The Assassination of JFK - Is the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner an excellent example of historical research, or an error filled, lone assassin biased, view of the case?

By Michael Russ, (JFK Assassination Information Center)

I don't have as many resources as all of the conspiracy theorists but, I have read Posner's book, and many of the pro-conspiracy books and I have found Posner's books more credible than any of them. I have never had any contact with Posner or any of the experts on the Kennedy assassination, on either side, prior to writing this, but here is my take on the 78 supposed errors in his book that tend to support the lone assassin theory. These errors were originally published by the Electronic Assassination Newsletter. (By the way, I am not a writer and do not claim that this page is in any way grammatically correct. I am also certain that it is filled with misspellings. You are welcome to send me mail with your comments and corrections

I originally published this article in 1997. Since then I have continued to read, and have been in contact with many people on the news group alt.assassination.jfk., including the original author of the article critical of Posner. I have included some new information that I have gathered, and labeled it as such. The original author used the labels (L) and (N) to determine if a Posner "error" represented a lone assassin bias (L) or a just a general neutral error (N).

In October of 2001 W. Tracy Parnell published a web article called The "Errors" of Case Closed: The Real Story. This article goes even further into the criticism of Case Closed, and some possible motivations of Posner's critics.

1) Page 4. The author cites Dallas Police Detective Bob Carroll, who participated in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas Theater, as a source for Oswald "smirking and hollering, 'I protest this police brutality.'" When we check the actual testimony of Bob Carroll to the Warren Commission, there is a similar quote but no mention of any Oswald facial expression. (12) The implication of this invented grin is that a fanatical political assassin is proud of his deed and must be smirking in smug satisfaction because of his accomplishment. (13)(L)
(12) WC Vol. 7, p. 21.
(13) Jerry Rose, "The Deadly Smirk and Other Inventions," The FourthDecade, November, 1993.

My opinion - The words, "the young man smirked and hollered back", are specifically not in quotes in Posner's book, therefore it is a misrepresentation to say that Posner was definitely attributing this observation to Bob Carrol, it is possible that one of the other witnesses saw this smirk.

New information - Here is the testimony of Bob Carroll.

New Information - There was actuall testimony to support the fact that the crowed yelled "We want him". Another police officer, that was cited by Posner concerning Oswald's arrest was C. T. Walker. Walker testified :

"Mr. WALKER. When we went out the front door, he started hollering, "I protest this police brutality." People out there were hollering, "Kill the s.o.b." "Let us have him. We want him."

My opinion - This accusation is contradictory, he admits there is no footnote, but claims Gus Rose is Posner's source. Without a footnote, we don't know who the source is.

New information - Here is the testimony of Guy Rose.

My opinion - On the very next page (page 13) Posner tells everybody that Hartogs admitted not explicitly stating that Oswald had a potential for violence.

My opinion - This is a misrepresentation. Meagher said there is no basis for allegations that Oswald was psychotic, aberrant or mentally unsound in any degree, that is much different then saying there was no reason to find Oswald mentally unsound. It's the difference between an indictment and a conviction. Some may consider Hartogs discredited (I don't) but when he diagnosed Oswald as passive-aggressive, it certainly is a basis for an allegation of mental unsoundness.

New information - Here is a link to the testimony of Renatus Hartogs and the report. While Hartogs had a faulty memory, as would be expected after so many years, his report speaks for itself.
Evelyn Siegel also wrote some interesting reports on Oswald. Here is Warren Commission Exhibit Siegel 1 and Warren Commission Exhibit Siegel 2.

My opinion - So the Warren Commission doesn't miss anything now? And the House select Committee got everything right? Posner writes a lengthy explanation of Nosenko's dealings with the CIA and the HSC. It is something that most of the conspiracy theorists would probably support, because it paints the CIA in a very bad light (amazingly considering Posner is supposedly a tool of the agency). Are we really supposed to believe the Soviets thought Oswald was mentally stable, when the whole reason for the evaluation was his attempted suicide?

New information - Here are exerpts from the Russian Psychological reports in the Warren Report. These reports are clearly not very detailed. It is interesting that either the translations were so bad that they got such basic information wrong like the fact that he had no parents, or he just lied about his mothers death, like he later did to his wife to be Marina. Do conspiracy believers think that it is normal for someone to lie about their mother's death?
It certainly is possible that more detailed evaluations were made available to the KGB when they were trying to decide what to do with Oswald. In fact Posner cites Mostovshchikov, "KGB Case No. 31451 on Lee Harvey Oswald," August 8, 1992, p.7. as his source on this, not the Warren Report. Unfortunately I have not seen a copy of that report to verify it's contents.

