Failed Investigations of JFK’s Murder

More than a half century later, John F. Kennedy’s assassination still resonates not only because of its historical importance but because the investigation was more a cover-up than a pursuit of truth, says researcher Gary Aguilar.

By Gary Aguilar

November 22 marks the 53rd anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. If history is any guide, it’s likely some mainstream outlet will commemorate that dark day with reassurances that the Warren Commission was right that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone, and that most doubters, who have been in the majority since the mid-1960s, are randy conspiracy theorists. That is the essential message by one of the experts likely to be cited this year, attorney Howard Willens.

President John F. Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas shortly before his assassination on Nov. 22, 1963. (Photo credit: Walt Cisco, Dallas Morning News)

President John F. Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas shortly before his assassination on Nov. 22, 1963. (Photo credit: Walt Cisco, Dallas Morning News)

One of the few still-living Warren Commission staffers, Willens followed up his 2013 book, History Will Prove Us Right, with a spirited defense of the Commission in the summer, 2016 issue of the journal, The American Scholar, which he co-wrote with another Commission staffer, attorney Richard Mosk. The piece, “The Truth About Dallas,is a celebration of the work and conclusions of the original investigation.

But Willens’s and Mosk’s defense of the work of the Warren Commission they served on is more notable for what they omit from the official record than what they include. “What the critics often forget or ignore,” they write, “is that since 1964, several government agencies have also looked at aspects of our work,” (p. 59) as if the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had reviewed and applauded the Commission’s work.

Indeed, they did look at it. But rather than plaudits, they issued stinging rebukes, principally for the Commission’s having been rolled by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and to a lesser extent, by the CIA and the Secret Service.

“It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin,” the HSCA concluded, “a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the of the assassination.”

In essence, the experienced investigators concluded that Hoover had divined the solution to the crime before starting the inquiry, and then his agents confirmed the boss’s epiphany. The intimidated Warren Commission went right along.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

And with good reason, only part of which Willens and Mosk tell. They admit that the “FBI had originally opposed the creation of the Warren Commission” and that Hoover “ordered investigations of commission staff members.” But they don’t tell that Hoover deployed one of his favorite dirty tricks to deal not only with support staffers, such as Willens and Mosk, but also with the commissioners themselves.

“[D]erogatory information pertaining to both Commission members and staff was brought to Mr. Hoover’s attention,” the Church Committee reported. (emphasis added)

Hoover’s Spy

Willens and Mosk also forgot to mention that Hoover had a personal spy on the Warren Commission, then Rep. Gerald Ford, who tattled on Commissioners who were (justifiably) skeptical of the Bureau’s work.

“Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the Commission,” FBI Agent Cartha DeLoach wrote in a once secret memo. “He stated this would have to be done on a confidential basis, however he thought it should be done.”

Autopsy photo of President John F. Kennedy.

Autopsy photo of President John F. Kennedy.

At the bottom of the memo, Hoover scrawled, “Well handled.” The success of Hoover’s machinations was obvious to subsequent government investigators. (Ford, of course, later became President upon the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.)

The HSCA’s chief counsel, Notre Dame Law Professor Robert Blakey, a criminal investigator and prosecutor with vastly better credentials than either Willens or Mosk, was impressed with neither the Commission’s vigor nor its independence.

“What was significant,” Blakey determined, “was the ability of the FBI to intimidate the Commission, in light of the Bureau’s predisposition on the questions of Oswald’s guilt and whether there had been a conspiracy. At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:

“John McCloy: ‘… the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .’

“Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: ‘Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .’

“Senator Richard Russell: ‘They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.’

“Senator Hale Boggs: ‘You have put your finger on it.’ (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)” [Blakey & Billings, Fatal Hour– The Assassination of President. See also: North, Act of Treason]

Testifying before the HSCA, the Warren Commission’s chief counsel J. Lee Rankin shamefully admitted, “Who could protest against what Mr. Hoover did back in those days?” Apparently not President Lyndon Johnson’s blue-ribbon commissioners.

The HSCA’s Blakey also reported that “When asked if he was satisfied with the (Commission’s) investigation that led to the (no conspiracy) conclusion, Judge Burt Griffin (a Commission staff member) said he was not.” [Blakey & Billings, Ibid.]

And author Gus Russo reported that Judge Griffin also admitted, “We spent virtually no time investigating the possibility of conspiracy. I wish we had.” [Russo, Live by the Sword]

Clear Misgivings

Thus, despite their clear misgivings, the Commissioners bowed to the imperious FBI chief rather than conduct a thorough investigation. Notably, the Commission never once employed a rudimentary investigative tool. “The Commission,” the HSCA reported, “failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted.” [US Cong. House of Reps. Report of Comm. on Assassinations, 1979]

Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

This policy had serious repercussions when the Commission confronted two key issues: published claims that Lee Harvey Oswald had been an FBI informant, and the possibility that Jack Ruby was mobbed up.

“The Commission did not investigate Hoover or the FBI, and managed to avoid the appearance of doing so,” the HSCA determined. “It ended up doing what the members had agreed they would not do: Rely mainly on the FBI’s denial of the allegations (that Oswald had been a Bureau informant).”

Hoover merely sent the Commission his signed affidavit declaring that Oswald was not an informant and also “sent over 10 additional affidavits from each FBI agent who had had contact with Oswald.” And with that, case closed.

Regarding Jack Ruby, the FBI had his phone records, yet failed to spot Ruby’s obvious, and atypical, pattern of calls to known Mafiosi in the weeks leading up to the assassination. After performing the simple, obvious task of actually analyzing those calls, the HSCA determined that, if not a sworn member of La Cosa Nostra, Ruby had ongoing, close links to numerous Mafiosi.

Thus the HSCA roundly rejected the Warren Commission’s conclusion that, “the evidence does not establish a significant link between Ruby and organized crime.”

The list of Warren Commission shortcomings that the HSCA assembled is not short. A brief summary of them runs some 47 pages in the Bantam Books version of the report (p. 289–336), which outlines what required much of the 500 pages of HSCA volume XI to cover (available on-line).

