Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (110 page)

The House Select Committee on Assassinations issued a preliminary
report on December 30, 1978.

Out of time and money, but faced with the acoustical tests results, it
could only conclude that President John F. Kennedy "was probably
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy," but that the Committee was
"unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. "

The Committee, under Blakey, had gone right to the finish trying to
find Oswald the lone assassin. Then at the eleventh hour, they were
forced to conclude that at least two assassins were involved.

Assassination researchers were greatly pleased with the revelation of
more than one gunmen in the Kennedy murder. Others were not so
impressed by the Committee's findings. A sampling of reactions include:

MARGUERITE OSWALD: . . . the select committee has done its work, tried
hard, they are men of integrity, but they made the same mistake as the
Warren Commission. My late son, Lee Harvey Oswald, was framed for
the murder of President Kennedy. . . . They are saying in effect that
Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the gunmen and I will emphatically say
they are wrong.

DALLAS DISTRICT ATTORNEY HENRY WADE: I have no idea if there was a
conspiracy or not. I doubt the Committee knows. If they bring us a body
and say he is a conspirator, we'll prosecute him . . .

DAVID BELIN (Warren Commission attorney): Congress is just plain
wrong. There was no second gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll. I've
seen lots of expert testimony where people differ.

So the controversy over President Kennedy's assassination, far from
being settled by the House Committee, continued anew. Only this time,
researchers and critics of the Warren Commission had gained new ammunition through information gained by the Committee, and they were now
supported in their conspiracy theories by a governmental body.

Even after the Committee had concluded its work, controversy about its
operation continued. Five months later, Robert Groden, who had served as
staff photographic consultant to the HSCA, told the news media the
Committee had pulled its punches:

The direction of the entire House Assassinations Committee rested on
one piece of evidence from the beginning-the autopsy photographs.
And, from the beginning until the introduction of the acoustical evidence, the autopsy panel assumed the autopsy evidence was genuine. I
was not allowed to study the autopsy photographs until December
11978-less than a month before the Committee disbanded] and when I
did study them, I found at least two were phonies, which can be proved
to any reasonable person.

Groden's charge has been backed by several of the Dallas doctors who
worked to save President Kennedy's life. Interviewed by The Baltimore
Sun in 1979, the Dallas physicians unanimously agreed that the photograph
made public by the House Committee was not remotely like the wounds
they saw in 1963.

Dr. Marion Jenkins, poking a point at the right rear of the head depicted
in the photo, said: "This is where the wound was."

Dr. Charles Baxter: "It was a large, gaping wound in the occipital area,
a tangential wound."

Dr. Jackie Hunt, after describing the large wound in the right rear of
Kennedy's head and then being shown the House Committee's photo: "I
can do a lot of funny things in this darkroom, too."

Dr. Robert Shaw: "If the body hadn't been stolen away from us and had
Dr. ]Earl] Rose performed a proper autopsy, there would be no question
these fifteen years. "

Dr. Fouad Bashour: "[The Committee photo] is not the way it was. . . .
Why do they cover it up?"

In addition to the doctored autopsy photographs, Groden was openly
critical of some of the Committee's experts. He said:

The man who did the ballistic analysis arbitrarily moved the position of
Kennedy's back wound up one vertebra, making the whole angle off... .
The man who concluded the back wound was between the shoulder
blades had viewed the same material for the Rockefeller Commission
and, at that time, said the wound was on Kennedy's right shoulder.

Groden concluded: "The biggest problem with the Committee is that they
gave us a conspiracy, but the wrong one."

Veteran newsman Seth Kantor, who, because of his years working in
both Dallas and Fort Worth prior to and during the assassination, may be
one of the most knowledgeable media persons on that event told this
author the entire House Committee episode was "strange and unusual."

The Committee tried to play to Congress . . . by not touching certain
bases because certain congressmen didn't want it. . . . The original
chairman [Downing] was about to retire . . . the committee was loaded
with second-echelon House members, not leadership quality and with
not much clout. . . . When Blakey came in, he wiped out the leadership
of the [Committee's] staff and the new people that came in had to start
from square one. The investigators sent to Dallas had no working
knowledge of the case . . . My biggest grievance with the Committee is
that they did not investigate the Dallas police force. Blakey said he had
no mandate to investigate the Dallas police. More than half the life of
the Committee was frittered away . . .

Many researchers' view of the Committee's work was summed up by
Groden, who wrote:

In the end, the Committee consumed millions of dollars and accomplished little. The Select Committee never did the simple things required
to get to the truth. Reluctantly, the Committee identified the existence
of a "conspiracy" in the Kennedy and King assassinations. But the
admission of "conspiracy" was a small breakthrough-the public had
suspected it for years. The real truth about who was behind the conspiracies was left undisturbed.

Having totally reversed the government's view of the JFK assassination
by stating publicly that a conspiracy "probably" resulted in Kennedy's
death and that at least two gunmen fired at him, Chief Counsel Blakey,
writing in an introduction to the Committee's report, said: "Realizing that
there would be an opportunity for others to fill in the details-that there
might be indictments and trials as a result of future investigation-we
decided to present an understated case. We chose a cautious approach."
An understated case? Consider these points as determined by the Committee:

• A conspiracy involving at least two gunmen resulted in the death of
President Kennedy.

• Jack Ruby's killing of Oswald was not spontaneous and Ruby likely
entered the Dallas Police Station basement with assistance.

• The Dallas police withheld relevant information about Ruby's entry to
the Oswald slaying scene from the Warren Commission.

