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.
2) Page 4. In the same paragraph Posner also cites Carroll as a source
for the crowd yelling, "Let us have him. We'll kill him! We want him!" What
Detective Carroll told Warren Commission staff attorney Ball was two different
possibilities as to what the crowd was yelling. He shows he wasn't sure by
saying, "several people were hollering, you know - 'kill him,' or 'let us have
him and we'll kill him.' " (14) While the idea is similar, Posner is rewriting
what Carroll thought they said and he just throws in, "We want him!" for added
dramatic effect. Didn't Frederic Dannen (quoted on Posner's dust jacket) say
that Case Closed was "devoid of speculation." Cutting and pasting
testimony to exaggerate the hostility of the crowd is either sneaky or sloppy,
but it doesn't really enhance the lone assassin argument. (N)
(14) WC
Vol. 7, p. 21.
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."
Here is the
complete testimony of C. T.
Walker.
3) Page 5. Posner uses Dallas Police Homicide and Robbery Detective Gus
Rose as a source for another of Posner's many smirk references. He gives no
footnote for this particular smirk. (15) When you read through all of Rose's
testimony to the Warren Commission you will again see that the person to whom
Posner credits this information makes no mention of any "smirk." (16) (L)
(15) Jerry Rose, "The Deadly Smirk and Other Inventions," The Fourth
Decade, November, 1993.
(16) WC Vol. 7, pp. 227-32.
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.
4) Page 5. Posner is at it again with his habit of constructing dialogue.
He states that when Detective Rose asks Oswald if his name was Oswald or Hidell,
his alias, the response (after Oswald's "smirk") was, "You figure it out." The
actual quote from Rose's testimony shows that he recalled Oswald saying, "You
find out." (17) In fact Rose quotes Oswald twice on the same page as saying,
"You find out." Well, maybe Posner wants us to think he was telling them to
speculate about who he really is rather than to actually find the answer. After
checking the reference, it's a matter of judgment whether Posner is being
deliberately deceptive or not (to further the lone assassin case) in this
re-writing of Rose's testimony. (N)
(17) WC Vol. 7, p. 228.
5) Page 12. The author gives us some proof of Oswald's psychological
potential to become an assassin by quoting from a discredited witness by the
name of Renatus Hartogs. Hartogs did a psychological evaluation of Oswald when,
as a child, Oswald was caught skipping school. Hartogs told the Warren
Commission that Oswald had "definite traits of dangerousness." (18) In fact
Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler challenged him on this point and
revealed that Hartogs had said no such thing in his report in 1953. (19) Hartogs
then retracts this statement and Liebeler calls for the addition of the actual
text of Hartogs' 1953 report to be added to the end of the record of his April
16, 1964 deposition. (L)
(18) WC Vol. 8, p. 217.
(19) Gary
Aguilar, "Letter to the Editor of the Federal Bar News and Journal," Federal
Bar News and Journal, 1994. James R. Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the
Case,"The Fourth Decade, November, 1993. Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of
Gerald Posner,Case Closed: Lee HarveyOswald and the Assassination of
JFK, Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green
Archives Publications, 1995.
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.
6) Page 13n. Mr. Posner uses false background information to attack the
credibility of the late, highly respected author, Sylvia Meagher, and to
rehabilitate the discredited witness, Dr. Renatus Hartogs. Sylvia Meagher
concluded that there was no reason to find Oswald mentally unsound. (20) Posner
cites Hartogs and the reports of two Soviet psychiatrists to refute her. (21) We
already know about Hartogs' unreliability from the previous item. One of the
reports concluded that Oswald was, "not dangerous to other people." (22) The
other report describes Oswald's attitude as being "completely normal" (23) and
finds that "no psychotic symptoms were noted." (24) This is an example of Posner
citing sources that show the exact opposite of what he claims they show. (25)
(L)
(20) Sylvia Meagher, Accessories after the Fact: The Warren
Commission,The Authorities and the Truth, NY, Vintage Books, 1967, 1976, p.
244.
(21) James R. Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the Case,"The
FourthDecade, November, 1993.
(22) WC Vol. 18, p. 464.
(23) WC Vol.
18, p. 468.
(24) WC Vol. 18, p. 473.
(25) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of
Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK," Deep Politics II:Essays on Oswald, Skokie,Illinois, Green
Archives Publications, 1995.
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.
7) Page 51. The author quotes from his interview of a KGB agent who
defected in 1964 by the name of Yuriy Nosenko. Nosenko told him that the KGB
ordered mental evaluations of Oswald. According to Nosenko (as reported by
Posner) the psychiatrists determined Oswald was mentally unstable. Maybe both
Posner and Nosenko are both unaware that the Soviet reports are provided (see
previous item) in Warren Commission volume 18. They flatly contradict this false
claim. Nosenko should also be considered a discredited witness. (26) The House
Select Committee on Assassinations reported that Nosenko presented "significant
inconsistencies" in his statements given to the FBI, the CIA and the Select
Committee itself. (27) (L)
(26) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of Gerald
Posner, Case Closed: LeeHarvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK,"
Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green Archives
Publications, 1995.
(27) HSCA Report, p. 102.
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.
8) Page 51n. Lee Harvey Oswald had a twelve page diary that describes his
time in the Soviet Union. Posner takes Robert Groden to task for calling this
"historic diary" a fake. Posner ducks the issue by saying the handwriting was
determined by experts hired by the Warren Commission and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations to be Oswald's. (28) What he doesn't tell you is
Groden agrees with that assessment and points out that the House Select
Committee expert reported that it appeared that it may have been written in one
or two sittings. (29) Groden was actually saying that he thought it was faked by
Oswald after the events described took place. (30) (L)
(28) HSCA Vol.
12, p. 236.
(29) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique,"
TheInvestigator, August-September, 1993.
(30) Robert J. Groden and
Harrison Livingstone, High Treason:The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy and the New Evidence forConspiracy, Boothwyn, PA, Conservatory
Press, 1989, p. 103.
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".
9) Page 55. Posner points out the often-repeated mistake that Oswald's
wife had an uncle in the KGB. Posner credits Nosenko for exposing this and
correctly describing the uncle, Ilya Prusakov, as a member of the MVD. (31)
Nosenko then reportedly describes being a Colonel in the MVD as being "like a
local policeman." It is true that the MVD had some mundane duties such as
transferring and guarding prisoners, but they did perform some domestic spying
functions such as counterintelligence. MVD stands for Ministry of Internal
Affairs. They were national internal security police. Marina's Uncle might more
accurately be compared with an FBI agent than a local "policeman." (32)
(L)
(31) WC Vol. 1, p. 89.
(32) Sanche de Gramont, The Secret
War, NY, Putnam, 1962, pp. 42, 148.
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.
10) Page 86n. Posner claims that the CIA has "provided sworn testimony"
that there was no relationship between Oswald's friend George De Mohrenschildt
and the CIA. This is to supposedly debunk the idea that De Mohrenschildt was
Oswald's US intelligence handler. (33) Dallas CIA official J. Walton Moore (who
was a frequent guest at the De Mohrenschildt home) claimed Oswald was "perfectly
all right" when asked by George if it was safe to associate with the Marxist
former defector. (34) CIA Domestic Contacts Division agent Moore testified to
the House Select Committee on Assassinations that, from 1957 on, he met with De
Mohrenschildt for "debriefing purposes." (35) (L)
(33) Jim DiEugenio,
"Posner in New Orleans: Gerry in Wonderland," Dateline Dallas, November
22, 1993.
(34) HSCA Vol. 12, p. 54.
(35) HSCA Report, p. 217.
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
11) Pages 88, 95, 100, and 592. Posner seems to have a great deal of
trouble getting names right. We'll see several more examples of this later. On
four separate pages Posner misspells Declan Ford as Delcan Ford. This is just
sloppiness and has no bearing on the lone assassin theory but, it's the kind of
error that you don't normally see in a "scholarly work" by a major publisher.
(36) (N)
(36) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald
and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique,"
The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
12) Page 92n. The author of Case Closed uses Oswald's possession
of a controversial Department of Defense Uniformed Services Privilege Card (DD
1173) as being evidence that Oswald "had no relation to any US intelligence
agency" because it was "routinely issued to reservists through most of 1959."
Posner gives no source for this questionable explanation. As has been pointed
out by Mary La Fontaine, (37) with the assistance of Paul Hoch and Mary Ferrell,
this particular type of card was also in the possession of the U2 pilot, Gary
Powers when he was shot down over the Soviet Union on a spying mission on May 1,
1960. (38) Posner also does not tell his readers that Powers was a serviceman on
loan to the Central Intelligence Agency from the United States Air Force. (39)
When the FBI turned the card (that was in Oswald's possession when arrested)
over to the National Archives in 1966 it was "nearly obliterated" by "extensive
chemical testing." This is not a nutty "conspiracy buff " making the evaluation
of the card's destruction. It came from Sue McDonough of the Civil Reference
branch of the National Archives. (40) (L)
(37) Ray and Mary La
Fontaine, Oswald Talked: New Evidence in the JFK Assassination, Gretna,
LA, Pelican, 1996, pp. 404-6.
(38) The Trial of the U2, (Soviet Government
English language publication), Chicago, IL, Translation World Publishers, 1960,
page 13 of photo section. Ray and Mary La Fontaine, Oswald Talked: New
Evidence in the JFK Assassination,Gretna, LA, Pelican, 1996, pp. 88-9.
(39) Gary Francis Powers, Operation Overflight: The U2 Spy Pilot Tells
His Story for the First Time, NY, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, pp. 3-9.
(40) Ray and Mary La Fontaine, Oswald Talked: New Evidence in the JFK
Assassination, Gretna, LA, Pelican, 1996, pp. 78-9.
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.
13) Page 105. Posner quotes Marina Oswald's testimony to suggest that
Oswald owned a "rifle" while living as a defector in the Soviet Union. Posner
fails to volunteer the information that, after this claim, Commission head
council J. Lee Rankin immediately established that Marina was unable to tell a
rifle from a shotgun. (41) Warren Commission attorney Norman Redlich later
described Marina as having "repeatedly lied" about issues of "vital concern."
(42) Harold Weisberg points out that rifles were not permitted to be owned by a
private individual in the Soviet Union and, if anything, it had to be a shotgun.
In fact Posner's discredited witness, Yuriy Nosenko, went on record to the FBI
that Oswald was such a poor shot that his hunting associates gave him some game
to take home when he was unable to hit any animals with his limited marksmanship
skills. (43) (L)
(41) WC Vol. 1, p. 13.
(42) Warren Commission
internal memorandum by Norman Redlich, February 28, 1964.
(43) Harold
Weisberg, Case Open: The Omissions, Distortions and Falsifications of Case
Closed, NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, p. 19.
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?
New
Information - Here is Marina Oswald's 2/3/64 WC Testimony, 6/11/64 WC Testimony, 7/24/64 WC Testimony, HSC Testimony 1, 2, 3, HSCA Depositions, Shaw trial testimony.
14) Page 107. The author again points to the testimony of Marina Oswald
to prove a point. The question is the authenticity of the backyard photos
showing Oswald proudly displaying his pistol, rifle and leftist newspapers.