“The evidence indicates that facts which may have been relevant to, and would have substantially affected, the Warren Commission’s investigation were not provided by the agencies (FBI and the CIA). Hence, the Warren Commission’s findings may have been formulated without all of the relevant information.”

The Church Committee said that the problem was that “the Commission was perceived as an adversary by both Hoover and senior FBI officials.”  “Such a relationship,” the Committee dryly observed, “was not conductive to the cooperation necessary for a thorough and exhaustive investigation.”

But the FBI did more than just withhold evidence from the Commission. Although they admit that the FBI destroyed a note Oswald wrote to Agent Hosty, and withheld that information from the Commission, Willens and Mosk don’t mention that Agent Hosty reported that his own personnel file, and other FBI files, had been falsified. [Hosty, Jr. Assignment: Oswald]

Nor that author Curt Gentry learned from assistant FBI director William Sullivan that there were other JFK documents at the Bureau that had been destroyed. [Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover– The Man and His Secrets]

Perhaps one of the reasons the public has remained mistrustful of the government’s conclusions, and the mainstream media reassurances, is the sort of selective presentation of evidence by ax grinders like Willens and Mosk who get heralded by our “responsible” media.

Gary Aguilar is one of the few physicians outside the government ever allowed to see the still-restricted JFK autopsy photos and X-rays. He has published and lectured on the topic of the JFK assassination for many years.

103 comments for “Failed Investigations of JFK’s Murder

  1. S.r. "Dusty" Rohde
    December 3, 2016 at 16:32

    Hello Gary, I have to say…you are far kinder to Howard P. Willens and the Warren Commission than I will ever be.This is a great article (short, highly informative and right on target).
    You, as having seen the medical evidence might find this very interesting.

    Thanks for sharing, Dusty.

  2. Vesuvius
    November 27, 2016 at 08:51

    Thank you for this post, bringing knowledge of Greg Poulgrain’s book to this forum. There is an obvious parallell between the assassinations of JFK and then U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold.

  3. Gregory Herr
    November 25, 2016 at 13:03

    This post is rather late, but I hope Jim DiEugenio catches it, because he is familiar with “The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesia Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles”. I just received a copy of the book and so have yet to read it, but was perusing some reviews, including Jim’s, My hope is that Jim might expend his talents to submitting an article to CN that explores motives and connections that shed further light on Kennedy’s assassination.

    From Edward Curtin’s review found here:

    “This is a very important and compelling book. Difficult and dense at times, more expansive at others, it greatly adds to our understanding of why JFK was murdered. With its Indonesian focus, it shows us how Allen Dulles’s sinister purview was wide-spread and long-standing; how it included so much more than Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, etc.; specifically, how important far-distant Indonesia was in his thinking, and how that thinking clashed with President Kennedy’s on a crucial issue. It forces us to consider how different the world would be if JFK had lived.

    The Incubus of Intervention sheds new light on Indonesian history and America’s complicity in its tragedy. It is essential reading today when Barack Obama is executing his pivot to Asia and promoting conflict with China and Russia. Although not explored in Poulgrain’s book, it’s interesting to note that Obama’s Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetero, left Obama and his mother in Hawaii in that crucial year of 1966 when mass killings were underway to return to Indonesia to map Western New Guinea (West Papua) for the Indonesian government. After Dulles’s regime change was accomplished and Suharto had replaced Sukarno, he went to work for Unocal, the first oil company to sign a production sharing agreement with Suharto. Strange coincidences, bitter fruit.”

    Also a link to an interesting interview between Curtin and the author of “Incubus”, Greg Poulgrain:

    • Gregory Herr
      November 25, 2016 at 13:32

      Also from Curtin’s review:

      “Poulgrain adds significantly to our understanding of JFK’s assassination and its aftermath by presenting new information about George de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in Dallas… In other words, Dulles and de Mohrenschildt were intimately involved for a long time prior to JFK’s assassination. Poulgrain rightly claims that “the entire focus of the Kennedy investigation would have shifted had the [Warren] Commission become aware of the 40-year link between Allen Dulles and de Mohrenschildt.” Their relationship involved oil, spying, Indonesia, Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers, Cuba, Haiti, etc. It was an international web of intrigue that involved a cast of characters stranger than fiction, a high cabal of the usual and unusual operatives.”

  4. Vesuvius
    November 24, 2016 at 06:36

    Friends, Primarily to those of you who have posted comments after my entry (Nov 22 at 8:55) I can say that most of the problems discussed here, in the murder case, and in the Police actions afterwards, are dealt with very convincingly in the two books I recommend.

    The purpose to take out the President were the result of several converging “interests”. JFK was (falsely) considered “soft on Communism” because he had reached an ageement with Soviet leader Krushev in defusing the Cuba Crisis, Cuban exiles were mad because JFK did not go all in in the Bay of Pig affair, the Mob hated him because of their lost Havana brothels, Robert Kennedy was anathema for the Mob, and a most probable future successor to JFK, The JCS suspected (with good reason) that JFK was about to extricate the U.S. from Vietnam, etc.

    James Douglass’ book includes JFKs Commencement Speech at American University, June 10, 1963. Surely you can find that on the Web. This speech explains a lot!

    At the time, I had just turned 30 years. My memory from that time is still very clear. As you understand, I am today 83 years old. And now much wiser than at the time of The Crime of the Century.

  5. Taras77
    November 23, 2016 at 15:11

    Wow-extensive discussion and well founded. I’m still in the process of reading James Douglas’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable”

    I also plan on spending more time on the discussion herein.

    A big FWIW, I provide a couple of links for those who wish to further pursue (both links reflect numerous links for further research but it may just be overkill):

  6. David
    November 23, 2016 at 14:59

    That reminds me. Vincent Bugliosi came to town after the film JFK became so popular. He told the lawyers in the audience (a Bar Association affair as I recall) that Oswald was a “marksman,” implying that he was a good shot. When I was in the military, a marksman was the lowest passing score. Expert was highest followed by sharpshooter, then marksman. (I shot expert, having never filed a rifle before and having missed a week of rifle training, so it was not that hard.)
    I saw one of Oswald’s fellow marines say that he got “Maggie’s Drawers” on the rifle range, meaning that he missed the target entirely.
    Not sure why Bugliosi has taken the dubious path of WC apologist, but the empire is full of people who sell out.

