side or the back of the head.” [Larry Sturdivan research wound ballistics scientist at the Biophysics Laboratory at the federal Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. HSCA 1978]

    • If you believe that you will believe anything.

      • So Jackie was chasing a big bit of Jack’s brain over the boot of the car that, what, got there because he shook his head vigorously?


        • So they would have it seem.

          And I have never seen it suggested before that Connally or his wife wore any of JFK’s brains. It gets better by the minute.

          • Never Enough Ellis

            I would hope its not a question of belief. I would hope we would avail ourselves of the “evidence” from all sides and reach a reasoned conclusion, or not.

            Not strange at all, Doug. The source for the Connally brains spray is none other than Governor Connally’s wife’s Warren Commission testimony.

            • If it’s physiologically possible the fatal shot came from the rear it doesn’t alter the fact that the first bullet to the throat came from the front. Ergo,’there were were at least two snipers doing it.

            • Ok, I reviewed the testimony of Mr and Mrs Connally. You are correct, they were spattered; apparently the entire interior of the car was spattered. As a matter of interest, Mrs Connally’s testimony reminds me : JFK raised both his hands to the front of his throat; does anyone know if anyone shot in the back has ever, in world history, raised his hands to the front of his throat?

              I ask for enlightenment.

              • Never Enough Ellis

                Sure Doug, although I’m as much a mug as the next guy, so enlightenment had better be left for another time.

                This is an explanation you’re probably not going to like. It is not unequivocal, there is room for conjecture.

                The HSCA’s forensic panel stated that as a bullet passes through tissue considerable radial motion is imparted to the surrounding area, creating a large temporary cavity. The panel stated this “might have produced fractures of the transverse processes of one or several of the lower cervical and/ or upper thoracic vertebrae in President Kennedy’s neck, as indicated by the post mortem xrays”

                This area is rich with nerves, and when disrupted produce the type of reflex we see Kennedy exhibit.

                The panel did however consider the reaction might also have been voluntary and did not produce a definitive position.

                What is not in doubt is the entry wound being in the back and its exit in the throat. (I have responded to Bob below on this point).

                • Are you still with the CIA, or do you just seem like you are?

                  • DQ that is why the conspiracy goes on it is handed down from generation to generation more and more people become entwined in its spidery web, seriously?

                    I am in no way interested in the minute details of the hit, bullet entry wounds and the like. But I would like to know, you consider Oswald a CIA operative in deep cover, a true patriot, sent to Russia and the like.

                    Bob considers him an innocent man, a patsy. You also elsewhere consider Oswald a patsy as well as a CIA agent. Sorry if I misrepresent you view but is that correct?

                    If Oswald was CIA why would Bob want to prove that Oswald was innocent, after all he would have been part of the conspiracy to kill Bob’s great hero. If Oswald was CIA why would you want to deny he was part of the Assassination, as he was only doing the job he was trained to do to ensure they killed the democratically elected President of the USA?

                    • Oswald was BOTH involved AND patsy!

                      Being both at the same time is in full accord with the theories of physics….and thus with the theories of man and his…actions.

  3. Never Enough Ellis

    True Bob, but can we believe Oswald and ascribe other motives to Marina? Remember, Marina now believes Oswald innocent and working with the FBI at the time of the assassination (this has changed since the Warren Commission testimony).

    It seems if she now suggests Oswald was a victim, she would have no reason not to also claim the photograph fake as well.

    If you feel inclined, the following will take you to the HSCA analysis:

  4. Never Enough Ellis

    Bob, you either accept sources like the HSCA and their science, or you dismiss it as part of the conspiracy. What say you?

    The explosive force generated by the exit wound, together with the neuromuscular reflex resulted in the head movement.

    And Bob, Jackie was not retrieving Jack’s brains from the boot. Just after the headshot Connally and his wife hear Jackie say,”They’ve killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand.”

    Clint Hill jumps on the back of the car, Jackie is climbing out and crawling toward him. She later said she had no recollection of crawling out. When she was working with writer William Manchester looking at still frames from the Zapruder film she said it was like looking at another woman.

    In shock, I would suggest she was getting the fuck out of there.

    • See above. You may be right, but the first wound was from the front. If the car had stopped, it was likely she was getting the fuck out of there.