Marina admitted to Warren Commission attorney Rankin that she took some pictures
of Lee in the backyard with his pistol. (44) Marina apparently told Bob Groden
that she took the photos with her back to the steps that appear on the left side
of the pictures. (45) If you consider it a possibility that she is telling the
truth about this, then the background of the photo would be wrong. (46)
(N)
(44) WC Vol. 1, p. 15.
(45) Robert Groden, The Search for
Lee Harvey Oswald, NY, Viking, 1995.
(46) Martin Shackelford, Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
15) Page 117. Gerald Posner attempts to explain away a probable case of
evidence tampering concerning a photograph in Oswald's possession showing a car
parked at right-wing radical General Edwin Walker's home in Dallas. (47) Posner
says that a gaping hole in the photograph (where the license plate would have
been) was already there when confiscated from Oswald's belongings. This is
unlikely, since it appears to be undamaged when seen in another photo of items
of evidence in the possession of Dallas Police after the assassination. (48)
Posner also makes the startling claim that he knows this car belonged to a
Charles Klihr, but gives no source that can be checked. (49) (L)
(47)
William Kelly, "Case Closed Opens New Wounds," The Fourth Decade, March,
1994.
(48) Jesse Curry, JFK Assassination File, Dallas, TX, American
Poster and Printing Co., 1969, p. 113.
(49) Martin Shackelford, "Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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
16) Page 120. Here we see Posner using two completely different and
contradictory accounts from Oswald's wife, Marina. She supposedly discovered
that Lee was going out to kill Richard Nixon and thwarted his assassination
scheme by forcing him to stay home. (50) The pregnant Marina trapped her husband
in an unlocked bathroom and held the door shut (despite Oswald's superior
strength) until he "quieted down." (51) Posner explains that it was really LBJ
Oswald was after and points to the incident as proof of Oswald's "increasing
instability." The Warren Commission rejected both versions of the story as
having "no probative value." (52) In one version she trapped her husband in the
bathroom for three hours. (53) To the Warren Commission she testified about
using brute strength to hold the door shut (and said the whole incident took
"maybe twenty minutes"). (54) (L)
(50) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of
Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK,"
Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green Archives
Publications,1995.
(51) WC Vol. 5, p. 389.
(52) WC Report, p. 189
(53) WC Vol. 22, p. 786.
(54) WC Vol. 5, p. 392.
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.
17) Page 127. Posner claims that on May 29, 1963 Oswald "'went to the
Jones Printing Company" to order 1000 pro-Cuba handbills. His reference for this
is an FBI report by Special agent John M. McCarthy concerning McCarthy's
interview of Myra Silver. (55) When shown a photograph of Oswald she was unable
to recognize him as the man who ordered the handbills from her. So what we have
here is a classic Posnerism. He cites testimony that contradicts the point it is
supposed to support. (56) (L)
(55) WC Vol. 22, p. 797.
(56)
Martin Shackelford,"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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.
18) Page 138n. Posner says that Gaeton Fonzi was the investigator for the
House Select Committee on Assassinations who looked into David Ferrie, Guy
Banister and the activities at Banister's office, 544 Camp Street. He suggests
this is odd because Fonzi "was a committed believer in conspiracy." In his haste
to discredit all "conspiracy buffs" in general and Fonzi and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations in particular, Posner incorrectly identifies Fonzi
as the author of HSCA reports in this area. (57) Gaeton only did the editing on
the reports that were actually produced by HSCA researchers Patricia Orr and
Elizabeth Palmer. (58) (L)
(57) Jim DiEugenio, "Posner in New
Orleans: Gerry in Wonderland," Dateline Dallas, November 22, 1993.
(58) HSCA Vol. 10.
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
19) Page 139. Posner attacks the credibility of all witnesses who
connected Lee Harvey Oswald with Guy Banister. (59) Banister was a right-wing
racist extremist and former special agent in charge of the Chicago office of the
FBI. Banister's address appeared on pro-Cuba literature that Oswald was handing
out in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. It has been theorized that Oswald may
have worked with (or for) Banister in a US intelligence-related capacity as an
agent provocateur. Posner dismisses this possibility and disconnects Oswald from
any association with Banister by saying that the House Select Committee on
Assassinations "questioned six other individuals who worked for Guy Banister
during the summer of 1963 and none of them recalled seeing Oswald at 544 Camp."
(60) Posner is familiar with the work of Anthony Summers and uses him as a
source for information on some issues. Posner neglects to mention that Summers
lists four other witnesses who indicated an Oswald-Banister link. (61)
(L)
(59) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(60) HSCA Vol. 10, pp. 128-30.
(61) Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980, pp. 322-5.
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
20) Page 144n. Posner claims that "few researchers now believe" that
Oswald was seen with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in Clinton, LA. He claims that
critics now seem to believe that it may have been Guy Banister and not Clay
Shaw. Posner doesn't know or chooses to ignore the fact that one of his own
cited Clinton witnesses, Henry Palmer knew Banister and insisted that it was not
Banister. (62) (L)
(62) Jim DiEugenio, "Posner in New Orleans: Gerry
in Wonderland," Dateline Dallas, November 22, 1993. Martin Shackelford,
"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald
Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September,
1993. New Orleans Times Picayune, February, 7, 1969.
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.
21) Page 175. When Posner has trouble with a name, the same error is
repeated over and over. We only count this as one mistake but, at least in this
respect, he shows consistency. Silvia Odio is spelled Sylvia Odio on three
separate pages. (63) You might excuse Posner for confusing the name Sylvia with
Silvia. He makes several attempts at "discrediting" Sylvia Meagher (and fails
each time) and then he has to keep track of three others he mentions with the
same first name in a space of three (Silvia Herrera, Silvia "Sylvia" Odio and
Sylvia Duran). (64) (N)
(63) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee
Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary
Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(64)Case
Closed, pp. 178-80.
22) 186n. Posner excuses the mix-up by the CIA in incorrectly identifying
a photo of a man at a communist embassy in Mexico City as being Oswald. He
claims that "the CIA file did not contain any photos" of Oswald at the time of
the error. Peter Dale Scott points out that this is not true. (65) The CIA had
at least four photos of Oswald in its pre-assassination file on him. Two were
photos of Oswald taken by American tourists in Minsk when Oswald was living
there as a defector and the other two were in newspaper clippings.(66)
(L)
(65) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of Gerald Posner, Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK," Deep Politics II:
Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green Archives Publications, 1995.
(66) Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980, pp. 380-1.
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.
23) Page 224. According to Gerald Posner, Oswald's neighbor Linnie Mae
Randle saw Oswald on the morning of the assassination carrying a package "under
his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground." This is a classic
Posnerism. (67) He has combined Randle's testimony with her brother's to give a
deliberate false impression. Her brother, Buell Wesley Frazier (who saw Oswald
at a different time carrying the package), said that Oswald had one end in his
right hand and the other end under his armpit. (68) In Frazier's description, he
mentions nothing about the package being anywhere near "the ground." In Linnie
Mae Randle's statement to the FBI of Dec. 2, 1963, she said Oswald was carrying
a package in his right hand and that it was long but it did not touch the ground
as he walked across the street. (69) She said nothing about it being "under his
armpit." In Randle's testimony in Washington, DC, she further clarified this by
saying that Oswald held it at "the top with just a little bit sticking up." (70)
To the FBI she demonstrated that it was 27 inches long. (71) To attorney Ball
she said it was "a little bit more than two feet long." (72) This was much
shorter than the three foot length of the package in evidence and much too short
to have contained the rifle, even in a disassembled state. (L)
(67)
James R. Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the Case, "The Fourth Decade,
November, 1993.
(68) WC Vol. 2, p. 228.
(69) WC Vol. 24, p. 407.
(70) WC Vol. 2, p. 248.
(71) WC Vol. 24, p. 408.
(72) WC Vol. 2, p.
249.
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
24) Page 225. Posner again deliberately confuses the issue of the paper
sack that was allegedly used to smuggle the rifle into the Texas Schoolbook
Depository. He states that Randle and her brother Buell Wesley Frazier both
"said it looked like the one Oswald carried that morning." They both were quite
certain in explaining that the package was too short to contain the rifle. (73)
Frazier said that Oswald had a package that "was roughly about two feet long."
(74) Frazier insisted that the package shown to him by attorney Ball was
"entirely too long" to be the one Oswald had that morning. (75) Linnie Mae
Randle was also very firm when asked by Ball if it was "anywhere near similar"
in length. She said, "It definitely wasn't that long." (76) Mrs. Randle, when
shown the same sack by the FBI on Dec. 1, 1963, folded it down to its correct
length of 27 inches. She also showed agents McNeely and Odum that Oswald carried
the package "at the top with his hand." (77) (L)
(73) James R.
Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the Case," The Fourth Decade, November,
1993.
(74) WC Vol. 2, p. 226.
(75) WC Vol. 2, p. 240.
(76) WC Vol.
2, p. 249.
(77) WC Vol. 24, p. 408.
My opinion - same as the previous opinion
25) Page 225. Posner says Bonnie Ray Williams saw Oswald at 11:40 AM on
the east side of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, "near the
windows overlooking Dealey Plaza." On March 19, 1964 Williams said, in an FBI
interview, that the last time he saw Oswald was "at about 11:40 AM. (78) At that
time Oswald was on the sixth floor on the east side of the building." (79) But
then we check his Warren Commission testimony of March 24, 1964 and he marks a
spot on a chart at the north side of the building where he last saw Oswald at
11:45-11:50 AM. (80). To show just how bad this particular witness was we can
refer to Williams' sworn affidavit from Nov. 22, 1963 where he says he didn't
see Oswald at all after he "saw him at 8 AM." (81) Posner took his pick from
three different versions to find one that was consistent with the lone assassin
theory and completely ignored the other versions given by the same, unreliable
witness. (L)
(78) Jerry Rose, "The Deadly Smirk and Other
Inventions," The Fourth Decade, November, 1993.
(79) WC Vol. 22, pp.
681-2.
(80) WC Vol. 3, p. 167.
(81) WC Vol. 24, p. 229.
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
26) Page 225n. Posner claimed the paper sack that allegedly held the
rifle "contained microscopic fibers from the blanket with which Oswald kept the
rifle wrapped." FBI agent Stombaugh, an expert from their hair and fiber unit
testified only that "the possibility exists that these fibers could have come
from this blanket." (82) This is not a very conclusive statement and shows he
was far from certain about this. (83) Then, incredibly, we find Posner
contradicting his previous statement by saying (on page 272 of Case Closed) that
the FBI didn't have a match. Posner makes a categorical statement and then
completely contradicts himself 47 pages later. (84) (L)
(82) WC Vol.
4, p. 81.
(83) James R. Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the Case,"The
Fourth Decade, Nov., 1993.
(84) Case Closed, p.272.
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.
27) Page 226. Posner tells us that an FBI agent assembled the alleged
murder rifle in less than six minutes using only a dime. Oswald had no known
tools available to him to assemble the weapon after he supposedly brought it
into the Texas School Book Depository in pieces. Sure enough, FBI agent
Cunningham supposedly demonstrated this feat in front of Warren Commission
attorney Ball. (85) Dr. Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates, (who is
also an expert marksman and couldn't duplicate Oswald's shooting accomplishment)
tried to assemble a Carcano rifle with a dime and found it was impossible,
because a dime is too thick to fit the slots in the screws. (86) (L)
(85) WC Vol. 2, p. 252.
(86) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee
Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary
Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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.