  7. November 22, 2016 at 23:58

    I spent four years in the USMC (1959-1963), but I never saw a Marine or anyone else who could shoot as well as the Warren Commission tells us Oswald did that day in November ’63.

  8. David
    November 22, 2016 at 19:17

    Last weekend, HBO showed the film, “A President Betrayed.”

    It’s a powerful examination of the forces JFK was up against as he worked for peace. Great scholarship and very moving as well.

  9. col from oz
    November 22, 2016 at 17:02

    The book ” Legacy of secrets” is a insightful correlation of why the mafia with the approval of FBI head assassinated President Kennedy.

    Some of the dead giveaways was mobbed up Ruby assignation of Oswald.
    Robert Kennedy personally oversaw Mafia crime boss expulsion from USA (only to return )
    Hoover public admonishment that the Mafia does not exist.

    The book does contain other reasons the proper investigation did not happen, for example why Bobby accepted the lame Warren commission however this book does detail accurately the Mob intricacies leading up to the assassination.

    • col from oz
      November 22, 2016 at 17:11

      Editors note
      By Peter Va Hoelen on June 8, 2009
      Format: Hardcover
      I hate to sound this naive, especially at my age (56), but as clearly evidenced by “Legacy of Secrecy” (and before that “Ultimate Sacrifice”)there is an awful lot we do not know about the Assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK. I have spent my entire career working for the FBI (as a clerk) and 20 years as a Secret Service Agent, and I have read over 50 books on the JFK assassination. I am sure that I am only one of millions of people who are equally interested in learning the truth about who committed one of the biggest crimes in the history of this country.

      Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann have come along at the right time (46 years after the JFK assassination) and put many years of meticulous research and interview into producing the “State of the Art” book(s) on the subject. Now we know why all these FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Army and Naval Intelligence files had to remain classified all these years. The truth about the assassination of JFK would have destroyed the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, as well as the people who were in charge of those organizations. Some agencys, of course, had legitimate reasons for hiding the truth (as these books clearly show), and some were shamelessly protecting their own self interests.

      The Mafia and the CIA have unalterably changed and distorted the course of US history with their collaborative efforts in Central and South America (not to mention Cuba). They continued to work together for many years thereafter. The CIA lied to Bobby and John Kennedy about their continuing efforts to kill Castro with the Mafia. After being explicitly ordered not to include the Mafia in their “JFK/Almeida” Castro overthrow plan. In so doing the Mafia was allowed to go undetected in their efforts to kill JFK, to masterfully set Lee Harvey Oswald up as the Patsy for a crime he could never have pulled off on his own, then to order Ruby to kill him while Oswald was in Dallas PD custody, and then spend the next 46 years using it to blackmail the CIA and the White House into protecting them from exposure. CIA people like Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, William Harvey, David Atlee Phillips, and David Morales (may they all burn in hell) have destroyed a large part of what makes this country beautiful, and given the world good reason to hate the USA in the process. The CIA and the FBI then waged war on the media in an effort to prevent articles and books, which were critical of the Warren Commission findings, to keep the truth from ever getting out. And why? Because it was not correct in its’ findings, and why was that? Because the CIA (Richard Helms) and the FBI (J.Edgar Hoover) lied to the Warren Commission and refused to help them do their job. In an effort to protect their own agencys and their own careers they lied to the American public and the world.

      The Mafia did what the Mafia does, they serve their own sordid ends. They dont care about anyone but themselves… why should they? They were allowed to prosper and thrive all these years, because of the FBI’s failings, J.Edgar Hoover’s homosexuality, and the CIA’s affinity for working with organized mobsters. All of our worst fears about the FBI, and the CIA, in the wake of the Vietnam War, and Watergate have been realized. They were doing what the peace activists had been alleging all along. It is a sad day when we are forced to realize that what Waldron and Hartmann told us here is the truth. But at the same time God Bless them for their dedication to the truth, their many years of hard work, and for the many declassified documents which finally enabled them to reveal the truth about these terrible murders.

      Read Legacy of secrecy

  10. Mark Wrede
    November 22, 2016 at 16:34

    JFK was shot in the throat from Elm Street by Charles Nicoletti from an embankment alongside a post office behind a phalanx of members of the John Birch Society lining the sidewalk in frame 190 of the Zapruder film as he looked back over his right shoulder.

    November 22, 2016 at 16:15



  12. Jim Glover
    November 22, 2016 at 13:02

    2017 is supposed to be the year that more classified records on Oswald and more will be released. A real investigation is needed to show just how rigged Trump knows the system is. The evidence ignored by the WC is massive.

  13. Greg
    November 22, 2016 at 12:34

    We should keep in mind that the JFK assassination is essentially a murder investigation. And in my humble opinion, one of the best books ever written on this investigation is Barry Ernest’s “The Girl On The Stairs”. What Ernest proves, pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt, is that it was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to be on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) at 12:30 PM–the exact time of the assassination. Ernest does this by documenting the eye witness testimony of critical witnesses within the building immediately after the shots rang out. These witnesses are Roy Truly, the Superintendent of the TSBD; Dallas Police Officer M. Berry, one of the first Dallas policemen who entered the building within approximately 60 seconds of the shots; and key TSBD 4th floor employees Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles, who immediately ran to the only upper floors staircase in the building where, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald had to have been at the same time. As then Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry wrote a few years later: “No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the TSBD, with a rifle in his hand.” If Oswald had gone to trial, given what Curry and the other TSBD witnesses have testified, Oswald would in all likelihood have been acquitted of the JFK murder.

  14. Drew Hunkins
    November 22, 2016 at 12:25

    At one point in Bugliosi’s incredible book “Reclaiming History” he offers up five quick pieces of evidence seriously pointing toward Oswald’s obvious guilt: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That’s pretty heavy by itself. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer Tippit of the Dallas Police Department. That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed. Thirty minutes later at a Texas movie theatre he resists arrest and pulls a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt.

    • JWalters
      November 22, 2016 at 23:12

      It has not been established that Oswald’s rifle was “the” murder weapon. All the other circumstances you mention fit the theory that he was a patsy fleeing for his life.

    • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
      November 23, 2016 at 01:05

      A key part of this evidence is the so-called “magic bullet,” right, Drew?

      Well, it’s not so magical after all, it seems.

    • Vietvet68
      November 23, 2016 at 14:38

      Drew you are such a novice. No one can show LHO picked up the rifle at the PO…LHO was not the only employee to leave…LHO couldn’t have traveled on foot from his rooming house to where Tippet was killed in the time needed…I was in both places a few years ago … just not possible…Descriptions of the Tippet killer don’t match LHO..LHO told the truth…he was a patsy. You cannot place him on the 6th floor in time to fire the weapon when he was seen in the lunch room by 12:15…Victoria Adams and her friend left the 4th floor within seconds and when down the back stairs and never heard or saw anyone…LHO would have had to meet them to get to the lunchroom. LHO was not on the 6th floor between 12:15 and 12:30.

    • Jerry Policoff
      November 24, 2016 at 00:05

      Wrong again DH. Many credible experts have offered persuasive evidence that the FBI contention that the Mannlicher-Carcano was the murder weapon is a fairy tale; Oswald was not the only person to leave the building; the evidence strongly suggests that Oswald did not shoot Tippit; and there are conflicting accounts of what exactly went down in the Texas Theater. Your contention that these are all established and proven findings does not make it so. They only prove that you are willing to swallow anything to support your faith in the findings of the Warren Commission.

    • Jerry Policoff
      November 24, 2016 at 00:11

      The FBI claimed the Mannlicher-Carcano was the murder weapon, and the Warren Commission accepted those conclusions, but many experts have credibly contested those findings; Oswald was not the only person to leave the TSBD, and there is no evidence that the word “fled” is justified. There is a mountain of credible evidence that Oswald did not shoot Tippit. There are conflicting accounts of exactly what went down in the Texas theater.
      You seem willing to blindly accept any theory that supports your belief that Oswald acted alone (or at all). That is your right, but it does not make it so.

  15. November 22, 2016 at 12:11

    I have no doubt that Mr. Trump will be briefed on the Kennedy assasination shortly after being sworn in , just to let him know that there is a solution to the problem if he gets in the way of the Eestablishment and Deep State, with his policies. The CIA, FBI and NSA are all sitting there and watching the guy and no doubt will have weekly meetings evaluating his actions and determining if he should be eliminated. He could well wind up the same as Kennedy and his brother.

  16. Cal
    November 22, 2016 at 11:29

    Who killed Kennedy? Ask… ‘ who benefited’.

    Killing Kennedy was NOT going to change US policy toward Russia or Cuba.

    What would killing Kennedy change?

    It would change Kennedy’s demand 4 months prior that Israel subject its nuke facilities to inspection.
    It would change his brother Robert Kennedy’s efforts to go after organized crime.

    Those are the only two changes that came about in killing Kennedy.

    • November 22, 2016 at 13:11

      I think this event more than anything set the Kennedy assassination into motion –

      Just my opinion – My belief is that this confirmed in Kennedy’s mind the futility of continuing the war in Vietnam; and that he was justified in the removal of American forces which he had started less than a month prior (NSAM 263 on 10-11-1963).

      People can read into it any way they want. The fact remains that all of this was reversed almost immediately (NSAM 273 on 11-26-1963) by Lyndon Johnson. And while it was drafted while Kennedy was still alive, there is no evidence he ever saw it.

      • Cal
        November 23, 2016 at 00:11

        So who do you think was behind killing Kennedy so that the Vietnam war could continue?
        The pentagon, the military command, the weapons industry, a few war mongers in government?
        Was continuing the VN war a big enough cause for them and why? What would any of them really gain to take such a risk?

        I don’t buy that that theory for several reasons…..first would be the fact that it would have been impossible to have kept their assassination ‘secret within their agencies’. ..and to keep it secret for all these years.

        To kill a president is no small thing—Kennedy had to be an ‘existential threat’ to those who killed him
        Which is why Israel and organized crime would be my two picks..

        • Brad Owen
          November 24, 2016 at 08:06

          Organized crime are just extremely well-paid hired guns. Who did the hiring? Who benefitted? The big picture is very, very large. This involves extremely powerful and fairly well-concealed, trans-national IMPERIAL interests and their geopolitical Grand Strategies they have in place to guarantee their continuing wealth & power & reign. JFK, very aware of his Irish roots, and of Irish republicanism which naturally transferred to ideas of the American Republic, was setting up to develop the colonial World as per FDR’s intentions (campaigned upon this theme in late forties and fifties…where BRICS is intending to go). The Peace Corps, and relying heavily on U.N. activism were “red flags” to these trans-national IMPERIAL interests. Advanced development in general, within the so-called “Third World” are threats to these trans-national IMPERIAL Interests. The already advanced developed Nations are a “serious problem” for these T.N.I.I. too, hence our, and Europe’s, downhill slide into poverty (Austerity and War preparations policies, dismantling of the social democratic welfare state). The T.N.I.I. also needs war with Russia and China to dismantle those two strongly advancing Nation-States. Anyway, JFK saw the “rogue” nature of the Intelligence Community (actually they serve trans-national IMPERIAL interests, rather than the National Interest, since they were “Captured” and purged of all FDR influence by the IMPERIAL, cooperative, “Tories” of Wall Street in the post-war 40’s. NYC has always been a Tory stronghold; still is). JFK was getting notions of burying the hatchet with U.S.S.R., busting up the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattering them to the winds, and doing things with the Money Power (like Lincoln did), to break Wall Street’s hold on our Nation. JFK was beginning to see the operations of the T.N.I.I.and their bogus Vietnam War, and their bogus Cold War; more was to be gained through cooperation with the Soviets, despite their communism, to develop the World, which, unfortunately for the 99%ers, are the T.N.I.I.’s colonies in all but name. They had JFK assassinated. They are the Imperial Ruling Class over much of the World, the hold-overs of all the European Empires, Especially the British, French, and Dutch Empires, and their Managerial Elite (bankers, corporate CEOs and such) who tend to this covert Empire’s daily operations. They’ve been doing this kind of thing for centuries. ALL of the World’s Revolutions and guerilla wars of Liberation have been aimed (mostly unknowingly) at this same dead-weight, Invisible, Imperial Hand around their throats, constantly throttling them. It’s no secret. People are just unseeing (one reason why the Imperial Interests hold people in such contempt as blind, dumb animals,their cattle, which is what they WANT them to believe)

    • Gregory Herr
      November 22, 2016 at 19:31

      Killling Kennedy had the effect of making damn sure there would be an escalation in Vietnam and a ramped up Cold War with the Soviet Union. Kennedy had already changed policy toward “Russia”. The Partial Test Ban Treaty and the American University speech are testament to this.

    • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
      November 23, 2016 at 01:02

      I disagree.

      Once-secret records demonstrate a pattern in Kennedy we are unaccustomed to seeing in presidents: rather than JFK following his senior advisers on critical issues – the way “good” presidents usually do, the way LBJ did – Kennedy often ignored it.

      He withstood pressure from the CIA and the military to follow-up the foundering Bay of Pigs invasion with a military assault on Cuba.[18] He rejected advice to use force in Laos, pushing against the defense establishment to achieve an ultimately successful negotiated settlement.[19] He shouldered aside the defense and intelligence establishments to advance a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets.[20] And as historians Ernest May and Philip Zelikov discovered from live voice recordings made during the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK was often “the only one in the room [full of the highest officers in the country] who is determined not to go to war.”[21]

      This is the same Kennedy we discover in Perils of Dominance, an important new book by Gareth Porter.[22] Porter documents in chilling detail that, in isolation and with virtually no real allies to help him, Kennedy orchestrated numerous Machiavellian ruses to frustrate the “national security bureaucracy’s” determination to march headlong into war.

      Citations at:,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone/JFK,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone.htm

  17. Dennis Rice
    November 22, 2016 at 10:30

    I hunt and shoot with a scoped rifle (or used to). Anyone who can claim that ‘any’ shooter, no matter how good he/she is, can get off the number of shots within the time frame claimed fired and credited to Oswald, (and especially with a bolt action rifle) and do so with the supposed “accuracy” credited to Oswald (and at a moving target at that) is a damned fool.

  18. Bob Van Noy
    November 22, 2016 at 09:53

    Thank you Gary Aguilar for this timely reminder. It is this very issue (President Kennedy’s Assassination) and the lack of adequate attention to it by Big Media that informs the separation we find in reporting on American politics today. By suppressing responsible reporting such as The Events In Dallas on November 22, 1963, the biggest news sources gave up their legitimacy, in time, with the American People. I say suppressing because, upon reflection, there was plenty responsible reporting and skepticism regarding JFK’s killing but powerful people made sure that that reporting was characterized as conspiratorial and mocked it. Much the same happened in this election cycle where Bernie Sanders was marginalized by the very same Big Media. Factual observation was left up to every day people who saw a very different reality than the long marginalized MSM.

    • Dennis Rice
      November 22, 2016 at 10:53

      I might say, Bob, that the message of Bernie Sanders was on target, but his campaign wasn’t making as much money for the corporate media as was the shenanigans of Donald Trump. And at least one network has admitted that.

      Corporate heads, including the MSM, are willing to ‘play the game’ and put making their own big salaries ahead of the good of this country.

      Everyday Americans are expected to “obey.”

  19. Vesuvius
    November 22, 2016 at 08:55

    Ever since Oswald was shot in the Dallas Police quarter, I have never believed in the official U.S. “documentations” on the Assassination of President Kennedy. I have read quite a few books on the matter, Mark Lane, Anthony Summers, David E. Scheim and others.

    In recent years, two works stand out as most impressive: “JFK and the Unspeakble” by James W. Douglass, and “They Killed Our President” by Jesse Ventura. Ventura is focused on the scene of the crime, and tells us about everything that was made to destroy the evidence that might be able to secure there; Douglass reveals the whole plot as to how, and why it was done. Reading which should be obligatory for every U.S. Citizen.

    I strongly recommend these two books.

    Then, there is the question why has the American public, nor the World outside the U.S., not even more than 50 years later been told the truth on this most fatal murder? The answer to this certainly is a sinister one: Because it can be done again, if need be (according to the people behind the curtain). If a new U.S. President falls short of the expectations of the people behind the curtain, that President will be eliminated in a similar way, and the Vice President will take over the W.H.

  20. Hillary
    November 22, 2016 at 07:13

    Cui Bono ?
    Israel got it`s nuclear bomb ! !
    James Jesus Angleton & the CIA ?

  21. wolf
    November 22, 2016 at 07:12

    His wife did it. Nixon, the Jewish special interests and Kissinger were all in on it. I guess they showed her some of the affairs he was having. Plus he wasn’t doing as he was told. They murdered his family as well didn’t they.

  22. David Smith
    November 22, 2016 at 04:47

    It is absurdly obvious that the rifle shootist that murdered President Kennedy was on top of The Triple Underpass. It is the best position, the easiest shot, and the only position from which the fatal head shot could have been made, also a good escape route. No shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, but noise makers were set off there both to divert attention to the Grassy Knoll and as a signal to the limo driver to stop briefly to give a stationary target for the shootist on The Triple Underpass.Everything that went on then, and after, including the books, has been meant to prevent anyone from looking on top of The Triple Underpass.

  23. Wendi
    November 22, 2016 at 04:01

    I remember. And over the years, I’ve seen accumulated evidence to the conviction the C I A did it. & FBI etc. Mastermind was Allen Dulles.

    During my ramble around the internet today, I found and watched this film, The Jim Garrison Tapes Full. It amazed me how much I didn’t know in what it has. Talk about conviction. Doubled! The archive footage is especially forceful.

  24. backwardsevolution
    November 22, 2016 at 02:36

    Good article. Thank you. Cover-up after cover-up, from JFK to 9/11 to Weapons of Mass Destruction, and much more in between. Lies. Destruction of evidence. It’s no wonder the citizens no longer believe what they’re told. And so Oswald was set up as the patsy, and then quickly discarded. How many times has this happened?

    Whoever had JFK killed must have been very powerful to have pulled it off. Johnson?