My opinion - This is a misrepresentation of Posner's book. He actually criticized Groden for his statement that the spelling in the diary is too good to belong to Oswald when in fact the diary is replete with misspellings. In that same note Posner partially agrees with Groden, and admits that the early entries appear to be written after the events described.

Here is Oswald's "Historic Diary".

My opinion - First of all Posner is clearly quoting Nosenko, so if the quote is inaccurate the only person to blame is Nosenko. Second of all, Nosenko was a member of the Soviet intelligence, and lived in both the USSR and the U.S; he probably has as good of an idea of how to compare the different positions as anybody.

My opinion - I'm confused by this one. Posner claims on page 87, (with a footnote) that Moore did not see or speak to de Mohrenschildt after 1961, before Oswald even returned to the U.S. Unfortunately I don't have the references to check both claims.

New information - Page 217 of the HSC report, which is the source cited by both authors, reports:

"De Mohrenshchildt indicated that he had asked Moore and Fort Worth attorney Max Clark about Oswald, to reassure himself that it was "safe" for the deMohrenschildts to assist hum and was told by one of these persons, "the guy seems to be OK. "

HSCA Vol. 12, Page 54 reports:

In an interview with the committee on March 14, 1978, Moore stated that he did interview de Mohrenschildt in 1957 after the Yugoslavia trip.(90) At that time Moore also indicated he had "periodic" contact with de Mohrenschildt for "debriefing" purposes over the years after that.

So De Morenschildt did not necessarily attribute the assurance to Moore. The rest of the HSC report is as Posner described it. In a CIA memo dated April 13, 1977 Moore reported that according to his records the last time he talked to De Morenschildt was the fall of 1961. In an earlier CIA memorandum, dated May 1, 1964 Moore reported that he had known DeMorenschildt and his wife since 1957, when he contacted him as part of the overt Domestic Contacts Division (a division that contacted as many as 25,000 Americans who traveled abroad, annually between 1959 and 1963). The contact was a result of De Morenschildt's trip to Yugoslavia. In that memo Moore stated he had seen De Morenschildt several times in 1958 and 1959. There is nothing in the HSC report to indicate that Moore admitted to being a frequent guest in the De Morenschildt home, or that from 1957 on, he met with De Mohrenschildt for "debriefing purposes.", unless you consider 1957 on to mean 1957 to 1961 which is consistent with Moore's statement of over the years, and his memo's, and is exactly what Posner said.

Here is George De Mohrenschildt's WC Testimony. And here is the HSCA report on George de Morenschildt. And here is the manuscript I am a patsy - a manuscript by George de Morenschildt

My opinion - Posner claimed the card would not be issued to an undercover agent, because it could possibly blow their cover, Gary Powers was not working as an undercover agent when he was shot down. Obviously Powers wasn't expected to be shot down and questioned

New information - Doug Horne of the Assassination Records Review Board studied the issue, and found that several of the Marines in Oswald's unit had the same card. Here is that report. The "nearly obliterated" by "extensive chemical testing" stuff is irrelevant because excellent copies of the card exist, and nothing of evidentiary value has been lost. Testing of paper documents, unfortunately, can be destructive. Other documents, including the "Historic Diary." were also victims of this testing.

My opinion - So Nosenko is credible now? But I digress. So what's the point, Marina doesn't know a rifle from a shotgun. That's Posner's fault?

My opinion - I haven't seen the photo that supposedly shows the undamaged photo so I can't comment, but Posner should have noted how it was determined the car belonged to Charles Klihr

New information - I still have not had an opportunity to view this photo first hand, but I have been assured by people who have seen it, including people that have contributed information to this attack on Posner, that it is clear in the original photo of the evidence in the possession of Dallas Police after the assassination, that the hole is indeed already there. In the DPD photo, Oswald's photo is laying on top of another piece of paper which makes the hole much less obvious.
John McAdams seems to have completely debunked this issue on his web site

My opinion - Posner believes Marina's basic story. She may not remember everything exactly right (something that I feel is probably very common) but I can't see why she would make the whole story up. In fact Marina is now very critical of the Warren Commission, but as far as I know, she has not retracted this story.

My opinion - I haven't read McCarthy's interview so it's tough to judge whom is right, but just because Silver could not recognize Oswald that certainly doesn't prove it wasn't him. The rest of the interview could have given enough information to verify that it was Oswald.

New information - Here is additional information about why it certainly is reasonable to conclude that Oswald ordered those handbills 1) the invoice from Jones Printing Co. was found among LHO's belongings was billed to a Mr. Osborne. 2) There is almost no doubt that these were the handbills LHO distributed, 3) Oswald mentioned ordering the handbills in a letter to the FPCC shortly after May 29th, and 4)The printing company was located just opposite the coffee company where LHO worked.