28) Page 227n. Now we have the amazing example of a group of five Texas
School Book Depository employees who all changed their stories over time to
favor a lone assassin. Each of these five witnesses Posner cites are going to be
treated as a separate item for the purposes of the list. Posner uses their later
stories to prove that Oswald was seen on the sixth floor minutes before the
assassination. (87) Posner says "five witnesses placed Oswald on an upper floor"
before noon. On March 18, 1964, our first witness, Danny Arce says nothing about
seeing Oswald at that time. (88) In Arce's April 7, 1964 testimony he says he
saw Oswald around noon and states, "I believe he was on the fifth; I am not too
sure." (89) Now he sees him on an upper floor but isn't certain of which one.
(L)
(87) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of Gerald Posner, Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK," Deep Politics II:
Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green Archives Publications, 1995.
(88) WC Vol. 22, p. 634.
(89) WC Vol. 6, p. 364-5.
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.
29) Page 227n. The second witness in Posner's gang of five is Jack
Dougherty. In one statement to the FBI, Dougherty does not mention anything
about seeing Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. (90) In his
testimony to the Warren Commission on April 18, 1964 he verifies his earlier
Nov. 23, 1963 statement to the FBI that he saw Oswald at "11 AM on the sixth
floor." (91) Then we have yet another statement from Dougherty from a deposition
he signed on Nov. 22, 1963 that he "saw him on the 6th floor shortly before
noon." (92) How can Posner be so sure he has selected a truthful version? There
is no way to tell if any of the versions are accurate. (L)
(90) WC
Vol. 22, p. 645.
(91) WC Vol. 7, p. 378.
(92) WC Vol. 24,p. 206.
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
30) Page 227n. The third witness of this bunch is the previously
described Bonnie Ray Williams. We saw how he came up with conflicting statements
as to where he saw Oswald that day. Williams stated in his March 24, 1963
appearance before the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald on the "fifth or
sixth floor" around "11:30 or 12:00." (93) Earlier, Williams said to the FBI (on
March 19, 1964) that he saw him "at about 11:40 AM" and now seemed certain that
it was the sixth floor. (94) In one account he was on the east side of the
building and in the other he saw him on the north side. (L)
(93) WC
Vol. 3, p. 168.
(94) WC Vol. 22, p. 682.
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
31) Page 227n. Our fourth flexible witness, Billy Lovelady, gave a
statement to the FBI on March 19, 1964 that he last saw Oswald on the sixth
floor in the morning and gave no specific time. (95) In Lovelady's Warren
Commission testimony on April 7, 1964 he now remembers an elevator ride at noon
where he heard Oswald yell out a request to be taken down with him on the
elevator. They kept on going and left him on an upper floor. (96) In Lovelady's
deposition of Nov. 22, 1963 he makes no mention of Oswald. (97) (L)
(95) WC Vol. 22, p. 662
(96) WC Vol. 6, p. 337.
(97) WC Vol. 24,p.
214.
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
32) Page 227n. The final witness in this group of five is Charles Givens.
Givens stated in his Warren Commission testimony that he saw Oswald on the 6th
floor just before noon. (98) In his Dallas Police statement of Nov. 22, 1963 he
makes no mention of Oswald. (99) In his FBI deposition of March 18, 1964 the
only mention of Oswald is to say that he didn't see him "when the President was
shot." (100) In February of 1964 the FBI interviewed Lieutenant Jack Revill of
the Dallas Police. Revill stated that Givens had been arrested on marijuana
charges and that "Givens would change his story for money." (101) On April 8,
1964 Givens, for the first time, admitted that he went back up to the 6th floor
for cigarettes and saw Oswald there. Warren Commission attorney Belin asks him
if he saw Oswald at 11:50 AM reading a paper in the Domino Room on a lower
floor. Givens said no, but Belin knew (from an unpublished FBI affidavit of Nov.
22, 1963) that Givens had said exactly that. (102) Givens went from seeing
nothing to seeing him at lunch on a lower floor at 11:50 AM to seeing him on the
sixth floor just before noon. These five persons' accounts are a conflicting,
confusing mass of contradictions. Posner uses their later, evolved stories to
"close" the case. Didn't Posner say something about preferring testimony "closer
to the event" and that it must be "given greater weight" (103) (L)
(98) WC Vol. 6, p. 351.
(99) WC Vol. 24, p. 210.
(100) WC Vol. 22,
p. 649.
(101) Sylvia Meagher, The Texas Observer, "The Curious
Testimony of Mr. Givens," August 13, 1971. Peter Dale Scott, Paul Hoch and
Richard Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond - A Guide to Cover-ups
and Investigations, NY, Vintage Books, 1976.
(102) Warren Commission
Document 5, p. 329.
(103) Case Closed, p. 235.
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
33) Page 227. We find out from Posner that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in
the Texas School Book Depository lunchroom around noon like he had claimed to be
when questioned by authorities after his arrest. How does Posner know? We find
out that three of the Warren Commission's most pliable witnesses say they were
eating in that lunchroom in their later Commission testimony. When we check
Posner's references for Charles Givens we see he said no such thing. (104) When
asked by attorney Belin if he ate in the Texas School Book Depository that day,
Givens says, "No sir." (105) Danny Arce said in his Warren Commission testimony
that he ate "In that little Domino Room there." (106) In Arce's affidavit of
Nov. 22, 1963 he said, "At lunch time at 12:00 noon I went down on the street to
see the parade." (107) He said he was standing at "Elm and Houston" at 12:30 PM
when he heard shots. (108) Jack Dougherty does say he ate "In the Domino Room"
when he testified to the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, but he says on the
next page of the testimony that he thinks he ate lunch after the assassination.
(109) The Warren Commission Report describes Dougherty as being "confused."
(104) (L)
(110) Peter Dale Scott, "A Review of Gerald Posner, Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, "Deep Politics II:
Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green Archives Publications, 1995.
(105) WC Vol. 6, p. 352.
(106) WC Vol. 6, p. 365.
(107) WC Vol. 24,
p. 199.
(108) WC Vol. 6, p. 378.
(109) WC Vol. 6, p. 379.
(110) WC
Report, p. 153.
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.
34) Page 231n. In a footnote Posner claims that the Bronson film was
"enhanced by the Itek Corporation for CBS." The Bronson film didn't surface
until 1978 at which time the HSCA had another firm, Aerospace Corporation study
the film. CBS hired Itek to study other known films of the assassination in
1975. The Aerospace Corporation analysis of the Bronson film was inconclusive in
its findings concerning possible movement in the TSBD windows and recommended
further study. (111) (N)
(111) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed:
Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
35) Page 233. Posner parrots the often-repeated myth that "no Secret
Service men rode on the running boards attached to the rear" of JFK's limousine.
(112) Posner ignores or doesn't know about agent Clint Hill's testimony to the
Warren Commission that he rode on the back of the limousine "approximately four
times." (113) And now, thanks to the work of the Assassination Records Review
Board, we have corroboration for Clint Hill's testimony. A recently discovered
film taken from the car immediately following the limousine shows Hill riding on
the back of the Limousine. (114) Although no reference is given, William
Manchester seems to be the source of this error. (115) (L)
(112)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(113) WC Vol. 2, p. 136.
(114) Dave Powers film,
National Archives.
(115) William Manchester, The Death of a
President, NY, Harper & Row, 1967, p. 37.
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.
36) Page 234. The author contends that "the President's hands jerked up
into a locked position level with his neck." Posner adopts this idea from a
long-time lone assassin theorist by the name of Dr. John Lattimer. (116) It's
not really accurate to say that his hands went into a "locked position" since
they came back down to some degree even before the fatal head shot struck. (117)
(L)
(116) John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and
Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations, NY, Harcourt, Brace and
Jovanovich, 1980, pp. 243-4.
(117) Abraham Zapruder film, National Archives.
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.
37) Page 234. Some witnesses contend (and Posner agrees) that the
limousine slowed and came to a virtual standstill before the fatal shot hit.
Posner says that the driver of the limousine, William Greer, "turned in his seat
to see what had happened" after hearing gunfire. In fact Greer turned around not
once, but twice and didn't accelerate until the President was hit in the head.
(118) It could be argued that, when he first turned and saw an obviously
distressed President, Greer should have reacted by accelerating right away. If
he had done this, the fatal shot might not have hit JFK at all. (N)
(118) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
New information - Why is this even on this list. What was Posner's error?
38) Page 237. Posner attempts to discredit Josiah Thompson's statistical
breakdown of the locations where witnesses felt the shots originated. Thompson
calculated that 52% were for the Grassy Knoll location, 39% for the Texas School
Book Depository and 6% for neither location. (119) While taking exception with
certain of Thompson's interpretations, Posner either ignores or doesn't know of
a much larger study done by researcher Craig Ciccone. (120) Ciccone's study
concluded that, out of 326 total identified witnesses, 90 were for the Grassy
Knoll, 46 were for the Depository and 6 felt shots came from both locations.
(121) (L)
(119) Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas: A
Microstudy of the Kennedy Assassination, NY, Bernard Geis Associates, 1967,
p. 24.
(120) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(121) Craig Ciccone, "Master List
of Witnesses in Dealey Plaza - 11/22/63"
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
39) Page 245. Posner says that photographer Ron Reiland (who photographed
the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater) took film of the incident
but, because of mistakes in using lenses, "nothing developed." Reiland's film
did develop. (122) The film did turn out to be improperly exposed but
nonetheless exists and is available to be seen. (123) (N)
(122)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(123) See the video, "Films From the Sixth Floor."
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.
40) Page 245n. Gerald Posner incorrectly identifies reporter Robert
MacNeil as the person Lee Harvey Oswald reportedly mistook for a Secret Service
agent just after the assassination. Posner apparently relies on William
Manchester's false claim that it was MacNeil when MacNeil himself refutes this
in his own book. (124) MacNeil discovered that this person was actually Pierce
Allman. (125) Posner then repeats this error in his illustration of Oswald's
escape route in the Texas School Book Depository. (126) (N)
(124)
William Manchester, The Death of a President, NY, Harper & Row, 1967,
p. 37.
(125) Robert MacNeil, At the Right Place at the Right Time,
NY, Little, Brown & Co., 1982, p. 213.
(126) Case Closed, p. 481.
41) Page 247. Posner accepts the witness, James Worrell, who claims to
have seen "what you might call a little flash of fire and then smoke." (127)
Posner embraces this description uncritically because it presumably gives him a
witness to a rifle firing in the Texas School Book Depository window where
Oswald is supposed to be. Actually, Posner combines two similar but different
statements on the same page of testimony into one. This compositing of testimony
doesn't appreciably change the meaning. Quote number one is, "Well I saw what
you might call a little flame and smoke." Quote number two describes a third
shot and Worrell says, "same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke." What
Worrell says after this is something that Posner, in his selective, deceptive
style, has to avoid. Worrell says, I didn't see it on the fourth one." It is
inconvenient that this witness clearly describes four shots and the three that
Posner's flavor of lone assassin theory depends upon. In an affidavit signed by
Worrell on Nov. 22, 1963 he said that he didn't see the first shot's fire and
smoke, he did see it on the second and he ran and (while running) heard, but did
not see, a third and fourth shot. (128) This is another example of Posner's
choice of witnesses with evolving and changing testimony that he so often uses
to "close" the case. But this is not the worst part about this example. With
prosecutorial zeal Posner does everything he can to discredit several Grassy
Knoll witnesses. Some witnesses noticed what appeared to be a puff of smoke
rising up from the Knoll area. To counter these witnesses Posner completely
reverses himself in relation to the fire and smoke aspect nine pages later. He
makes a truly mindless error of self-contradiction by stating categorically that
"modern ammunition is smokeless." (129) (L)
(127) WC Vol. 2, p. 200.