  25. John
    November 21, 2016 at 21:37

    Way too much evidence available to deny this. Shameful our government is still lying to us. The party the night before. The damaged windshield. The Zapruder film and so much info around it……..including the obvious frontal shot…..the pixel breakdown….the officials that monkeyed with the film. Could type all night about the people who testify about the conspiracy. This genie left the bottle a long time ago. How can we be proud of the government or the various agencies ? Shameful.

    • David Marks
      November 22, 2016 at 08:10

      Gary Aguilar´s excellent summary article gives a glimpse into one of the areas of incredible distortion that began on 22 November 1963. Anyone who has ventured into the realm of information and disinformation about the execution of President Kennedy knows that there really was no investigation.

      This ancecdote (which is fairly well-known with researchers) is not an effort to say the mob was to blame; it´s just one small example of how easy it is to scratch the surface and raise questions.

      Although never trusting the official story, my moment of awakening was while investigating Sam Giancana´s connection to Jack Ruby for a BBC biography (over 20 years ago). With very little effort I read about Lewis McWillie, Ruby´s pal in Dallas. He also owned a strip-club, and Ruby had bought a gun for him. McWillie was the man who the Warren Commission relied upon to confirm Ruby was just a low level mob guy.

      McWillie however was Giancana´s bag man at a Havana casino and later at the Cal-Neva Lodge. Surely Hoover and the Warren Commission knew this man was not a reliable witness. Yet the man who Giancana trusted with his money is who we have relied upon to confirm that Jack Ruby killed Oswald out of a surge of angry patriotism.

      I found and phoned Lewis McWillie. Jr., who was working for a casino in Las Vegas, to ask about his deceased father, and was very sternly told to never call there again. I had the feeling that he knew more about Jack Ruby than I ever would. Perhaps someone should try and reach him again.

      • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
        November 23, 2016 at 00:57

        Thanks, David!

        What I understand about the Warren Commission and Ruby’s mob ties I explored at some greater length a number of years ago, thus:

        Though the FBI had Jack Ruby’s phone records, it failed to spot Ruby’s suspicious, and atypical, pattern of calls to known Mafiosi in the weeks leading up to the assassination. The Commission’s “investigators” didn’t know enough to triple-check the FBI, or to check themselves, and so the Commission learned next to nothing about Ruby, or his calls. Basing its conclusions on FBI-supplied “character references” from, among others, two known mob associates (Lenny Patrick and Dave Yaras),[40] the Commission ultimately concluded Ruby was not connected to the mob.

        Then in 1977, the HSCA performed the rudimentary task of actually analyzing Ruby’ calls and exposing Lenny Patrick’s and Dave Yaras’ mob ties. It made the obvious connection–one that fit other compelling, and previously ignored, evidence that tied Ruby to the Mafia, and the Mafia to the crime. The importance of this reversal was entirely lost on Max Holland, who wrote, “[The HSCA] corroborated every salient fact developed by the Warren Commission.”[41] Perhaps the connection had been missed in 1964 because the FBI’s senior mafia expert, Courtney Evans, was excluded from the probe. (Evans told the HSCA: “They sure didn’t come to me. … We had no part in that that I can recall.”[42]) Instead, the Bureau turned to FBI supervisor Regis Kennedy, who then professed to believe Carlos Marcello, the New Orleans capo to whom Ruby had ties, was a “tomato salesman and real estate investor.”[43] And perhaps the Commissioners also willingly averted their gaze, lest they agitate the sensitive FBI director …

        Citations available on-line at:

  26. ThisOldMan
    November 21, 2016 at 21:31

    You might at least have mentioned a certain Allen Welsh Dulles’ presence on the commission, who JFK had recently fired as head of the CIA. See e.g. “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James W. Douglass (2008).

  27. JWalters
    November 21, 2016 at 20:21

    The post-Warren Commission evidence is now overwhelming that JFK’s assassination was an inside job. Which raises the question – Why do the owners of the mainstream media continue to suppress this mountain of evidence? The logical answer is that they don’t want the American public to think there may be other such conspiracies. In reality, the powerful have been engaged in conspiracies non-stop since ancient times.

    Like the Vietnam war, the Iraq war was a needless war manufactured by conspiring war profiteers. There too, an overwhelming amount of evidence is being effectively banned from their mainstream media.

    “That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true.” – Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791

    • Dennis Rice
      November 22, 2016 at 10:40

      ” Why do the owners of the mainstream media continue to suppress this mountain of evidence?”

      Propaganda is their business when it’s in the interest of the Elite.

      As example, it wasn’t for nothing that talk show host Phil Donahue was fired for his remarks against the Iraq war. His words were effective with the American people.. He had to go.

    • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
      November 23, 2016 at 00:50

      In 2013 there was an anti-conspiracy show on PBS Nova that featured ballistics experts Lucien and Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan, who lobbied hard for the lone gunman scnario. Since then they’ve put their case in print in the “peer-reviewed” Journal of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, which gave me and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD the opportunity to disembowel them in that same journal. You’ll find the stuff on-line at the CTKA website. Start with our introduction and continue if you’re interested with our richly documented writings:

      Oh, and the pro-Warren, PBS Nova show?

      Corporate Sponsorship (by) the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
      National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Cancer Treatment Centers of America and Farmers Insurance.

      Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers.

      • Brad Owen
        November 23, 2016 at 12:50

        I knew “the pristine bullet” was a crock of warm dung, because my brother used to reload, and had all these catalogs showing how bullets are designed to deform, mushroom, etc.. to inflict maximum damage on game. ANY reloader knows this about “the pristine bullet” (it would probably have to be made of tungsten or something, NOT metal-jacketed lead, to come out pristine).