My opinion - My copy of the report on 544 Camp street ends with the words, submitted by: Gaeton J. Fonzi, Investigator. Patricia M. Orr. Researcher. Posner correctly used the term investigator, and never used the term author.

New information - Here is the HSC report on 544 Camp Street and related events

My opinion - So Posner has to respond to every claim made by every author whose work with which he is familiar?

New information - I'm not sure exactly who these four people are but others mentioned by Summers are 1) Delphine Roberts, and her daughter, whom Posner deals explicitly with, and specifically covered their discussions with Summers 2) Mrs. Guy Banister, who mentions that Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets were among Mr. Banister's effects when he died. Given that Banister kept tabs on subversives, this would not be surprising and certainly doesn't constitute a link, 3) Daniel Campbell, who remembered that on the day that Oswald and Bringuier engaged in the street scuffle, a man with a Marine haircut came into Banister's office to use the phone. This man was supposedly Oswald. Unfortunately, Oswald was in jail at this time, and could not have been in Banister's office 4) Allen Campbell, reported that when somebody told Banister about Oswald's pro-Castro demonstration, Banister merely laughed. Somehow that is a link between Oswald and Bannister. 4) Guy Bannister's brother, who again only claimed that Bannister had seen Oswald handing out literature, not that they were linked in any way 5) Ivan Nitschke, another Bannister associate who stated that Bannister was interested in Oswald, but not that they were linked, and 6) Adrian Alba, who Posner explicitly mentioned, and even interviewed. Alba's uncorroborated stories have been investigated and no evidence was found to support them. In fact his stories have changed so dramatically through the years, that he lacks credibility

My opinion - Of course Posner knows it wasn't Bannister, as a matter of fact I can safely guess that Posner doesn't believe it wasn't Ferrie or Shaw either. Posner was just commenting on what others believe. It's not his fault they don't know what they are talking about.

My opinion - In the same note that Posner says there were no photos, he makes it clear that he meant a particular file, not all CIA files, because he even mentions the Minsk Photos that were discovered later in a different file.

My opinion - I have not completely read the specific testimony cited here, but I think Posner is wrong here. He certainly can't explain the discrepancy between the testimony of these witnesses and the actual length of the package; other than to claim they were mistaken.

New information - After reading the complete testimony, I have to agree that Posner misrepresented it. Here is a 3/18/64 FBI Report on Frazier, Buell Wesley Frazier's WC Testimony 1, WC Testimony 2, Affidavit, Shaw trial testimony, and Linnie Mae Randle's WC Testimony and 11/23/63 FBI report

My opinion - same as the previous opinion

My opinion - As far as dissecting witness testimony goes, this is a game that can, and is, played by both sides. In general I believe it is possible to discredit to some extent any witness. Throughout his book, Posner will try to discredit some testimony of an otherwise consistent witness, while believing particular testimony of other witnesses with less credibility. This will be true of any advocate. To be honest, Posner is a typical lawyer, and the title of his book would indicate to anybody that he is approaching this case in a legal frame of mind. I think it would be unreasonable to expect Posner to spend a lot of time bringing out every inconsistency in every one of his supporting witness's statements. Since there are thousands of witnesses, many of whom made multiple statements, it is impossible to be familiar with all of the statements. Arguments about what they said, and what they meant can go on for days.

Here is Bonnie Ray Williams's WC Testimony

My opinion - Certainly Posner's first statement is wrong. The fact that he later tells the correct story lends more credibility to sloppiness than intent to mislead. Then again taking the experts testimony "the possibility exists that these fibers could have come from this blanket." out of context is a little misleading. Since some people might say anything is possible, it makes his statement seem insignificant. In fact, the expert testified that those fibers did specifically match some of the fibers in the blanket. He could not claim that they probably came from that blanket because there were not enough fibers, to match all of the different fibers in the blanket.

My opinion - I don't know who to believe, but I am guessing that Cunningham probably used the actual rifle that Oswald used, while McCarthy only used a similar rifle. The point is moot, because Oswald went back to his apartment after the shooting, so he could have left whatever tool he used to assemble the rifle there.

New information - a reader pointed out to me that dimes made before 1965 are 90% silver. Starting in 1965 they were made of an alloy of copper and nickel. The old silver coins get worn down a lot quicker than the new ones. A dime used before the WC would have been silver. A dime used by Failure Analysis would almost certainly have been one of the newer ones, unless they specifically got an old dime. It is entirely possible that a worn dime circa 1963 will fit in a slot that a 1965 or later dime won't.

My opinion - Same as the previous statement concerning discrediting witnesses.