      • Never Enough Ellis

        Bob, this wound was a rear entry wound. The second shot (generally accepted the first shot missed) and first wound had an entry point in the upper back and an exit wound in the throat….The entry point was, “situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula…This wound is measured to be 14cm from the tip of the right acromium process and 14cm below the tip of the right mastoid process.”

        Now we open at least two cans of rancid worms: the autopsy and the magic bullet.

        On the first, let me say there is considerable misinformation concerning missing brains and faked photographs.

        On the second, anyone that saw Stone’s JFK and witnessed Costner’s magic bullet demonstration would be left in little doubt as to the magic of it.

        The fact that Stone is about as wrong as he could be (and I admit at the time to applauding, along with a theatre full of devotees, when the credits rolled) doesn’t help.

        There is no magic, pristine bullet. Most of the problems start with seating Kennedy and Connally at the same level in diagrams showing the trajectory. They were not. If they were we would indeed need magic.

        Connally’s jump seat was not only a half a foot inside and to the left of the right door. It was also three inches lower than Kennedy. No need for the bullet to hang in the air and then turn 90 degrees.

        • I do not support Garrison’s or Stone’s theories, although they may be closer to the truth than the Warren Commission managed.

          To describe the throat wound as an exit wound, however defies credibility. It was clearly enough described by the treating doctors in Dallas before the fiction of the autopsy report obscured the matter.

        • Just a quick thought Not Enough,

          “The fact that Stone is about as wrong as he could be..”

          Well, no….not entirely. What Stone is doing is presenting us with a counter myth - as factual, verifiable AND indeterminate as the Warren Commission’s.

          I think it a superb act of deconstruction.
          And will say so should you argue further as to the legitimacy of the Commission’s findings.

      • No, only partly right, as was Jackie. JFK’s brains were apparently spread over a wide area of Texas.

        The best view is that there were at least four shots, and perhaps six, some fired simultaneously for different directions.

  5. I just watched the video. It was from the front.

    • I mean the second or third one that blew him away. I paused at that point.

      • Psst Reader,
        who are you?

        • a clue, a sign, a trace, a mark, a key a crack a riddle, a sign symbol index note…..


          • It’s all quite obvious when you know the answer.

          • Why does it matter? Does it matter who I am? Anonymity is a useful thing, but I feel we do know each other through our thoughts expressed on a multitude of posts. :grin:

            • Indeed it does Doug.
              And of course anonymity is a wonderful thing….but I’m kinda old fashioned…I like a….hook…to hang a mental picture on.

              Give me one :)

              As an act of good faith, I shall go first.

              I like beer and Gin and whiskey and its been 4 years since I last had a cigarette. I wake at about 3 or 4 every morn and I am reading a critique on Minimalism.

              Your turn.

              • Not in front of the children, JG! Reader1 still thinks you are a woman!

                I’m currently reading a lot of nonsense on the Drum and other sites. Have you seen Jennifer Wilson’s noplaceforsheep where she is battling Tankard-Reist who seeks to silence her by threatening defamation proceedings? All good fun.

                • She could so easily be a woman. We booze too. Jennifer Wilson is a psycho, I’ve known her from the beginning. In fact, I think it’s all a little bit my fault, I should never have fed the troll. There were a few of us battling it out in the early days but it just got so bad there came a point where I had to take time out and there was no one left to take over, which was the precise moment when a person called Lady Penelope showed up and managed proceedings entirely by herself for that crucial period. She had a way about her suspiciously reminiscent of JG. And it was when she disappeared that JG emerged, and when JG disappeared, Totem II popped up.

                  The Twittersphere are idiots and so, I’m sorry to say, is Michael Brull. Leslie Cannold is a knob end.

                  It all harks back to when she was calling herself Amazonia. The ABC initially told her flat out they weren’t “looking for submissions”. I gather from reading between the lines, she waged one hell of a whinging campaign to get herself published. “Copy Kept” - remember that? The good old days.

                  • To Doug and Reader…I;ll look for a larger space to write something about this :)

                  • You were probably arguing against MTR herself; on the article of 8 June 2011, “UK Adresses sexualisation of children” : “Naomi” “Julia” “Miss Julia” and “Orchid Jar” were probably the same individual : MTR herself, posting under multiple names to push her arguments.

                    • Doug, it is more complex than that.