  28. bill
    November 21, 2016 at 20:05

    The most recent work on the Harper Fragment by David Mantik absolutely and conclusively medically nails down beyond all doubt what in fact has long been nailed down, that JFK was shot from the front through the head (at least twice)-whilst theres also good evidence of a left temple wound- as well as through the throat imo from the South Knoll and twice from the rear once through the head and once in the back in what was a short round probably from the Dal Tex Building ,the back wound being repositioned six inches upwards by Ford to double as the entry-point of the ludicrous magic bullet ; in fact, the only thing more ludicrous than the JFK magic bullet are the numerous magic bullets needed to officially explain the RFK assassination. Bugliosis doorstopper is a massive work of fiction no one seriously believes and has been utterly dismantled page by page by Jim DiEugenio

    What is much more pertinent is to understand what maker of myths Zelikow learnt from the Warren Commission Report in preparing the 9/11 report in that whats in Warren actually disproves its own case and to examine how the JFK assassins and their successors undermined all subsequent enquiry by in fact manipulating Congress to for example impose Blakey into the HSCA whilst today no one,rightly,believes his protestations over Johannides and everyone sees through his limited hangout that the Mafia did it and the book he produced almost as swiftly as FBI apologist Ford had in 64. Doug Horne who when working for the ARRB felt the full force of attempted suppression of evidence but perserved as a true patriot and went on to become the king of the medical evidence who has paid due homage to David Mantiks recent findings as well as his former proving of the fake x rays has fully exposed the full range of evidence fakery at every level,including the 2 brain examinations in his classic 5 volumes “Inside the ARRB”, and has also proven that the Zapruder film we see today was made over at the Hawkeye Works, to edit out the many obvious realities of ambush. Mr Horne and his 3 casket entries proving that there was a preautopsy at Bethesda shows precisely how the cover-up was done and why the Secret Service had to swiftly get JFKs corpse under military control and away from Texan civil authority,( this was Kellermans main job,though he came to act as maitre d at the autopsy,keeping the various audiences apart)hence the appalling bust-up at gun-point at Parkland in Dallas. All that is not known is when exactly on AFI the body /casket/shipping container switch was made which is what David Lifton says he can now prove in a long-anticipated book expected to be entitled the Last Charade….

    • JWalters
      November 21, 2016 at 20:34

      Completely agree on the Bugliosi book. It substitutes fatness and trivial irrelevancies for honesty. It’s a fatter version of Posner’s book Case Closed. In both books, the hand-waving dismissal of the MANY eyewitnesses at Parkland hospital is ludicrous.

      To your recommendations I would add James Douglass’s book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. This clear and scholarly book brings together much of the evidence that has emerged since the Warren Commission report.

      • Gregory Herr
        November 21, 2016 at 20:51

        Excellent recommendation.

        • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
          November 23, 2016 at 00:38


      • evelync
        November 21, 2016 at 20:52

        Thank you, JWalters, I was just about to post a comment on James Douglass’ book – so if I may I’ll post my comment here:

        Thank you Gary Aguilar for pointing out that the Warren Commission failed to persuade us that their “conclusions” were relevant or trustworthy.

        Why is this important?

        Because the American public were treated like children. We weren’t allowed to learn why our president was murdered and how that related to the turn that history may have taken because Kennedy was murdered, if James W Douglass’ book has any relevance:

        “In this fascinating and disturbing book James Douglass presents a compelling account of why President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and why the unmasking of this truth remains crucial for the future of our country and the world.

        Drawing on a vast field of investigation, including many sources available only in recent years, Douglass lays out a sequence of steps by JFK that transformed him, over the course of three years, from a traditional Cold Warrior to someone determined to pull the world back from the edge of apocalypse. Beginning with the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs Invasion (which left him wishing to “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces”), followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis and his secret back-channel dialogue with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, JFK pursued a series of actions – right up to the week of his death – that caused members of his own U.S. military-intelligence establishment to regard him as a virtual traitor who had to be eliminated.

        Far from being ancient history, the story of Kennedy’s turn toward peace, and the price this exacted, bears crucial lessons for today. Those who plotted his death were determined not simply to eliminate one man but to kill a vision. Only by unmasking these forces of the “Unspeakable,” Douglass argues, can we free ourselves and our country to pursue that vision of peace.”

      • Taras77
        November 22, 2016 at 00:10

        I completely agree on the book: “JFK and the Unspeakable” It is a thorough and workmanlike book which is a complete analysis to date of all of the material. It makes one wonder how the Warren commission was not rejected as a complete fraud.

  29. James O'Neill
    November 21, 2016 at 19:22

    A braves defence Mr Hunkins, but unfortunately it completely ignores the actual evidence. You have either not read or chosen to ignore Jim Di Eugenio’s demolition of Bugliosi in Reclaiming Parkland, and other seminal works such as by Gerald McKnight, James Douglass and Sherry Feister. If the casual reader wanted just one area of evidence that completely destroys the Warren Commission Report it can be found in the medical evidence. The fatal shot was in front of Kennedy. It blew out the back of his head. You can find the details in, among other places, Doug Horne’s volumes summarising the ARRB (which you completely fail to mention). For more on the medical evidence read Charles Crenshaw’s book (he was one of the Parkland suregeons that treated JFK) or any of the fine pieces of writing by Dr David Mantik.
    It is dismaying that despite all the evidence Mr Hunkins can come out with such unadulterated BS. He is either profoundly ill read and therefore ignorant, or more likely simply yet another disinformation agent.

    • backwardsevolution
      November 22, 2016 at 00:43

      So, who did it then? We know it couldn’t have been Oswald. Was it the CIA? FBI? What is the best guess?

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 12:05

        Oswald did it and acted alone. He was a semi-disturbed individual who had delusions of being world famous throughout eternity. He was a hapless and pathetic figure who happened to be a pretty good shot, he wasn’t a great shot, but he was a fairly good shot and qualified as a marksman in the Marines.

        Remember, Oswald got off three shots and only connected on one of them, the first one missed completely. Oswald was clearly aiming for JFK’s coconut and connected on one of three shots. This is about what a reasonable person would expect from a guy who was a good shot committing an incredibly nerve racking homicide.

        • Forbes
          November 22, 2016 at 19:27

          One of three? So the same bullet caused the head and back and neck wounds?

        • John P
          November 22, 2016 at 19:39

          From my understanding, professional shooters couldn’t fire off 3 shots with the rifle Oswald had and aim in the time period the shots were fired. I gather from a PBS film that one bullet hit a stop light or a sign in line with the depository window and the Presidents car. I think it was the former.