New information - After re-reading this, I don't see how Posner is in error at all here. There are probably hundreds of details in Arce's testimony that were not in his March 18th report, why should that prevent Posner from using what he said during his testimony? As a matter of fact in an affidavit given on the day of the shooting Arce claimed:

"There was another employee that I saw named Lee Oswald. He was on the first floor of the building when I saw him at 8:00 am. He is the same man I saw the police bring into the Homicide Bureau about 2:00 pm. I also saw him on the 5th floor as we were leaving for lunch at 11:50 am."

Here is a 3/18/64 FBI Report on Arce and his WC Testimony and Affidavit.

My opinion - None of these statements are mutually exclusive, they can all be true. The relevance of not mentioning something in an earlier statement is difficult to judge without the full text of that statement.

New information - Here is Jack Dougherty's WC Testimony, and his Affidavit, and a 3/18/64 FBI Report

My opinion - certainly testimony which becomes more specific is always suspect, unless the witness has an objective reason for being able to recall the details

My opinion - Certainly contains more detail, but he was able to tie the increased detail to a specific event that refreshed his memory

New Information - Once again There in no " error" here, and there is no reason to believe Lovelady would have lied about this. In fact Lovelady, was one of the witnesses who testified that he thought the shots came from the grassy knoll area, so he wasn't some "flexible" witness who was just saying what he was told to say. Here is a 3/19/64 FBI Report and Lovelady's WC Testimony

My opinion - If what is claimed about Givins is true, that certainly would discredit any uncorroborated testimony he gives. In general the testimony of all the witnesses in this case both pro and con lone-assassin are a conflicting, confusing mass of contradictions. I wouldn't use these witnesses alone to convict Oswald, but taken together they are hard to just dismiss.

New information - Here is Givens's Affidavit, 3/18/64 FBI Report, WC Testimony

My opinion - There were two places that employees ate, the second floor lunchroom and the first floor Domino Room. Oswald claimed to be eating lunch with Junior, who ate his lunch on the first floor Domino Room. So when these people are quoted as saying the Domino room, they are talking about a room where people often ate lunch.

New information - Posner also mentions a fourth witness, Troy West, who was on the first floor eating his lunch, and he did not see Oswald either, and a fifth witnes, Mrs. Robert Reid who was in the first floor lunch room, and didn't see Oswald. There is no error here unless you believe Oswald really did eat lunch with Junior as he claimed. Here is James Earl Jarman Jr.'s WC Testimony, and his Affidavit. Bonnie Ray Williams, and Harold Norman both testified that Jarman was on the fifth floor with them at the time of the assassination. Williams and and Norman are visible on the fifth floor in the pictures of the Depository taken just after the assassination. While at least one conspiracy researcher believes that Jarman was part ot he assassination plot, I have seen no reasonable motive to explain why Jarman, Williams and Norman would all lie about this. Nor have I heard what other Junior, with which Oswald could have been eating his lunch.

My opinion - I'm not sure how this mistake helps support the lone assassin theory, and it's obvious from the Zapruder film, that during the actual shooting, Hill was not on the running board attached to the rear of the presidential limousine.

My opinion - This is clearly a matter of interpretation. If you look at the film you can see his arms stay in an unnatural position for an extended period of time. It certainly appears that Kennedy is incapable of moving his arms.

New information - Why is this even on this list. What was Posner's error?

My opinion - Once again Posner is supposed to respond to every statement made by every conspiracy theorist. Amazingly, you don't take issue with any of Posner's criticisms of Thompson, so I guess we can accept that Thompson is discredited. As far as Ciccone's study goes, I have never heard of it, but it is amazing to me that he has 326 witnesses when Thompson's study only had 190 witnesses.

New Information - I still have not seen Ciccone's study, but John McAdams has asked the author of this attack on Posner to produce the list on the news group alt.assassination.jfk, so that it could be scrutinized, and I never did see the author produce this list. I have gathered much of the witness testimony and discussed it on a web site at http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/comp.htm

New information - I originally didn't respond to the items on this list that were labeled with an (N) because supposedly these mistakes didn't indicate a bias, but I can't help but mentioning that something like this is used to inflate the count of mistakes to 100. Obviously when Posner said nothing developed, he meant the picture was useless. Obviously the picture was actually developed, or how would you even know that there was a problem with the lenses.

My opinion - This certainly is Posner at his lawyerly worst. In his defense, it certainly is more likely that Worrel would be mistaken about the number of shots, considering he was occupied with running, vs. looking directly at the rifle being fired. Since Worrel doesn't claim the fourth shot came from a completely different direction, it is hard to see how his testimony would support a multiple gunman theory.