• The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties in
connection with the assassination.

• The FBI performed with varying degrees of competency and failed to
investigate adequately the possibility of conspiracy.

• The CIA was deficient in its collection and sharing of assassination
information.

• The Warren Commission failed to investigate the idea of conspiracy
adequately, partly because of the failure of government agencies to
provide the Commission with relevant information.

• Investigation of conspiracy of the Secret Service was terminated prematurely by President Johnson's order that the FBI assume investigative responsibility.

• Since the military 201 file on Oswald was destroyed before the
Committee could view it, it could not fully resolve if Oswald had
been affiliated with military intelligence.

All of these startling conclusions-and this was the "understated case."

The Committee ended by recommending that the Justice Department
pick up where it left off and attempt to unravel the conspiracy that led to
the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. To date, the only
action on the part of Justice has been the Ramsey panel, which has called
into question the acoustical evidence of multiple gunmen.

An internal Justice Department memo made public only in 1988 revealed what researchers had suspected all along-despite the findings and
requests by the House Committee, Justice officials had let the whole thing
drop.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations was born out of political
pressure to learn the truth about this nation's assassinations, yet it suffered
from this same political pressure throughout its existence.

The Committee not only was susceptible to pressure from Congressupon which it was dependent for funding-but also from agencies such as
the FBI and CIA.

The largest part of the Committee's life was devoted to simply keeping
the panel alive and funded.

There can be little doubt that the original chairman, Representative Henry Gonzalez, and the original chief counsel, Richard A. Sprague,
disrupted Committee unity.

And while the political games were being played out in Washington,
important Kennedy assassination witnesses-such as George DeMohrenschildt, Carlos Prio Soccaras, Sam Giancana, and former FBI officialswere dying.

After Gonzalez was replaced by Louis Stokes and Sprague by G. Robert
Blakey, the Committee's investigations finally got under way-but the
depth and scope was severely limited. Blakey quickly announced that there
would be no comments to the news media and that only "old" evidence
would be studied to see if it withstood the test of time. He also instigated a
stringent secrecy oath that effectively muzzled both assassination researchers who worked with the Committee and dissident staff members. Blakey
also exhibited a friendly working relationship with the FBI and CIA-both
agencies that had become highly suspect in the minds of most researchers.
In fact, Blakey removed some of the Committee's most able investigators,
restricted areas of study, hand-picked the scientific "experts" to study
assassination material, and then locked away the Committee's investigative
material for fifty years.

During its public hearings, the Committee was exceptionally gentle with
critical witnesses like Marina Oswald and autopsy doctor James Humes,
yet unexpectedly harsh with Warren Commission critics and private researchers. Some dubious witnesses-such as Louie Steven Witt, the "umbrella man"-were allowed to tell questionable stories without serious
cross-examination.

Right up to the end of its existence, the Committee appeared ready to
support the Warren Commission's conclusion that the Kennedy assassination was the work of one lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. But due to
two separate scientific studies on a Dallas police radio recording, the
Committee was belatedly forced to conclude that Kennedy was fired upon
by at least two gunmen.

Out of time and funding, the Committee reversed the official government theory of the assassination by concluding that Kennedy "was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy" but added, "The Committee was
unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

The House Select Committee on Assassinations, while furthering the
public's knowledge of the assassination by studying previously unavailable
or ignored material, nevertheless failed to fully pursue its investigations. It
left behind more questions than it answered, preferring to place the burden
of finding the truth on the U.S. Department of Justice, which to this date
has failed to take any positive action in the matter.

... there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth
certificate ...

-FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in 1960

One of the most misunderstood issues surrounding the JFK assassination
involves questions about the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald. This issue
can be broken into two segments-one is the evidence pointing to someone
impersonating Oswald in the weeks prior to the assassination and the
second concerns the identity of the man killed by Jack Ruby.

This whole question of Oswald doppelgangers-or lookalikes-is admittedly bizarre. However, once the evidence suggesting such duplication is
studied closely, one finds it worthy of serious consideration.

Questions about Oswald's identity did not suddenly surface years after
the assassination as many people believe. As has been noted, J. Edgar
Hoover expressed concern over Oswald's identity as far back as June 3,
1960, when he wrote: "Since there is a possibility that an impostor is
using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of
State may have concerning subject will be appreciated."

Despite assurances by government agencies at the time of the assassination
that they were unaware of Oswald or his background, there is now evidence
that people within the government were checking frequently on the ex-Marine.

On March 31, 1961, the deputy chief of the Passport Office wrote to the
Consular Section of the State Department regarding Oswald, stating:

... this file contains information first, which indicates that mail from
the mother of this boy is not being delivered to him and second, that it
has been stated that there is an impostor using Oswald's identification
data and that no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold of his valid
passport, it is my opinion that the passport should be delivered to him
only on a personal basis and after the Embassy is assured to its complete
satisfaction that he is returning to the United States.

Another State Department communication, this time to the United States
embassy in Moscow, on July 11, 1961, stated:

The Embassy's careful attention to the involved case of Mr. Oswald is
appreciated. It is assumed that there is no doubt that the person who has
been in communication with the Embassy is the person who was issued
a passport in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Only two weeks before the assassination, someone signing for the State
Department checked out Oswald's military records.

The New Orleans FBI Office apparently kept close tabs on Oswald
while he was in that city and then shipped its file on him to Dallas in the
fall of 1963, where Agent James Hosty made an effort to reach Oswald.
At the same time, a military intelligence unit in Texas was receiving
information on Oswald for its files.