(128) WC Vol. 16, p. 959.
(129) James R. Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes
the Case," The Fourth Decade, November, 1993.
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.
42) Page 248. Posner is not above using almost any witness to prove his
points. One of the weakest witnesses used by the Warren Commission was Howard
Brennan. Brennan claimed that the shooter was standing and is credited with the
description that led to his apprehension. (130) The trouble with Brennan's claim
is the fact that the alleged sixth floor Texas School Book Depository shooter
had to be crouched down behind the boxes that formed the rest for his gun. Any
"guess" (as Posner characterizes it) of the person's height would have been a
virtual impossibility. (131) (L)
(130) WC Vol. 3, p. 144.
(131)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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
43) Page 251. The next item comes from a controversial witness by the
name of Jean Hill. There is no controversy about the mistake we are about to
describe. Posner states, in an attempt to discredit inconvenient statements by
Hill, that "The Zapruder home movie shows Hill never moved or said a word the
president passed and she was not even looking at him when he was first shot."
Jean Hill does not even appear in the Zapruder film until frame number Z287
after both Connally and the President have been hit. (132) Posner, later in e
book, gives us his unlikely theory that the first shot was fired "near frame 160
." (133) Whether Jean Hill is reliable as a witness or not is totally irrelevant
in respect to this surprisingly inaccurate claim by Posner. (L)
(132)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(133) Case Closed, p. 323.
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.
44) Page 256. On the day of the assassination Posner says, "there was a
stiff wind blowing north to south." This is an attempt to explain why people in
the motorcade smelled gunpowder immediately after the shots were fired. When we
check his references for this claim we see Posner at his deceptive best on this
issue. Mrs. Robert Reid said, "the wind was blowing a little bit," but gives no
direction at all. (134) Luke Mooney says, "The wind was blowing pretty high,"
and again we see he gives no direction at all. (135) James Romack states, "The
wind was blowing a little bit from the south that day." (136) Only two of his
cited five witnesses talk of wind from the north. Tom Dillard said, "there
developed a very brisk north wind." (137) James Altgens says, "The north wind
caught her (Jackie Kennedy's) hat and almost blew it off." (138) So on this
point we have two supporting witnesses, two who offer no verification and one
that flatly contradicts Posner's statement. (139) The House Select Committee on
Assassinations checked the wind direction for that day and found that at 12:30
PM the wind was blowing from the west. (140) This wind direction suggests that
the occupants of the cars traveling west would not have smelled gunpowder at all
if the smell was originating from Texas School Book Depository. In fact it would
not have entered the Dealey Plaza zone at all and would have headed east from
Oswald's alleged perch. For the purpose of this study we will count this as one
error, even though it involves three misrepresentations of testimony. (L)
(134) WC Vol. 3, p. 273.
(135) WC Vol. 3, p. 282.
(136) WC Vol. 6,
p. 280.
(137) WC Vol. 6, p. 165.
(138) WC Vol. 7, p. 517.
(139)
Michael M. Dworetsky, "Wind and Gunsmoke: A Deception in Gerald Posner's Case
Closed," Electronic Assassinations Newsletter, Issue #1,
http://home.cynet.net/jfk/
(140) HSCA Vol. 8, pp. 21, 173-4.
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.
45) Page 257. Posner makes the statement that witness Gordon Arnold "was
not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination." Posner refers to unnamed
"photo enhancements" that he says proves Arnold is not there on the Grassy Knoll
where he claimed to have fallen to the ground immediately after the shots.
Senator Ralph Yarborough saw this account in a story in the Dallas Morning News
and confirmed, in another, later article in the Dallas Morning News, that
he saw a man drop down quickly just after hearing gunfire. (141) He thought to
himself that this was the reaction of a "combat veteran." (142) Posner claims
that Yarborough saw Bill Newman and not Arnold. Newman was an ex-serviceman but
Newman and his wife were close together and each had one of their small children
with them as they also fell to the ground on the Grassy Knoll. Yarborough
described a "young serviceman" in a uniform, but Newman was in civilian
clothing. Arnold was a 22-year-old just out on leave after completing his army
basic training. (143) Posner's unexplained "photo enhancements" would be
meaningless if Arnold was flat on the ground and out of sight of cameras at that
time. Posner also says that Arnold "ran into men with CIA identifications" on
the Grassy Knoll. Arnold, like others, has mentioned that there were men with
Secret Service credentials in the area (not CIA). (144) (L)
(141) Jim
Marrs, Crossfire, NY, Carroll & Graf, 1989, 1990, p. 78-9.
(142)
Earl Golz, "SS Impostors Spotted by JFK Witness,"Dallas Morning News,
August 27, 1978. Ralph Yarborough, Dallas Morning News, December 31,1978.
(143) Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980, p. 58-9.
(144) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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.
46) Page 264. Harold Weisberg explains that Posner was wrong when he says
that Oswald "hurried diagonally across the sixth floor." (145) The sixth floor
was full of books and this would have been impossible. A look at Commission
Exhibit 719 demonstrates this problem. (146) It is a photo of this floor of the
building that shows dense stacks of boxes piled high. These boxes would have
been in the way of this escape route. Perhaps Posner is aware that it would have
been unlikely that Oswald could have hidden the weapon in the manner in which it
was discovered and made it downstairs to be confronted by a police officer on a
lower floor in the time allotted him by the Warren Commission. Posner repeats
this error on his chart that shows a diagonal line through a representation of
the area that includes none of the boxes that were in the way of Posner's
imagined escape route. (147) (L)
(145) Harold Weisberg, Case Open:
The Omissions,Distortions and Falsifications of Case Closed, NY, Carroll and
Graf, 1994, p. 110.
(146) WC Vol. 17, p. 502.
(147) Case Closed,
p. 480.
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.
47) Page 268. Posner has a habit of wholeheartedly endorsing a witness on
one point that he needs to "prove" and then trying hard to discredit the same
witness on some other issue. On one hand he accepts the testimony of Earlene
Roberts (Oswalds rooming house landlady) when it comes to Oswald returning to
his room after the assassination to retrieve his jacket and pistol. Oswald
needed his jacket to conceal the pistol he allegedly murdered a Police officer
with after the assassination. (148) On the same page Posner refers to Hugh
Aynesworth's interviews with Roberts to cast doubt on her claim to have seen a
police car stop out front of the rooming house and honk while Oswald was getting
his jacket and gun. (149) Is Roberts a reliable witness or not? (150) (L)
(148) WC Vol. 6, p. 439.
(149) WC Vol. 6, p. 443.
(150) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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.
48) Page 272. Posner attempts to fool the unsuspecting reader into
thinking that Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were in agreement as to the
way Oswald carried the paper sack that supposedly contained the disassembled
rifle on the morning of the assassination. (151) Posner says the palm print of
Oswald was near the bottom of the bag. Frazier testified (but not Randle) that
Oswald held the lower part of the bag "with his right hand." (152) In this
example of Posnerian deception we are given no reference. If we revisit Randle's
testimony we see that she said Oswald held it near "the top." (153) It seems
even Warren Commission attorney Ball didn't know which end was which on this bag
(that he had with him during questioning of the witnesses). When Randle asked
him if she was correct in her guess as to where the bottom of the bag was, Ball
said, "I believe so, but I am not sure." (154) (L)
(151) James R.
Folliard, "Gerald Posner Closes the Case," The Fourth Decade, November,
1993.
(152) WC Vol. 2, p. 228.
(153) WC Vol. 2, p. 248.
(154) WC
Vol. 2, p. 249.
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.
49) Page 272. Posner loves to "debunk" assassination myths but he also
embraces them when they serve his purposes. He states that there was a gathering
of "every one of the Texas School Book Depository's employees on the first
floor. The only one missing was Lee Oswald." Posner gives no reference for this
"gathering." I discovered that J. Edgar Hoover sent a list of statements taken
by FBI agents of 73 persons who worked at the Texas School Book Depository to
the head council of the Warren Commission, J. Lee Rankin on April 3, 1964. If
you read every one of these sworn statements you will find no mention in any of
them (including the one signed by Roy Truly) of any roll call or "gathering" of
TSBD employees. (155) Reporter Kent Biffle supposedly saw two roll calls and he
says that at the second one everyone was there but Oswald. The second roll call
supposedly happened at 2:30 PM when Oswald was already in custody. (156) A
statistical breakdown of the 73 FBI statements reveals that 17 were never in the
building after 12:30 PM, 41 had left by 2:30 PM, 3 left between 2:30 PM and 3:00
PM, 4 were only in the TSBD briefly (after 2:30) and only 8 stated that they
left at times after 2:30 PM. Not only is there no mention of any "gathering,"
but the great majority of those who worked in the building had left by 2:30 PM.
(L)
(155) WC Vol. 22, CE 1381, pp. 632-86.
(156) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993. Kent Biffle, "Reporter Recalls the Day Camelot Died in
Dallas," Dallas Morning News, April 5, 1981.
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.
50) Page 273. In Posner's haste to debunk a story about three tramps
arrested in Dealey Plaza after the assassination, he commits one of his most
comical errors. Harold Weisberg tells us about researcher David Keck's discovery
that Posner said that one of the tramps was identified as "Buddy Harrelson."
Somehow, Posner got the father of actor Woody Harrelson confused with another
man named Harrelson. (157) Charles Harrelson is in jail for murder and once
supposedly claimed he was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Buddy Harrelson is a
former infielder with the New York Mets. (N)
(157) Harold
Weisburg,Case Open: The Omissions,Distortions and Falsifications of Case
Closed, NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, pp.77-8.
51) Page 288. This is one of the few innocent mistakes that has nothing
to do with who shot JFK. It's just another example of Posner getting people's
names wrong. (158) He has Diana Bowron's name spelled as Bowren both in the text
of his case closing "model of historical research," (159) and in the index on
page 587. (160) (N)
(158) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee
Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary
Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(159) Case
Closed, Steven Ambrose on back cover.
(160)Case Closed, p. 587.
52) Page 291. It's time for another example of Posner's talent for
self-contradiction. In his effort to confuse the head wound issue he quotes Dr.
Pepper Jenkins, of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, as claiming that Dr. Kemp Clark
first examined the head wound when Jenkins suggested that they give up and
declare JFK dead. Later he quotes Jenkins as saying "no one had time to examine
the wounds." (161) This is obviously not true if you examine the Warren
Commission testimony of the doctors who attended JFK at Parkland. Virtually all
of the Dallas doctors did examine the head wound and were remarkably consistent
in their description of it as being in the rear of the head. (162) Some of the
doctors have changed their tunes in later years to support the lone assassin
theory and Posner again violates his rule that "testimony closer to the event
must be given greater weight than changes or additions made years later." (163)
The occiput or occipital bone lies in the rear of the head and all of the
Parkland doctors reported a large wound in this area. Dr. Kemp Clark stated that
it was "in the right occiput" (164) Dr. Charles Carrico said, "a large gaping
wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area." (165) Dr. Paul Peters
described a "large defect" and placed it "in the right occipitoparietal
area."(166) Dr. Charles Baxter said, "cerebellum was present." (167) Cerebellum
is a part of the brain that is only found very low and in the rear of the head
(not at the top where Posner wants you to think the wound was). Dr. Pepper
Jenkins said "part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the
wound." (168) Dr. Malcolm Perry saw, "a large avulsive wound of the right
parietal occipital area." (169) Dr. Robert McClelland (one of the few who has
stood by his original description) said, "the right posterior portion of the
skull had been extremely blasted." (170) (L)
(161)Case Closed,
p. 309.