New information - Here is James Richard Worrell Jr.'s WC Testimony. On the issue of smokeless ammunition, smokeless is a relative term. A modern rifle still will emit a small amount of smoke when fired. Obviously there is a critical difference between looking directly at a rifle when it is being fired, and seeing the small amount of smoke emitted, and claiming that there was so much smoke that it hung around several feet in the air, as the grassy knoll witnesses claimed. An interesting note, for his film JFK, Oliver Stone wanted to duplicate the "smoke on the knoll", and after trying fruitlessly to produce enough smoke with a rifle to see, he needed to bring in a smoke machine to create the necessary illusion.

My opinion - While Brennan certainly may have been overzealous in his reporting of details and he got some of those details wrong, he certainly isn't a weak witness. The fact of the matter is, he reported a gunman in the depository within minutes of the shooting, and his description, roughly matched that of Oswald.

New information - Here is Brennan's WC Testimony1, 2, 3, 11/22/63 Affidavit, 5/7/64 Affidavit

My opinion - There is no doubt that this is a mistake, but I think Posner meant that Hill was not even looking at Kennedy when he was shot in the head, and he used the term, first shot, to mean, when that shot actually hit him, as opposed to just after.

My opinion - Once again, is the House Select Committee is the final authority? I have no idea what the truth is. Maybe the winds were swirling, and everybody is right.

My opinion - Posner's discussion on Arnold should have been presented as theory instead of fact, but it certainly is hard to explain why no other witness saw Arnold, why he is not present in any of the photographs taken that day, and why he didn't tell his story for fifteen years.

New information - Arnold's claim to have seen "Secret Service" agents behind the Knoll is from Marrs book. But in THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY he said a man behind the Stockade Fence showed him CIA credentials. So Arnold has told two different stories.
A key photo is the Cecil Stoughton photo of the Knoll about 45 seconds after the head shot. The Retaining Wall is clearly visible. If Arnold is telling the truth, he should be there,surrendering his film to the crying man with dirty fingernails. He isn't, and neither is the man.
As for Yarborough -- he did not identify Arnold as the man he saw diving for the ground. An historian friend of Dave Perry's interviewed Yarborough about this, and Yarborough insisted he inferred the man he saw had military training, since he dove so quickly for the ground. The man Yarborough described did not wear military clothing.

My opinion - There is no evidence that those books would have caused been a serious impediment to Oswald's ability to get across the floor in the necessary time. The omission of the books is at best sloppy, at worst misleading, but it really does not change anything.

New information - The Warren report stated "Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting" So in the actual tests for the timing nobody went diagonally across the floor.

My opinion - Once again this is typical lawyer stuff. I think it is simplistic to assume that if a witness is incorrect on one point, that they are not reliable. The credibility of every statement has to be taken within its complete context. Actually this is what Posner's book does better than any other book that I have read; putting information into context. This is the main flaw of most conspiracy books; they take isolated incidents out of context to try to prove a point. This is why the conspiracy believers have yet to come up with one credible alternative theory. There are the Mob did it theories, The CIA did it theories, the right wing Texas oil men did it theories, and my personal favorite, the all of the above did it theories. We've had theories involving two to six different shooters located from the Grassy knoll, to the Dal Tex building, from a sewer to a the follow up car. To some of the conspiracy theorists, Garrison was a hero, while others consider his whole case a travesty of justice. Why do all these different theories surface bounce around, and then lose favor to the theory de'jure? Because individual pieces of evidence will support one of these different theories, but at the same time they will discredit other theories. So it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water, and to try to give each piece of evidence the proper weight it deserves.

My opinion - As stated earlier, Posner definitely handles the issue of this bag poorly, but he did admit in his book that there testimony concerning the length of the bag, did not match the actual length. This is a good example of placing things in context. If we accept the fact that neither of these witnesses is bold face liars, it seems highly unlikely that they would have completely imagined that Oswald carried some sort of package. It certainly is much more likely that they could have been mistaken about the exact length of that package.

My opinion - Apparently Posner depended on Biffle's report, and Biffle was wrong. This only helps to support a lone assassin theory, if there is some doubt that Oswald left the Depository, and I don't think there is.

My opinion - The issue of the statements of the doctors is to long and confusing to get into here, but statements like the previous one that "virtually all of the Dallas doctors did examine the head wound " is extremely misleading. That head wound was a mess of blood and tissue and it was never cleaned up and thoroughly examined. None of the doctors attempted to perform any treatment on the head wound. As Posner points out, it is a doctor's job to try to save a patient, and the entire reason for an autopsy is to study wounds, and determine the exact cause of death. I agree with the general point that testimony taken closest to the actual event is usually best, but those doctors had the advantage of looking at the autopsy photos which would help refresh their memories. This of course wouldn't hold true if the autopsy photos were fake.