                      I tried to write a response…but the damn thing was too big…too serpentine.

                      It would be better if you asked me a specific question…

                      One thatng I can say is that I argued AGAINST Wilson at every opportunity….even when those opportunities were denied I still attempted to push the case.

                      Ask. :)

                    • I am addressing Reader1 in this post; it isn’t clear from this dastardly thread.
                      I know you are one of MTR’s (misguided) supporters. It is the major contentious issue betwween us

  6. To JG Cole : continuing on from your emaciated post of 26 Jan 11.53 :

    And to allthumbs

    Oswald was in CIA cover attempting to infiltrate USSR. The Soviets weren’t buying it, but O aquired a Russian wife and went back to the USA. His controllers were probably worried that he’d gone native, with a Russian wife and small children. As part of his cover in New Orleans he got himself arrested as a pro-Castro protester, and he may have thought he was doing more of the same in Dallas. Who knows? What can be safely conjectured is that he was expendable, and the anti-Castro Cubans were pleased to have such a plausible patsy, probably suggested to them by their disaffected CIA sympathisers; they hated JFK for the Bay of Pigs debacle.

    • Doug, I too believe that Oswald thought he was up for something in Dallas. Just what that was….EXACTLY….must have tormented him.
      My evidence?
      My reading of the man’s face and his words upon apprehension.

      Utterly indescribable…but familiar to anyone gazing on mind numbing confusion and fear.

  7. Reader1, you have a sharp eye!
    I miss them all too - witty, sophisticated,
    striking, all quite charming and possessing that ferocious lock-jaw quality

    I’m surprised you only remember 2 pseud’s of Wilson’s. I can think of at least 3 others.

    As I just mentioned to Doug I shall have to take the time to write it out.

  8. I just have to wonder why she is viewed as such a threat. Do all Baptists come in for this kind of treatment on Twitter? Because, hello. May I remind you of Monsieur le Seventh Day Adventist over here. Her article on Sexpo would have been good if it had been written by a member of the Jonestown cult. If I ever came across such a thing, I would think to myself “you know, Reader1. That Jonestown cult member is alright”.

    You need some buffer if you are going to take on that level of abuse, delusional, illicit or whatever else gets you through the night. She’s no Margaret Court, she’s not openly hating on homos or anything.

    • To Doug and Reader, I tried last night to write the Wilson Saga but the damn thing turned itself into an essay!!!!
      So, in the spirit of the Drum Moderation team I shall cull ruthlessly :wink:

      I’ve forgotten more than I remember….but my thoughts are quite clear on these two points. Wilson, for me, committed the dual crime of:
      (i) Despite the (moral) legitimacy of her argument Wilson presented us with a train-wreck - intellectually, stylistically.
      (ii) Wilson responded to serious critique in an aggressive/defensive manner. She resorted to the puerile; cliche, fallacy and abuse…..and sometimes all three!!
      I found this simply unacceptable.

      My Wilson experience unfortunately happened to coincide, or perhaps was because of, an ongoing tussle with the Moderation team.
      My posts were truncated, culled, and often removed after having been published!
      I changed pseudonym and email….but the respite lasted only a short time.
      I even sent letters directly to the Drum people asking, demanding, an ADULT explanation for their malevolence. I even spoke to one of the editors…and had opportunity to voice my displeasure.
      Nothing came of it.
      Of course.

      This appalling situation has worsened over the past few months as you would no doubt be aware.
      And i despair at my future there.
      Bob’s blog seems to have been birthed in the nick of time for me :)

      Anyway, Jennifer Wilson.
      Doug, Reader, do you remember our erstwhile confederate StaggerLee? That altogether charming, erudite and impassioned poster? :wink:

      He/she once said, “padded bra’s for 7 yr old girls are an affront to our moral and intellectual dignity”.

      I couldn’t have said it better myself :)


  9. To JG and Reader1

    I find myself in sympathy with Jennifer Wilson mainly because she was one of the few willing to call Tankard-Reist on her hidden agenda. And get published.

    I suppose Reader1 sees her as a feminist, just not the right sort - feminist politics leaves Monty Python’s send up of Judaean politics for dead.

    As for JG Cole, Stagger Lee, Totem Pole (Lady Penelope ?) and any other incarnation, your critiques were no doubt worthy, against the sexualisation of children.