(162) Millicent Cranor, "The Wandering Wounds," The Fourth
Decade, March, 1994.
(163) Case Closed, p. 235.
(164) WC Vol.
17, p. 10.
(165) WC Vol. 6, p. 6.
(166) WC Vol. 6, p. 71.
(167) WC
Vol. 6, p. 41.
(168) WC Vol. 6, p. 48.
(169) WC Vol. 3, p. 371.
(170) WC Vol. 6, p. 33.
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
53) Page 294. The author states as fact that Darrell Tomlinson discovered
"a 6.5 mm bullet" on a stretcher that Posner says was John Connally's in
Parkland Hospital later in the day, after the assassination. Tomlinson's account
of this discovery seems to describe a stretcher that could not have been
Connally's as the one that held the "magic bullet." (171) A surprised Arlen
Specter was unable to get Tomlinson to be helpful on this matter because he
indicated that the bullet fell off of the stretcher that was already there (and
not the one that had been recently taken from the nearby elevator). (172) And no
one has ever explained how this bullet got underneath the mat of the stretcher
after wiggling itself out of Connally's leg (without Connally's surgeon
noticing). (173) (L)
(171) WC Vol. 6, pp. 130-1.
(172) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(173) WC Vol. 6, p. 130.
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
54) Page 305n. Posner explains away the bullet holes in the clothing that
are six inches below the top of his collar (which prove he was not shot in the
back of the neck) by stating that JFK's coat and shirt were "bunched and riding
up his back as a result of his waving to the crowd." Try this as an experiment
and you will find it impossible to do. We now have proof that this did not
happen in the form of a newly discovered film discovered by the Assassination
Records Review Board. (174) This film taken from the car behind JFK's limousine
shows no such bunching. Posner claims photos taken of the motorcade show the
bunched-up shirt and jacket and conveniently, he gives no reference as an
example. He also claims his back brace pushed his clothing up. This is
questionable, as you will see in the discussion of the upcoming item that
relates to pages 315-6. (L)
(174) Dave Powers film, National
Archives.
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.
55) Page 310. Posner mentions the 1988 Nova special hosted by Walter
Cronkite (who, by the way, has expressed contempt for "conspiracy theorists").
(175) The Parkland doctors were shown the autopsy photos and X rays. Posner says
that "each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered." If you
actually view that television program, you will see that the doctors were asked
where the head wound was. They all pointed to the backs of their heads. (176)
(L)
(175) Nova, "Who Shot President Kennedy?,"November 15, 1988.
(176) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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.
56) Page 310n. Gerald Posner tells us that the Zapruder film shows "that
there was no defect in the rear of the head." Martin Shackelford says that if
you look at clear still frames of Z316 and Z317 you can see what appears to be
cratering at the back of the head. (177) While this is perhaps inconclusive, it
certainly does not eliminate the possibility of a large, rear wound. The
Parkland doctors explained to Nova that the contradiction in their memories
about the location of the head wound might be explained by a flap of skin that
could have been pulled up to hide the large rear head wound. Posner debunks his
own witnesses on this point by quoting from an interview of HSCA medical
panelist, Dr. Michael Baden. Baden reportedly told Posner, "There is no flap of
skin there." (178) (L)
(177) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee
Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary
Critique", The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(178) Gerald
Posner interview with Dr. Michael Baden.
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
57) Pages 315-6. According to Posner, Kennedy's back brace was
"preventing him from falling foreword" when he was struck by a bullet fired from
behind. Secret Service agent William Greer (the limousine driver) cast doubt on
this possibility back in 1964 when he described the back brace to the Warren
Commission. Greer said that the brace was "a corset-type maybe six inches wide,
he wore it down around his haunches, a little lower than his waist." He further
described that it was constructed of "a soft, maybe a kind of corset-type
material, maybe elastic or something like that support." (179) Dr. Charles
Carrico, who helped in the efforts to save JFK when he was brought to Parkland
hospital, also describes the brace. He said "it was white cotton or some type of
fibrous support," said that it "buckled in the front" and that it came up to his
navel area." (180) Another Parkland doctor, Dr. Paul Peters, stated that "it
appeared similar to a corset." There was also another item that Peters described
as "an elastic bandage wrapped around his pelvis at - in a sort of figure eight
fashion." Dr. Peters stated that the purpose of this bandage was "additional
support to stabilize his pelvis." (181) (L)
(179) WC Vol. 2, p. 125.
(180) WC Vol. 6, p. 4.
(181) WC Vol. 6, p. 70.
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."
58) Page 321. Occasionally Posner refers to mysterious new "enhancements"
of the Zapruder film. He never really explains what he means by this, but he
attempts to use this to prove parts of his case. He claims that these
"enhancements" helped him deduce that a shot was fired around frame Z162. This
is because he has noticed that 10-year-old Rosemary Willis stops running
alongside the limousine and looks back toward the Texas School Book Depository
just after Z162. Posner claims this is new when it was actually first discovered
by David Lui back in the 70s. Lui noticed this when viewing a bad, bootleg copy
of the film. (182) He even has the nerve to cite David Lui's article as a
reference for a quote from Rosemary Willis later in his text. (183) (L)
(182) Harold Weisberg, Case Open: TheOmissions, Distortions and
Falsifications of Case Closed, NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, p. 11-14.
(183) David Lui, "The Little Girl Must Have Heard," The Dallas Times
Herald, June 3, 1979.
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?
59) Page 325. Posner claims to have interviewed witness James Tague on
January 19 and 20, 1992. From this interview Posner has some shocking new
information. Tague has changed his story and now says, "I can't tell you which
one" when asked by Posner which shot hit the curb and caused a fragment of lead
or concrete to nick his face. Then he also has Tague saying, "I could try to
pick one, but through the years I have maintained accuracy. I don't know which
one hit me." In fact, this new information pried out of him by Posner is not
consistent with the story Tague has told through the years. (184) Posner won't
quote Tague's original Warren Commission testimony because it disproves what he
claims Tague said to him. Posner uses this misinformation as evidence to support
his theory that Tague was actually hit by the first shot at Z162. Tague
testified (to Warren Commission attorney Liebeler) that "I believe it was the
second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards." (185) He has never even
hinted that it could have been the first shot. What is even more shocking about
this story is the fact that Tague was contacted by at least three researchers on
this point (Harold Weisberg, David Scheim and Dr. Gary Aguilar) and insisted
that Posner had never spoken to him at all. (L)
(184) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(185) WC Vol. 7, p. 555.
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.
60) Page 326. Scrapings of lead from the curbstone hit by the bullet that
caused James Tague's wound were, according to Posner, linked to one of Oswald's
bullets. He claims FBI agent Shaneyfelt testified to the Warren Commission that
the lead "came from the bullet's core." This is a classic Posner deception as
noticed by Harold Weisberg. (186) Posner gives no citation for this, but what
Shaneyfelt actually said was, "The lead could have originated from the lead core
of a mutilated metal-jacketed bullet such as the type of bullet loaded into a
6.5-millimeter Manlicher Carcano cartridge, or from some other source having the
same composition." (187) Shaneyfelt was unable to make a match with an Oswald
bullet or fragment. It wasn't matched to Oswald's rifle at all. Shaneyfelt
couldn't even state conclusively that it came from a Manlicher Carcano rifle or
even from a 6.5 mm bullet. (L)
(186) Harold Weisberg, Case Open:
The Omissions, Distortions and Falsifications of Case Closed, NY, Carroll
and Graf, 1994, p. 151.
(187) WC Vol. 15, p. 700.
My opinion - I agree, Posner should have said that lead could have come from
a bullet core.
61) Page 335. In Case Closed Posner makes use of 3D computer
graphics studies that were developed for an American Bar Association limited
mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald for one of their conventions. (188) He does this
without mentioning that there was another side of the case presented. He also
seems to be implying that these 3D animations or "enhancements" (as he
improperly describes them) were done for him. The prosecution had a firm by the
name of Failure Analysis Associates construct a three dimensional model of
Dealey Plaza. They projected a cone back to where the bullets might have
originated. There was a problem with the accuracy of their projections. They
were using data based on the single-bullet theory so the study was obviously
biased. Gerald Posner took this inaccurate study one level further from reality
by deleting a neighboring building from his illustration. A portion of The
Dal-Tex Building was included in the three dimensional cone that was projected
back from the wounds on the occupants in the limousine but it has disappeared
from Posner's version of the graphic. (189) (L)
(188) American Bar
Association, Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, August 10, 1992.
(189) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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.
62) Page 344n. Posner claims the miniature Minox "spy camera" found in
Oswald's belongings was actually Michael Paine's and says Paine verified this to
him. He does this in a way that casually dismisses shocking and blatant FBI
cover-up activities. He mentions that an FBI inventory listed it as a light
meter. This is an expensive camera that was frequently used for espionage
purposes. The FBI deleted this camera and replaced it with a benign item. They
deleted lots of other things too and there is no way to casually dismiss such
obvious evidence tampering by making an excuse later that it wasn't even
Oswald's. The Minox camera underwent several remarkable transformations and an
in-depth study of this and other FBI destruction and alteration of evidence has
been done by John Armstrong. (190) (L)
(190) John Armstrong, "The FBI
and the Framing of Oswald," The Probe, March-April, 1997.
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
63) Page 345n. Posner makes a false statement in relation to the fact
that Lee Harvey Oswald's wife, Marina, does not believe the lone assassin theory
and now feels he was a patsy. He says that she "has been bombarded by the
critics for three decades." (191) Marina was under the influence (her husband
describes it as under the control) of lone assassin author Priscilla McMillan
for the first 14 or 15 years after the assassination. Marina did not interact
with the Warren Commission critics until the late 70s when the book project
(that McMillan had Marina wrapped up in for so long) was finally released. (192)
(L)
(191) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(192) Priscilla McMillan,
Marina and Lee, NY, Harper and Row, 1977.
My opinion - Even if Marina was working with McMillan, It doesn't prove that
the critics didn't bombard her.
64) Page 346n. The author again accepts Marina's testimony on certain key
points and then, later attacks her by falsely stating that she "joined" with
British author Michael Eddowes, who believed that a "Soviet KGB agent was buried
in Oswald's grave. Marina agreed to an exhumation, not with any belief in this
improbable theory, but in an effort to prove him wrong. She was proven to be
right when the body was positively identified as Lee Harvey Oswald. (193)
Marina, who used to think her husband was the assassin, now feels there was a
conspiracy. Posner, in linking Marina to Eddowes is trying to make Marina look
like one of those nutty "conspiracy buffs" that Posner attacks so often in
Case Closed. (194) (L)
(193) Detroit Free Press, August
15, 1980.
(194) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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.