New information - Here is Marion Thomas Jenkins's WC Testimony, William Kemp Clark's WC Testimony, Charles James Carrico's WC Testimony 1, WC Testimony 2, Paul Conrad Peters's WC Testimony, , Charles Rufus Baxter's WC Testimony, Malcolm Oliver Perry's WC Testimony 1, WC Testimony 2, and Robert Nelson McClelland's WC Testimony

My opinion - Posner certainly did downplay Tomlinson's testimony about which stretcher that bullet fell from, but I have a simple question for all those who think that bullet was planted. At the time that bullet was found, the conspirators would have had no idea what all of the wounds were, or where all of the bullets that were actually fired had landed. How would they have known that finding a relative undamaged bullet at the hospital would have made any sense? For example, imagine the actual bullet had been retrieved from Connally's thigh during his surgery, there would have been no way to explain the planted bullet. The fact that a completely unexplained bullet that had been fired from Oswald's gun was found at the hospital would have been proof of an attempted frame up. From the other perspective, there was a wound in Connally's thigh that indicated that a bullet had entered there, but did not penetrate. If the bullet that Tomlinson found was not the bullet that created that wound, what did happen to that bullet?

New information - Here is Darrell C. Tomlinson's WC Testimony

My opinion - I would have to see all of the pictures to make any comment.

New Information - John Hunt, Jr. has examined the photographic evidence and concluded that Kennedy's coat was "bunched" allowing the Single Bullet alignment to work.

My opinion - The quote from Posner is accurate and this statement is misleading. Before the doctors saw the autopsy photos the did say the back of the head, but after viewing the photos they confirmed there accuracy, and they made all kinds of excuses for their earlier statements.

My opinion - I agree, these frames are inconclusive, but all you have to do is back up a few frames. In those frames you can the explosion of tissue from Kennedy's skull. You can debate about the exact position, but there is no doubt that it is not in the rear portion of the head. It certainly is not in a position that would cause the exposure of cerebellum. This film is extremely strong evidence that the doctors at Parkland were simply wrong in their original placement of the head wound.

New information - Here is Michael Baden's HSC Testimony

My opinion - Posner was only listing the back brace as only one small part of a possible reason that Kennedy did not fall foreword in response to a shot from the rear.

New information - Here is a photograph of JFK's back brace. The quote "preventing him from falling foreword" is taken completely out of context. Posner was discussing the neurologic reaction to a shot to the brain and how that would cause the body to stiffen with the stronger muscles of the back predominating. The entire quote from Posner is " They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear. The President's back brace likely accentuated the movement, preventing him from falling forword."

My opinion - I'm amazed the author would bring this one up because it actually helps support Posner's case, when you report that someone else actually saw this without enhancing the film. Is attacking Posner for taking too much credit, the best you can do to refute this evidence?

My opinion - I think it is obvious that Tague is not sure which shot it was. I find it hard to believe that Posner, knowing that his book was going to be thoroughly torn apart by the conspiracy theorists, would just make up an interview.

New Information - Here is James Thomas Tague's WC Testimony. Posner has been accused of making up several interviews, and has produced his phone records as proof of these interviews. John McAdams posted an interesting verification of these records. Here is that post.

My opinion - I agree, Posner should have said that lead could have come from a bullet core.

My opinion - This is just plain nit-picking, especially compared to all of the errors by omission in all of the pro-conspiracy literature that I have read. (Including this attack on Posner)

New Information - The author of this attack was asked on alt.assassination.jfk to furnish a quote from Case Closed that would support this accusation that Posner was implying that any of this work was done specifically for him, and no citation was offered. In fact in the bibliography Posner explicitly states that this work was done for the American Bar Association.

My opinion - This is classic conspiracy garbage. This is the same crap that let O.J. get away with hacking up his ex-wife and an innocent bystander. Any member of the investigative group makes a mistake and it proves some grand conspiracy to frame the defendant. If the conspiracy theorists think this is true, follow up on this "obvious evidence tampering". What agent created this list? What is his explanation? Did he have a motive for wanting Kennedy dead? Maybe if the conspiracy theorists are lucky, the guy has died of a heart attack since then and they can add him to their list of mysterious deaths.

New information - I have written an article on this topic at http://jfkassassination.net/russ/minox.htm

My opinion - Even if Marina was working with McMillan, It doesn't prove that the critics didn't bombard her.