    But MTR uses the sexualisation of children as the thin edge of the wedge to get her censoring and banning wowser agenda (“Cabwa”) into the mainstream so that Cabwa can be used to roll back things like advertising, sexist images, anything which to her mind suggests soft porn.

    And like Fred Nile, her religious colleague - who at least admits openly what his agenda is - she sees soft (and hard) porn in most images of children. Cabwa is a Taliban Christian agenda for the most part, though persons abused as children have joined cause.

    The Cabwa is a legitimate view when out in the open; MTR’s crime is her (to date successful) attempts to hide her real agenda behind feminist language and cant.

    Wilson dares to call her on that and is duly threatened with defamation. Why Wilson? Because she herself was abused as a child, and MTR cannot attack her in ad hominem, and does not want yo disclose her real agenda. And Wilson still rejects the Cabwa. Ergo, she must be silenced.

    Which is more deserving of support? The Censoring and banning wowser agenda, or those who support freedom of speech and freedom of expression? The answer to me is obvious.

    But you may disagree.

    • Doug, My criticism of Wilson does not equate to support of Reist’s agenda. Nor does Reist’s “agenda” diminish the import ../../../../css/of_the_very_real_issue_-_in_this_case_child_sexualisation._Anyone_that_labels_such_a_concern_as___8220.css;wowserism” is simply missing the point. And it is here, one place among many, that I believe Wilson dropped the ball. She could have, SHOULD have, called Reist out on her hyperbole and her totalising inclinations, and duly acknowledged our legitimate concerns; the overt symbolism of the “padded bra”, for example. Had she done so she would have gained my respect as one who understood the scope of the engagement.
      But she did not.
      Our arguments were reduced to the deeply insulting: wowser, “failure of 2nd wave”, “blue stocking”, vague innuendo, “the MTR groupies/faction”.

      She failed to address the arguments that were born of her
      own articles Doug…..she was too busy generalising about Reist’s position to take note of her own contradictions.
      And for me that was a colossal error - of judgement and of purpose.

      That’s how I saw it.

      Now I find this defamation business a horrible, though unsurprising, development. Reist is taking a swing back.
      And Wilson has my sympathies despite our adversarial relationship.
      I do hope that all is resolved….sensibly.

      Anyway……yes, I do disagree with your final paragraph. The questions are cut too neat….and my simple, and very real, padded bra example rudely exposes the frictional boundaries.

      We shall say more on the matter I’m sure.

      • I shall mention it again for emphasis Doug,
        Wilson, staking all on her position as the Other, failed to take into account the contradictions, the hypocrisy, the profound philosophical/moral implications of her own argument.

        Again, it is a fundamental error……going into an argument relying solely on the deficiencies of your enemy.

    • Geez, Doug, you gleaned all of that from the Sexpo article? There I was thinking there was all this outside research going on for the express purpose of using it against her. None of MTR’s agenda impacts on the article unless it comes through in the article, Kevin Donnelly style. She simply doesn’t have that much political power and she wouldn’t be risking her current agenda by taking on a political careerist line at this point. The things she refers to are sexist and anyone who wants to oppose her need to focus on that line of enquiry. Religious nutters are a dime a dozen, it is other factors that specifically piss people off about MTR. That is why she is valuable. No one would be saying it at all otherwise.

  10. To JG

    More in sorrow than in anger : I did not ask you for personal information, you volunteered it.

    I fail to see what useful purpose is served by such revelations.

    What does it matter that my golf handicap is 4 and that I am an expert in constitutional law, a forensic lawyer, a man with a nodding acquaintance with almost every world figure from the last 40 years? Why does it matter that I am a contract bridge player at national level, and why should it matter that I’ve rarely been beaten at chess? What difference does it make that my reading list is published at the Drum Archive (see Bob Ellis “Eyeballing Abbott” several posts 26/10/10)

    Ok maybe not the world leaders . . . :grin:

    I like a good red wine, Coopers beer, and single malt scotch . . .

    Anything else??

  11. Thank you for that Doug.
    The “useful purpose” is one of our own making…..and no revelation is without purpose.
    The sum of parts Doug……the sum of parts.

    your reading list is indeed a fine list……

Leave a Comment

* Copy this password:

* Type or paste password here:

10,632 Spam Comments Blocked so far by Spam Free Wordpress

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>