65) Page 348. Posner uses former Dallas Assistant District Attorney Bill
Alexander as a source (who he cites at least 16 times) but also describes how
Alexander perpetrated a colossal fraud on the Warren Commission. Alexander tells
Posner a story about how he made the supposedly phony claim that Oswald was an
FBI informer with a symbol code of S-179. This was such a serious issue to the
Warren Commission that Texas officials were brought in to Washington, DC to
explain. The Warren Commission held a secret executive session to discuss this
earth-shaking possibility. Alexander explains that he "never much liked the
Federals" and he figured he'd "keep them out of the way by having to run down
that phony story." One thing Posner relies on Alexander for is to downplay Jack
Ruby's mob connections. (195) Alexander also declared in the early hours of the
investigation that Oswald was a part of a communist conspiracy. (196) Why would
Posner consider a character like this to be a reliable source of information on
which to help him "close" the case? (197) The Warren Commission dealt with the
issue of Oswald as a possible US intelligence operative by taking testimony from
directors J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI (198) and John McCone of the CIA. (199)
Both McCone and Hoover claimed that Oswald was not an agent of US intelligence.
(L)
(195) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(196) Anthony Summers,
Conspiracy, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980, p. 434. William Manchester, The
Death of a President, NY, Harper & Row, 1967, p 287.
(197) Peter
Dale Scott, "A Review of Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK," Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Skokie,
Illinois, Green Archives Publications, 1995.
(198) WC Vol. 5, p. 105.
(199) WC Vol. 5, p. 120.
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.
66) Page 355. Posner takes the word of another discredited witness to
debunk conspiratorial possibilities involving Jack Ruby. He accepts Tony Zoppi's
explanation that Ruby was a "low-level loser," and therefore unimportant and
unlikely to be trusted with involvement in any plot. Zoppi told the House Select
Committee on Assassinations a story about how, in 1959, he was supposed to go
with Ruby on one of Ruby's mysterious trips to Cuba to see the mobster associate
Lewis McWillie. (200) Zoppi said he had to instead go to Las Vegas on an
assignment as entertainment reporter for the Dallas Morning News. Ruby went on
to Cuba and Zoppi said he went to Vegas to see Frank Sinatra. When confronted
with the fact that Sinatra was not performing in Vegas on that date, Zoppi
retracted the false story. (201) His testimony was considered suspect by the
HSCA but he qualifies as a source of information for Gerald Posner to "close"
the case. (202) (L)
(200) HSCA Vol. 5, p. 170, Vol. 9, pp. 164-9.
(201) Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, The Plot to Kill the
President, NY, Times Books, 1981, p. 300.
(202) Peter Dale Scott, "A
Review of Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination
of JFK," Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Skokie, Illinois, Green
Archives Publications, 1995.
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.
67) Page 361. Again Posner relies on Zoppi to debunk Ruby's gangster
connections. (203) He quotes Zoppi responding to the idea of a Ruby-mob link
with the statement that, "It is so ludicrous to believe Ruby was part of the
mob." He says Ruby was a "snitch" and that "he couldn't keep a secret" as proof
of Ruby's untrustworthiness. Posner, of course, makes no mention of Zoppi's own
links with mob-related casinos and his admitted lies during sworn testimony to
the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (204) It seems that just about any
witness that supplies Posner with what he needs to hear is good enough despite
many of his sources' demonstrable lack of reliability. (205) (L)
(203) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993. (204) HSCA Vol. 5, p. 171, Vol. 9, pp.
167-8.
(205) Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Berkeley,
CA, University of California Press, 1993, p.199.
My opinion - Same as the previous opinion.
68) Page 368n. Posner will stop at nothing to debunk Ruby's mob ties. On
one hand he admits Ruby ate dinner the night before the assassination at Dallas
Mafia figure Joseph Campisi's Egyptian Lounge. On the other hand Posner says
that "Campisi did not see Ruby that night." (206) Where does the "proof" of this
categorical statement originate? It is from Dallas Mafiosi Joseph Campisi's
account given to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (207) This is a
man that (the HSCA determined) had attended Ruby's funeral and even visited him
when he was in jail after Ruby's murder of Oswald. (208) Campisi was no
small-time hoodlum. He was the number two mobster in the city behind the big
boss, Joseph Civello. Campisi is typical of the quality of Posner's sources upon
whom he relies to convict Oswald. (L)
(206) Martin Shackelford,
"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald
Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September,
1993.
(207) HSCA Vol. 9, pp. 335-417.
(208) Robert Blakey and Richard
Billings, The Plot to Kill the President, NY, Times Books, 1981, p.335.
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.
69) Page 372. Researcher Frank Perri discovered that Posner incorrectly
quotes a statement attributed to John Newnam from Jack Ruby. John Newnam worked
in the Dallas Morning News advertising department and allegedly saw Ruby at the
newspaper's offices soon after the assassination. Newnam's name is commonly
misspelled as Newman in assassination literature. (209) Posner, who misspells
many names in his error-ridden book, also gets Newnam's name consistently wrong.
(210) Posner says Ruby told Newnam, " John, I will leave Dallas. John, I am not
opening tonight." Posner took some liberties in quoting what Ruby says Newnam
said. He left out what may be a key word in the first sentence and omitted quite
a bit of interesting information between the first and second sentences of the
"quote." The full and accurate quote from Ruby's testimony is, "And I said,
'John, I will have to leave Dallas.' I don't know why I said that, but it is a
funny reaction that you feel; the city is terribly let down by the tragedy that
happened. And I said, 'John, I am not opening up tonight.' " (211) Posner put
his truncated version of Ruby's statement in quotes, as if it is verbatim. I
would guess that Posner probably omits the word "have" because it could be
interpreted to mean he will be forced to get out of town for some reason
(perhaps related to conspiracy). The inference one takes from Posner's altered
version is that Ruby just wants to leave town (maybe relating to shame or
disgust at what happened in Dallas). Posner also leaves out Ruby's excuse for
saying he "will have to leave Dallas" by describing it as a "funny reaction." It
is impossible to be certain why Posner edits Ruby's testimony in this manner,
but it is indicative of his tendency to play fast and loose with quotations,
almost as if he were composing a historical novel. (L)
(209) WC Vol.
15, pp. 534-46, Vol. 25, p. 189.
(210) Case Closed, pp. 366, 371,
372, 373, 599.
(211) WC Vol. 5, 185.
My opinion - Posner will have to speak for himself about what his motives
were for this misquote
70) Page 373. Posner admits that the Warren Commission was mistaken in
taking Jack Ruby's word over reporter Seth Kantor's about Ruby visiting Parkland
Hospital in Dallas just after the assassination. Posner then incorrectly states
that "no one saw him except Kantor" and claims another witness, Wilma Tice, is
unsure about also seeing Ruby at Parkland. (212) She was much more certain about
this than Posner suggests. (213) The Warren Commission attorney that cast doubt
on her story, Burt Griffin, (214) later wrote to Kantor (after reading Kantor's
book) (215) and told him in the letter that he now believed him about Ruby being
there. The House Select Committee on Assassinations also felt Ruby was there.
Why does Posner feel the need to discredit the corroborating witness while
accepting the primary one? Posner may also be unaware of another reporter named
Roy Stamp who also knew Ruby and saw him at Parkland that day. (216) (N)
(212) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(213) WC Vol. 15, pp. 285-7, pp.
388-96, 374.
(214) WC Vol. 15, p. 391.
(215) Seth Kantor, Who was
Jack Ruby?, NY, Everest House, 1978.
(216) Video of Roy Stamp speaking
to Jim Marrs class on the JFK assassination.
71) Page 407. Posner is often a bit too quick to accept questionable
information from whatever source when he needs to prove something. He cites
Edward Jay Epstein as a source for saying that the Warren Commission staff
attorneys were never turned down when they asked to see witnesses (out of over
400 requests). (217) This sweeping statement misrepresents the occasional
problems that the Warren Commission attorneys faced when trying to get access to
information. Epstein cites as his sources for this statement, interviews with
Warren Commission lawyers Rankin, Willens, Liebeler and Redlich. (218) In fact
Warren Commission attorney Burt Griffin has said that the staff was isolated
from contact with the Commissioners. Even Posner gives us a quote from Griffin
about this. He says Griffin told him that J. Lee Rankin (who was the liaison
between the attorneys and the actual members of the Commission) "operated with
his door always closed" to the other staff attorneys. (219) Perhaps the most
disturbing example of access to a witness being denied to the attorneys is found
in the jail house interview of Jack Ruby. (220) The lawyers in charge of looking
into the Jack Ruby area (Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin) were excluded from the
interview. (221) Griffin is bitter about this and also about the lack of
cooperation from federal agencies such as the CIA and FBI (L)
(217) Edward Jay Epstein, Inquest: The Warren Commission and the
Establishment of Truth, NY, Viking, 1966, pp. 71-2.
(218) Edward Jay
Epstein, Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment ofTruth,
NY, Viking, 1966, p. 212, note 22.
(219) Case Closed, p. 409.
(220) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique, The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(221) John Davis, The Kennedy
Contract: The Mafia Plot to Assassinate the President, NY, Harper, 1993. pp.
144-6.
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?
72) Page 410. Here we have yet another typographical error in this book
that is so highly praised for Posner's "outstanding job of research." (222) It
is the kind of error so rarely found in scholarly works released by major
publishers. When referring to one of the doctors who performed the autopsy on
JFK the evening of the assassination, Posner calls him Dr. "Hume" instead of Dr.
Humes. (N)
(222) Case Closed, Steven Ambrose on back cover.
73) Page 410. Posner concedes that the "magic" or "single-bullet theory"
was not proven by the Warren Commission. Even Posner characterizes their
conclusions as "an attempt to create a scenario to fit the facts as the
Commission determined them." Posner claims that technological advancements "now
confirm that the theory is correct." (223) For this proof he cites Neutron
Activation Analysis studies and photographic and computer techniques. Posner
claims Vincent Guinn used Neutron Activation Analysis to prove the fragments of
bullet found in Connally's wrist came from the magic bullet. (224) Posner does
not tell you that Guinn was clear in saying that his NAA studies did not prove
the single-bullet theory. (225) Strike one for Posner's technological
advancements. It is uncertain what Posner is talking about in the area of
photographic advancements, but perhaps he is referring to his mysterious and
unexplained "enhancements" of the Zapruder film that supposedly helped Posner
discover that a little girl turned in response to a shot around frame Z162.
(226) He never describes what kind of "enhancements" these are, but seems to
indicate they are new and were done for him. Strike two on Posner's
technological advancements. When Posner talks about computer techniques, he must
be referring to the Failure Analysis Associates' 3D animation work. He also
gives the readers the impression that this work was done for him. (227) As you
may recall these 3D studies were done from a prosecutorial standpoint and relied
on data that is derived from assumptions relating to the single-bullet theory.
(228) Strike three and Posner is out on his new technological advancements
allowing Posner to "confirm" the single-bullet theory. (L)
(223)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(224)Case Closed, pp. 341-2.
(225) HSCA
Vol. 1, p. 500.
(226) See item 58, and p. 321 of Case Closed.
(227) See item 61, and p. 335 of Case Closed.
(228) Harold
Weisberg,Case Open: The Omissions,Distortions and Falsification of Case
Closed, NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, p. 85.
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.
74) Page 414. Some of Posner's errors are just sloppy work on his part.