My opinion - I don't know what Marina's motive was, but she certainly could have told Eddowes to go jump in a lake when he suggested digging up her ex-husband. I don't think Posner thinks Marina is nutty. I think he probably feels sorry for the poor woman. Having to live with the constant harping of all the critics, it's not surprising she has finally given in to them.

My opinion - What's amazing about this, is they use the very facts that Posner puts out about Alexander as a way of trashing Posner. Should Posner have hid this story about Alexander? At least Posner's readers can put Alexander's testimony in context.

My opinion - Again, how quick we use the term discredited. Let me ask a simple question, Will anybody who is able to testify about Ruby's mob connections, on either side, have much credibility?

New information - Here is the HSC report concerning Ruby's trips to Cuba which discusses Zoppi's statements. Zoppi was trying to remember events that had happened years before, and it is not suprising that his memory was faulty. Almost every person who knew Ruby personally described him in terms similar to "low-level loser" just like Zoppi.

My opinion - Same as the previous opinion.

My opinion - more of the same

New Information - Here is Joseph Campisi's HSC testimony Once again, where is the error here. Other than slamming Campisi's reputation, the author gives not one bit of evidence to contradict his sworn testimony.

My opinion - Posner will have to speak for himself about what his motives were for this misquote

My opinion - If Posner both sites Epstein as his source concerning access, and also reports contradictions by Griffin, wouldn't that tend to lend support to Posner's credibility?

My opinion - Of course no one piece of evidence can prove anything, but these new techniques certainly have given scientific evidence to support the theory. The Neutron Activation Analysis was critical in supporting the single bullet theory. That analysis could have proved beyond any doubt that the bullet found at Parkland was not the bullet that passed through Connally's wrist, but instead it proved to a high degree of certainty that it was. Photo enhancements are not at all mysterious, and if it is true that the enhancements shows a bulge in Connally's jacket at the exact moment that Posner claims he was shot, it certainly is important evidence. As far as the 3D animation goes, while it can't prove the single bullet theory, it certainly proves that it was possible, something the critics would never have admitted in the past.

New information - Here is a Vincent Guinn's HSC testimony.

My opinion - How does this mistaken date make Posner's book more biased towards a lone assassin?

My opinion - I didn't see anything in Posner's book about capitalizing on Lane's success, all I read was a list of books that came out just after Lane's. Posner did not claim that these books were somehow rushed out after Lane's, and I don't understand how the above errors reveal a lone assassin bias

My opinion - I can't understand why now all of a sudden we are supposed to accept at face value what the FBI reports. You accuse Posner of oversimplification, when the entire attack on the autopsy is an oversimplification. Somehow we are suppose to give more weight to the observations of two FBI witnesses to portions of the autopsy than the final report of the doctor who oversaw the entire autopsy. Anybody who has a remote familiarity with the case, knows that the autopsy doctor was originally confused about the back wound because he was unaware that the tracheotomy performed at Parkland had removed the signs of a wound in Kennedy's neck. Also, as far as oversimplification goes, Posner had written earlier in the book many more observations about the autopsy. For example, he reported on page 304 of the book that a medical panel of the appointed by attorney general Ramsey Clark, The Rockefeller Commission, and the medical panel of the House Select Committee, all reaffirmed the general findings of the original autopsy doctors.

My opinion - Of Course Meagher's index is biased, and so is Posner's, but your willingness to just accuse Posner of making up his index without any proof is typical of the accusations made by many of the critics.

My opinion - It is true that Ferrie had ties to Marcello, and as I recall, Garrison never made any effort to try to bring the mob into his prosecution of Shaw. Considering Garrisons zeal to solve the case, and considering Ferrie's and Ruby's known association with mob figures, that lack of interest in itself, should elicit some suspicion on Garrison's relationship with the mob.

My opinion -So Perrin really was dead, and Garrison did want to swear out a warrant. What part of the story did Posner get wrong? As far a Gonzales existing, If you can only claim there is a good chance that he exists, and your proof is a picture, I would like to know what the picture shows. A man holding up a sign saying I'm Manual Garcia Gonzales, and I killed President Kennedy.

New information - The name Gonzales was first brought to Garrison's attention by Dean Andrews. Andrews claims he made the name up to see if Garrison was on the level. Since Andrews is the only person who tied Gonzales to the assassination, and he says there is no such person as Gonzales, there is no way you can provide a picture of the same Gonzales that Andrews was speaking of.

My opinion - Jim Phelan seemed to be Posner's biggest source, and I don't know if this accusation about journalists includes Phelan. In general, it is not unheard of for molesters to publicly attack other people's sexuality. As far as the molestation goes, I can understand why Posner would keep secret the name of someone who was molested as a child.