Posner says, "Harold Weisberg published the first in-depth attack on the Warren
Report" in 1966. (229) Whitewash was published in 1965, as Posner should know
from his own bibliography (230) and from the endnote following his mention of
the incorrect year. (231) He also quotes from Professor Robert Blakey as saying
Weisberg's logic makes "complex issues confusing." (232) Weisberg, unlike
Posner, does not generate confusion deliberately. (L)
(229)Harold
Weisberg, Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report, Frederick, MD,
self-published, 1965.
(230) Case Closed, p. 583.
(231) Case
Closed, note 25, p. 571.
(232) Robert Blakey and Richard Billings,
The Plot to Kill the President, NY, Times Books, 1981, p.41.
My opinion - How does this mistaken date make Posner's book more biased
towards a lone assassin?
75) Page 415. Posner claims that "A rash of books appeared on the heels
of Lane's success." Posner was referring to other "buffs" who wanted to
capitalize on the assassination because they saw how Lane's 1966 book on the JFK
assassination, Rush to Judgment, was such a hit. (233) Posner blunders and lists
one author, Leo Sauvage as falling into this imaginary category without knowing
that a European edition of Sauvage's book was released the year before Lane's.
(234) Posner ignores the book by Pulitzer Prize winning author Sylvan Fox that
preceded Lane's book. (235) Posner was nominated for this award himself for Case
Closed (those who select candidates for this award should see this list of
Posner's errors so they don't make that mistake in the future). In Mark Lane's
second book on the assassination of JFK, he gives the release date for Rush to
Judgment as being August 15, 1966. (236) Another of the books that Posner lists
as appearing after Lane's book actually came out in May 1966.(237) Posner lists
two other authors in this "rash of books," but he probably doesn't know they
were both working on their books before Lane's was released. (238) (L)
(233) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(234) Leo Sauvage, The Oswald
Affair, Paris, France, Les Editions de Minuit, 1965.
(235) Sylvan Fox,
The Unanswered Questions about President Kennedy'sAssassination, NY,
Award Books, 1965.
(236) Mark Lane, Citizen's Dissent: Mark Lane Replies,
NY, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, p. 47.
(237) Penn Jones, Forgive My
Grief, Midlothian, TX, self-published, 1966.
(238) Richard Popkin,
The Second Oswald, NY, Avon Books, 1966. Ray Marcus, The Bastard
Bullet: The Search for Legitimacy for CommissionExhibit 399, Los Angeles,
CA, self-published, 1966.
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
76) Page 416. Posner occasionally over-simplifies in order to
misrepresent, choosing to avoid contradictory information rather than meeting it
head-on. An example of this is found in his casual dismissal of an FBI report
that stated that the back wound in JFK "only penetrated a short distance and did
not exit." He says the House Select Committee on Assassinations "confirmed that
the FBI report was simply mistaken" about this key issue (which disproves the
single-bullet theory). The FBI actually said in the report that the hole in the
President's back was located "six inches below the top of his collar" and that
it "entered his back" and "penetrated to a distance of less than a finger
length." (239) On what did the FBI base this supposed mistake? The reports of
the FBI's two agents who witnessed the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis
O'Neill) were very clear in stating that the wound was probed by the autopsy
doctors and that it had no exit. Corroboration for this conclusion comes from
the testimony of the Secret Service agent who was in charge of Presidential
security on the Dallas trip. Roy H. Kellerman confirms the FBI conclusion in his
testimony to the Warren Commission on March 9, 1964. Kellerman stated that he
asked one of the autopsy doctors, Colonel Pierre Finck about what he was finding
as he was "probing inside the shoulder with his instrument." Finck stated to
Kellerman that "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
shoulder." (240) (L)
(239) FBI Supplemental Report, Appendix B, p. 2,
reproduced in: Edward Jay Epstein, Inquest: The Warren Commission and the
Establishment of Truth, NY, Viking, 1966.
(240) WC Vol. 2, p. 93.
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.
77) Page 418n. Abraham Zapruder, according to Posner, sold the rights to
the Zapruder film of the assassination to Life magazine "for a reported
$250,000.00." The person who purchased the film for Life, Richard Stolley, has
stated that the correct amount that was paid was $150,000.00. (241) He also
fails to mention that it was sold back to the Zapruder family for one dollar and
they have capitalized on it ever since. (242) (N)
(241) Richard
Stolley, Entertainment Weekly, Jan. 17, 1992.
(242) Martin
Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
78) Page 419. Sylvia Meagher is one of Posner's favorite targets as one
of the "conspiracy buffs" that he must prove to be greedy, crazy or incompetent
in his effort to discredit them. It is a testimony to her accuracy that Posner
fails in every attempt (because his attacks have no basis in reality). He
criticizes her outstanding index to the Warren Commission volumes by calling it
biased towards Oswald's innocence. He claims that he made one himself that has
many more references to Oswald's potential for violence. (243) Considering
Posner's own questionable journalistic integrity (exemplified by this list of
errors), I have my doubts that his "new card index" even exists. If it does, I
would hazard a guess that it is far more biased than Meagher's. As Harold
Weisberg points out, it seems Posner is trying to minimize the colossal
undertaking involved in indexing the 26 volumes by incorrectly stating that they
contain "more than one million words." The actual, official estimate of the
amount of words contained in the volumes is ten million. (244) It would seem
unlikely that Posner would have had the time to read and index this mass of
words in the time that he spent creating Case Closed. If he has done
this, then there is no excuse for his apparent ignorance of their content.
(L)
(243) Case Closed, p. 419n.
(244) Harold Weisberg,
Case Open: The Omissions, Distortions and Falsifications of Case Closed,
NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, p. 32.
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.
79) Page 422. One more example of Posner's inaccuracy is found in his
statement as to when the Jim Garrison investigation into the murder of JFK
began. He states that it "started in July 1966" but gives no reference for this
date. The investigation became public in February of 1967. (245) Perhaps Posner
means the time when Garrison first considered re-opening the investigation of
David Ferrie (that he initiated back in 1963). The FBI questioned and then
released Ferrie in late 1963 and Garrison dropped his investigation at that
time, thinking that this was the end of the matter. If you check Garrison's 1988
book (246) you will see that, as of "late 1966," Garrison still felt the
conspiracy theories "were so much speculation." It wasn't until he spoke with
United States Senator Russell Long "one day that autumn" that he again began to
consider conspiratorial possibilities. According to Garrison, Senator Long told
him, "Those fellows on the Warren Commission were dead wrong." (N)
(245) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(246) Jim Garrison, On the
Trail of the Assassins, NY, Sheridan Square Press, 1988, p. 13.
80) Page 426. Posner echoes the old Garrison smear that Garrison had a
"special relationship with Carlos Marcello," the powerful New Orleans mob
kingpin. Are we to infer by this that Garrison was a mob associate or is
Garrison actually some kind of a gangster himself? The failure of this line of
thought becomes evident when you consider the first subject of Garrison's
investigation was a man (David Ferrie) who was closely associated with Marcello.
(247) Ferrie worked as an investigator for Marcello on his legal defense staff
and may have acted, at times, as Marcello's personal pilot. You have to wonder
about the self-defeating logic employed by Posner on this issue. (L)
(247) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
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.
81) Page 431. In his prosecution of Clay Shaw for the JFK assassination
in the late 60s, Garrison made so many tactical errors and sometimes was fed
inaccurate information. Posner is no slouch in this department either. In his
machine gun-like barrage of anti-Garrison shots he makes similar and equally
shocking mistakes. Posner claims that Garrison was about to swear out a warrant
for a man named Robert Perrin but found out the night before (supposedly from
Harold Weisberg) that Perrin had died in 1962. (248) This was common knowledge
to anyone who had read the testimony of Perrin's wife, Nancy Perrin Rich. (249)
The fact is that Posner failed to explain that Garrison was under the impression
at the time that Perrin had faked his death and was still alive. But, for the
sake of argument let's assume that at some Garrison came to believe that Perrin
was actually dead. While Garrison may have been in error in thinking this man
was alive and could be brought in as a witness against Clay Shaw for the murder
of JFK, Posner does him one better. Posner states that Garrison considered that
one Manuel Garcia Gonzales was "one of the assassins in Dealey Plaza." Posner
then smugly states, "There was no such person." It turns out that there is a
good chance that this person really does did exist. (250) A picture of Gonzales
was published in the assassination literature in 1976. (251) (L)
(248) Case Closed, p. 448n.
(249) WC Vol. 14, p. 364.
(250)Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(251) Gary Shaw with Larry Harris,
Cover-up, Clebourne, TX, self-published, 1976, p. 164.
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.
82) Page 438. Several reporters covering the Garrison trial of Clay Shaw
in the late 60s seemed to be more interested in actively discrediting Garrison
than in sitting back and simply watching him succeed or fail on his own. Files
released in recent years suggest that some of these journalists were
collaborating with the US intelligence agencies in their efforts to "counter"
Garrison's efforts. Posner relies on them heavily as sources for his
anti-Garrison information. Posner gives no source when he talks about "numerous
stories in New Orleans about Garrison being homosexual." Posner refers to a
"prominent New Orleans attorney" who "told" Posner that Jim Garrison "tried to
sexually molest" the attorney's brother in 1968. (252) He also mentions a
"February 1970 column" by Jack Anderson as further "corroboration." (253) It
seems we are treated to more of Posner's self-defeating logic when he quotes
James Phelan quoting Garrison saying that the assassination "was a homosexual
thrill killing" on one hand (254) and then repeating an unsubstantiated rumor
that Garrison molested a thirteen year old boy in 1968. (L)
(252)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
(253) Jack Anderson's Merry-Go-Round column. The
Washington Post, Feb. 23, 1970. Reprinted in: James Kirkwood, American
Grotesque, NY, Simon & Schuster, 1970, p. 652.
(254) James Phelan,
Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels, NY, Random House, 1982, p. 150.
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.
83) Page 446n. Posner says that Garrison claimed that a woman named Rose
Cheramie, who died in 1965, predicted the assassination. Posner tells the
readers that Cheramie "actually told the story after the assassination." This is
supposedly another myth generated by Garrison, who was heavily influenced by
"the buffs." (255) The reality of the situation is that Posner's source, Dr.
Victor Weiss told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that a Dr. Bowers
told Weiss that this woman did warn of the event before it occurred. (256)
Posner states correctly (but deceptively) that Dr. Weiss himself did not hear
her speak of this until after the assassination. (257) Unfortunately for Posner,
police Lieutenant Francis Fruge corroborated Dr. Bowers' story and said that he
was given this same warning by Cheramie two days before the assassination. (258)
(L)
(255) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(256) Gary Aguilar, "Letter to the
Editor of the Federal Bar News and Journal," Federal Bar News and
Journal, 1994.
(257) HSCA Vol. 10, pp. 199-205.
(258) Anthony
Summers, Conspiracy, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980, pp. 576-7.
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.)
84) Page 450. Quoting from James Phelan's book, Posner claims Garrison
knew that one of his witnesses, Charles Spiesel, was unstable and put him on the
stand anyway, over his staff's objections. I can't say conclusively that Posner
is wrong about this but the source is questionable. (259) He relies on Phelan (a
veteran Garrison-basher), who claims that Clay Shaw and an anonymous "Garrison
aide" are the originators of this information. (260) Without more convincing
evidence of the truthfulness of this attack, it is best to consider this
information unreliable. (L)
(259) Martin Shackelford, "Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique, The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(260)
James Phelan, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels, NY, Random House, 1982,
p. 174.
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?
85) Page 454. When Posner misspells someone's name he usually gets it
wrong everywhere it appears in Case Closed. Santos Trafficante is spelled as
Santo on pages 360, 454, 458, 459 and 605. Sometimes Posner shows remarkable
consistency in his errors. (261) (N)
(261) Martin Shackelford,
"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald
Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September,
1993.
86) Page 460. We have another Case Closed spelling error. Posner
has special problems with Italian first names. We saw in the previous example
how he turned Santos into Santo. Now we see he has a tough time with the name
Carlo. It has been transformed to an English version and appears as Carl when he
refers to Carlo Roppolo. (262) (N)
(262) Martin Shackelford, "Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
87) Page 460. Can we find a worse witness than one of Carlos Marcello's
long-time personal friends? (263) It seems he's good enough for Gerald Posner.
Posner uses him to disprove the story of the New Orleans mob chieftain, Carlos
Marcello making a threat to kill JFK in the summer of 1962. It seems Posner is
more likely to take the word of a mob associate, Carlo "Carl" Roppolo, than an
undercover FBI informant by the name of Edward Becker. (264) The House Select
Committee on Assassinations received testimony about Becker's credibility. An
FBI agent testified to the Committee that Becker worked for him as an informant
and described Becker as being "honest." (265) (L)
(263) John Davis,
Mafia Kingfish, NY, Signet, 1989, p. 119.
(264) Martin Shackelford,
"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner:
A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(265) HSCA Vol. 9, p. 83.
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.
88) Page 460. The third error on this page involves Posner's statement
that Ed Becker was approaching Marcello to try to interest him in "distributing
an oil additive he had invented." (266) Becker was trying to obtain financing
for Carlo Roppolo. Roppolo was actually the one who had developed the oil
additive. (267) It was during a meeting to make this pitch that Marcello
allegedly went on a murderous verbal tirade against both John and Robert
Kennedy. (268) (L)
(266) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee
Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary
Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(267) John
Davis, Mafia Kingfish, NY, Signet, 1989, p. 119.
(268) Ed Reid,
The Grim Reapers, NY, Bantam, 1969, 1970, pp. 161-2.
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?
89) Page 468n. Posner talks about a film that he describes as having been
"inspired by the assassination." According to Posner, in the movie Winter
Kills, "the slain President's brother discovers the Mafia was responsible
for the assassination." (269) In the film, and also in the book, the culprit
(who confesses to the President's brother) was the President's father. (270)
(N)
(269) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(270) Richard Condon,
WinterKills, NY, The Dial Press, 1974.
90) Page 469. We have seen so many examples of Posner's inability to even
get people's names right, let alone the circumstances relating to the mentioned
persons. This time he goes beyond misspelling and gives this person an entirely
new first name. University of Wisconsin Professor David Wrone becomes Richard
Wrone. (271) (N)
(271) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey
Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique,"
The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
91) Page 473. In Posner's deceptive adoption of 3D animation work done by
the prosecution for a limited mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, Posner states
that "the source of the shots can be determined with precision." This is
completely false because the animation was constructed with data based on key
assumptions of the single bullet theory. Both Harold Weisberg and Martin
Shackelford pointed out that this 3D animation is a case of "garbage in and
garbage out." (272) (L)
(272) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed:
Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993. Harold
Weisberg, Case Open: The Omissions, Distortions and Falsifications of Case
Closed, NY, Carroll and Graf, 1994, p. 85
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.
92) Page 477. We have already discussed the omission, by Posner, of a
neighboring building from his illustration based on the Failure Analysis
Associates 3D animation study for the American Bar Association. Clarifying the
earlier implication that this was done for him was one of the few changes
included in the paperback version of Case Closed that came out the year
following the hardcover version. (273) In Posner's graphic of the Texas School
Book Depository we see a depiction of the alleged assassin's window that has it
half open. (274) In fact, Posner's own graphic on a different page shows a
somewhat more accurate depiction of the window being approximately one third
open. (275) There were also many other windows that were open that day on that
side of the building. This can be seen in a photo taken by Tom Dillard just
after the shots were fired. (276) The Warren Commission determined that the
window was about one quarter open, as seen in Commission Exhibits 1310-2. (277)
(L)
(273) Martin Shackelford, "What a (small) Difference a Year
Makes: The "Corrected" Paperback Version of Case Closed: A Follow-up by
Martin Shackelford," The Investigator, August-September, 1994.
(274)
Case Closed, pp. 477-8.
(275) Case Closed, p. 475.
(276)
WC Vol. 19, p. 564.
(277) WC Vol. 22, pp. 484-5.
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.
93) Page 478. In Posner's close-up illustration of his version of the
single-bullet theory we see a graphic representation of Posner's claim that the
bullet grazed one of JFK's vertebra in his neck and slightly splintered the
bone. Here is another example of Posner using a source for one thing and totally
ignoring the same source for another. (278) What Posner doesn't say, of course,
is that the Ramsay Clark medical panel in 1968 (that Posner relies so heavily
upon to prove a high head entrance wound) concluded from their extensive study
of the X rays that there was "no evidence of fracture of the cervical and
thoracic vertebrae." (279) (L)
(278) Martin Shackelford, "Case
Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A
Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(279) "Panel Review of Photographs, X ray Films, Documents and other
Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy, November
22, 1963, in Dallas Texas," (Clark Panel Report), 1968.
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?
94) Page 479. On Posner's John Connally section of his illustration of
his version of the single-bullet theory we see a notation for an entry wound in
Connally's back being 1 3/4 inches long. Testimony by Connally's attending
thoracic surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, puts the size of the wound at "a centimeter
and a half at its greatest diameter." (280) Perhaps Posner thinks Shaw is
incompetent, since Shaw failed to notice the magic bullet jumping out of
Connally's leg and making its own way underneath the mat of the stretcher (that
was never proven to be Connally's stretcher by the Warren Commission). For those
unable to convert metric measurements into inches, one and one half centimeters
is just slightly more than half of an inch and nowhere near the size shown in
Posner's illustration. (281) (L)
(280) WC Vol. 4, p. 104.
(281)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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
95) Page 485. We have seen how Posner has great difficulty spelling names
correctly in earlier provided examples. But can he count? In attempting to
debunk Jim Marrs' list of one hundred or so convenient deaths, Posner makes a
few errors in his evaluation of the deaths. (282) We see Posner's statement that
"51 of Marrs' witnesses did not die until the 1970s, well over a decade after
the assassination." Hasn't Posner overlooked the ones that died in the period of
January 1, 1970 through November 22, 1973? (283) It is possible that this is a
typographical error and what he really meant to say was "the decade," instead of
"well over a decade." (N)
(282) Jim Marrs, Crossfire, NY,
Carroll & Graf, 1989, 1990, pp. 555-66.
(283) Martin Shackelford,
"Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald
Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator, August-September,
1993.
96) Page 486. Posner has more name trouble when he misspells the name of
Life magazine reporter Paul Mandel as Paul Mandal. (284) Posner credits "Mandal"
with writing "a single article on the assassination." Mandel is actually
notorious for a rather incredible error in his description of the shot hitting
JFK in the front of the throat. Mandel describes this frontal neck shot as
supposedly coming from the Texas School Book Depository. This mistake is very
similar to when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film JFK head snap as going
foreword instead of backwards. Mandel describes JFK turning back to look at the
Depository and receiving the bullet from our lone assassin as he was turned
around. (285) The trouble with this scenario is that it is a complete fantasy,
as can be seen from viewing the film. (286) Perhaps Mandel assumed that the
Zapruder film would never be seen by the general public because, by that time,
Life had purchased and hidden the film away from public view. (N)
(284) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(285) Paul Mandel, "End to Nagging
Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds," Life, December, 6, 1963.
(286)
Abraham Zapruder film, National Archives.
97) Page 488. As proof for his readers that Abraham Zapruder's death was
not mysterious, Posner claims Zapruder "was not involved in the investigation."
Zapruder's film was, arguably, one of the most important pieces of evidence in
all of the investigations that followed the assassination. (287) He gave
important testimony about the taking of the film to the Warren Commission and
his film was the basis for many of their conclusions. (288) Zapruder is also
frequently cited as a witness to shots from the Grassy Knoll. Zapruder, in his
testimony to the Warren Commission, thought the shots came from behind him, but,
because of echo, was not absolutely certain where they originated. (289)
(L)
(287) Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and
the Assassination of JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The
Investigator, August-September, 1993.
(288) WC Vol. 7, pp. 569-76.
(289) WC Vol. 7, p. 572.
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.
98) Page 496. One of Posner's "debunked" mysterious deaths is that of
Mary Sherman. As author Jim DiEugenio points out, Mary Sherman was not killed in
an accidental fire (as Posner would have you believe). Posner gets the cause of
death wrong. She didn't die as a result of burns or smoke inhalation. If you
consider the knife wounds in her arm, leg, stomach and one that pierced her
heart, it makes little sense to label her death as an accident. (290) There is
another mistake in his evaluation of the death of Mary Sherman that has no
bearing on conspiracy. It is just another example of his carelessness. Posner
says Sherman died in 1967. Dr. Mary Sherman (who was an associate of David
Ferrie) died in 1964 on the day that the Warren Commission began taking
testimony in New Orleans. (291) Her death is still considered an unsolved murder
by New Orleans Police. (292) (L)
(290) New Orleans Parish Coroner's
Office, Autopsy Report on Mary Sherman, July 21, 1964. Edward T. Haslam,
Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus, Albuquerque, NM, 1995, pp. 248-50.
(291) Jim DiEugenio, "Posner in New Orleans: Gerry in Wonderland,"
Dateline Dallas, November 22, 1993.
(292) Kermit Tarleton, "Clues
Lacking in Killing of Dr. Mary Sherman," New Orleans States Item, July
21, 1964.
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.
99) Page 498. Posner just can't see why Warren Commissioner and United
States Congressman Hale Boggs should be considered a mysterious death. His plane
was never found so we can't be sure what caused the crash that killed him. His
open attacks in the halls of Congress comparing J. Edgar Hoover's tactics to
that of "Hitler's Gestapo" on April 5, 1971 might be worth considering. (293)
His statements of doubts as to the lone assassin conclusion of the Warren
Commission (that depended mostly on Hoover's FBI for investigative material)
also should weigh in with any consideration of the possibility of foul play in
his death. (294) Posner does whatever he can to cast doubt on any mysterious
deaths because that would indicate a conspiracy (which prevents a "closing" of
the case). (L)
(293) Washington Post, April 6, 1971.
(294)
Martin Shackelford, "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of
JFK, by Gerald Posner: A Preliminary Critique," The Investigator,
August-September, 1993.
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.
100) Page 593. We have seen many examples of Posner's tendency to have
trouble keeping names straight. We saw how he confused a convicted murderer with
a professional baseball player. (295) Here is another example that is almost as
humorous. Posner, in his index, actually combines two people into one. He lists
page numbers for Richard Russell under one listing when they refer to both
Senator Richard B. Russell and author Dick Russell. This is our careful Pulitzer
Prize nominee whose book was described by historian Steven Ambrose as "a model
of historical research" and as an "outstanding job of research." (296)
(N)
(295)Case Closed, p. 273.
(296)Case Closed,
Steven Ambrose on back cover.
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".