My opinion - As far as I know Bowers' never testified that he himself heard Cheramie speak of the assassination, so any story about him is based on hearsay. Fruge's story is interesting. He claims she told him she was going to Dallas to pick up money, get her child, and kill Kennedy. This would be a very strange admission to make to a police officer. It is also interesting that Fruge did nothing too follow up on this threat, until after Kennedy was killed. Rose Cheramie was a heroin addict who was suffering through withdrawals when she spoke to Fruge. She also had a history of supplying false stories to the authorities. Cheramie also claimed that Oswald and Ruby were shacking up for years. A statement that is not supported by any other person who knew either Oswald or Ruby. It is my personal opinion that Fruge's testimony should also be taken with a grain of salt. He worked for Garrison, and there is quite a bit of evidence that Garrison's investigators were leading witnesses and creating stories by twisting the truth. (This isn't only the opinion of the lone nutter's, some of the conspiracy people agree with this.)

My opinion - I am not familiar with Phelan's work. According to this statement we are suppose to dismiss the statement because Phelan is a veteran Garrison-Basher. Does this hold true for Mark Lane, because he is a veteran Warren Commission basher?

My opinion - The committee actually found Becker " had a questionable reputation for honesty and may not be a credible source of information." Once again, not surprisingly, anybody who has dealings with Marcello, on either side, is unlikely to have much credibility.

New information - Here is the HSC Report on Carlos Marcello, including Becker's accusation.

My opinion - I don't know who the inventor was, but isn't Roppolo the guy who was Marcello's long time personal friend? The man who is not to be believed. Why would he need Becker to get Marcello to help him out?

My opinion - I agree. Claiming that the location can be determined with precision is an overstatement. In fact the analysis itself only gives a large cone as the possible location of the source of the shots.

My opinion - Once again, this is nitpicking. Posner obviously isn't implying all of the windows were closed with this drawing. As a matter of fact it is vital to his case, that some of the other windows were open, because it helps increase the credibility of his key witnesses on the fifth floor directly below Oswald.

My opinion - The term "grazed one of JFK's vertebra" is incorrect, because on page 328 Posner specifically said that the bullet passing close to the spine could shock and traumatize the spinal cord. The first person to notice this trauma was Dr. John Lattimer, in 1970. Two years after the Ramsay panel. The damage was so small; it is not surprising that the Ramsay panel missed it. By the way, this is a mistake that hurts the single bullet theory, so should we take that as proof that the Ramsay panel was somehow part of a conspiracy to get Oswald off, or can we just accept the fact that people make mistakes?

My opinion - Like I said, maybe people make mistakes. This should be easy enough to verify by measuring the scar on Connally. I can't believe that is Posner is wrong about this, the only evidence you have to support it is the testimony of Shaw

My opinion - Of course the Zapruder film was critical to the investigation, but most of Zapruder's actual testimony was not very important. In fact, Zapruder would have been in an excellent position to hear shots from both the depository, and the grassy knoll. Even though he wasn't able to place the exact location of the shots, the fact that he didn't claim that he heard shots from two different locations, strongly supports the lone assassin theory. This is one of the most overlooked consistencies in the eyewitness's testimony. Out of all the witnesses, only a few thought they heard shots from more than one location. The inability to pinpoint the exact location of a sound is not unusual, but it would be unusual not to realize that separate sounds came from two locations as far apart as the depository and the knoll.

My opinion - Marrs originally listed the death as a gunshot, Posner says it was a fire, and now we have knife wounds. I don't have a clue whom to believe.

My opinion - By 1971 most people were skeptical of some parts of the Warren Commission. If Boggs's minor statements were enough to justify his killing, the conspirators would have to kill more than half of the population of the United States.

New information - This is a great way to end this list because it shows to what lengths Posner's critics had to go to reach the magic 100 number. Every person I know who went by the name Dick, was actually named Richard. So it is not surprising that an editor might confuse Dick Russell with Richard Russell. (I wouldn't be surprised if Dick Russell's given name is actually Richard Russell)

In the closing to his article, the author compares those of us who dare to defend Posner to some mindless cult followers, swayed by Posner's charm. Actually I had never heard of Posner before picking up his book, and I personally don't even think it is the best Lone Assassin book out there. I give Posner all the credit in the world for being able to write a compelling narrative, which is what was needed to balance the flood of conspiracy literature out there, but Case Closed certainly isn't the be all end all of the case against Oswald. What I can't figure out is why the conspiracy crowd finds it so necessary to blow out of proportion the minor flaws in his book. Is it because Case Closed was actually a critical and commercial success? Just when Oliver Stone was making such huge strides completely deceiving the general public, along comes Posner, and reminds people what the case against Oswald was all about. In their eyes, that was Posner's biggest "error".