          • posa
            November 22, 2016 at 21:55

            The “oswald” rifle was defective and no one could replicate the shots attributed to Oswald on a small moving target partially blocked by an oak tree in 6-8 seconds… and that includes expert marksman the WC hired to match the shots attributed to Oswald on a stationary target

            This excellent account links to the warren commission testimony on these matters… it’s pretty simple

            Furthermore, the trajectory has never been duplicated by anyone either

        • November 23, 2016 at 03:04


          This is just plain wrong. The Warren Report says Oswald hit 2 of 3 direct hits on the head and shoulder area within six seconds. That is a feat that not one of the rifle experts for the Commission could duplicate.

          Oswald was not a good shot at all. And he then got worse as he progressed through the service. (Destiny Betrayed, second editon pgs.129-130) The Warren Commission tried to cover this up by saying that last test was under bad weather conditions. But this was a lie since it was clear and sunny that day. (ibid)

          • Lawrence Fitton
            November 25, 2016 at 13:10

            for whatever it’s worth, the pbs 1988 documentary reenacted the shooting and proved it was possible to get the shots off in 3 seconds. i don’t see why pbs would ruin it’s reputation at the behest of the government or any other powerful interest. has pbs ever admitted to the fraud?
            the best way to prove who didn’t assassinate kennedy is to prove who did.

        • Jerry Policoff
          November 23, 2016 at 23:55

          No wonder you have only offered evidence-free defenses of Bugliosi. You are ignorant of the facts. The “official’ fairy tail has Oswald connecting twice, not once. Or are you now suggesting that one bullet caused two wounds in JFK’s head, one wound in his back, one in his throat, went on to hit Connally in the back, shattering his rib, exited his chest, shattered the radial bone in Connally’s wrist (2 more wounds), entered Connally’s thigh, and fell out onto a stretcher where it was found in pristine condition? 9 wounds caused by one pristine bullet. WOW!!! And he would have had to do all this without ever having practiced with the rifle, and despite its loose and unreliable telescopic site.

          And by the way, if Oswald had delusions of “fame throughout eternity” why did he deny shooting both JFK and Tippitt and declare himself a patsy???

          You should quit before you make an even bigger fool of yourself Mr. Hunkins.

      • Brad Owen
        November 22, 2016 at 12:18

        Go to Executive Intelligence Review (a LaRouche organization, uh-oh). Type in the search box: “John F. Kennedy vs. the Empire” by Anton Chaitkin, for a different take on who did the deed.

        • posa
          November 22, 2016 at 22:03

          It was Dulles and his alt-CIA team using Corsican mafia men organized by the permendex assassination organization. Others have written similar accounts as Chaitkin.

          • Brad Owen
            November 23, 2016 at 04:53

            Yes. You are right. They are the trigger men. Who were they pulling the trigger for? Who launched this op? That’s what people need to focus on: our REAL enemy. WHY can we never seem to Establish Justice and Promote our General Welfare in USA, and around the World for other former colonies, as was FDR’s Post-War intention that JFK revived? That was the particularly angry theme in the Sanders, Stein, and Trump campaigns (WHY can we never do right for the Commoners?). Chaitkin had another article; something like “Why do the British (that is, the “Mafia Dons” of City-of-London, and their “Capos” of Wall Street) kill American Presidents” (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, FDR [possibly poisoned],JFK/RFK/MLK as a package).

    • Drew Hunkins
      November 22, 2016 at 12:01

      Di Eugenio’s book is a desperate and flailing attempt to beat back the amazing work that is Reclaiming History. Di Eugenio’s like a feeble warrior waving a sword at a tidal wave when it comes to his book versus Bugliosi’s.

      Please, I implore everyone who hasn’t read Reclaiming History to give it an honest try. It will save you from wasting your lives.

      • Steve
        November 22, 2016 at 22:20

        Hey Drew, trying to polish that turd again,
        You know better, ya moron, Stop on over to
        Blackop Radio and get a dose of the truth.

      • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
        November 23, 2016 at 00:36


        If you’ve actually read Bugliosi’s 2500 pages (including footnotes on the CD), I’m afraid you’ve wasted a considerable portion of your life, time you’ll never regain.

      • Hank
        November 24, 2016 at 21:34

        read Judyth Vary Baker’s book about her love affair with Lee Oswald in the summer of 1963.

  30. Drew Hunkins
    November 21, 2016 at 18:45

    The conspiracy theorists were always wrong as it comes to the JFK assassination. Vincent Bugliosi’s book ‘Reclaiming History’ sets the record straight. The book is quite simply brilliant. It makes one think they were a buffoon for ever believing that the hapless Oswald could’ve ever taken part in a conspiracy involving the CIA, mafia, or military-industrial-complex to kill the president.

    ‘Reclaiming History’ is a must-read. The facts and evidence Bugliosi unearths are astonishing. He makes many of the conspiracy writers look like frauds, there’s simply no other way to put it. It presents a near perfect account of the assassination and a meticulous dissection of virtually every conspiracy theory surrounding it. Taking him over 20 years to research and write, Bugliosi takes on every angle and easily convinces anyone who chooses to see that Oswald acted alone and wasn’t involved in any conspiracy.

    The CIA, though responsible for skulduggery around the globe, and the military-industrial-complex, though responsible for war mongering and wasteful corporate welfare for the big defense contractors, and the mob, responsible for greed based violence and manipulative power grabs — none of these three groups, as ethically challenged as they are, played any role whatsoever in assassinating Kennedy. Moreover, Bugliosi’s ‘Reclaiming History’ also puts to rest the most outlandish theory: that the KGB or Castro’s Cuba had anything to do with the murder.

    Bugliosi turns up fascinating information regarding the highly questionable actions and opinions of so many players in the conspiracy story including Mark Lane, Cherami, Lorenz, Garrison and Bowers. After reading the book any arm-chair researcher can never look at these folks the same way again. ‘Reclaiming History’ further expands on the stories involving Demorenshildt, Killgallen, Marcello, and Trafficante among many others; shedding much light where conspiracy theorists selectively choose obfuscation and half-baked ideas.

    Mr. Bugliosi has provided an incredibly valuable service to the world with his magnum opus. He doesn’t just shut the door on any more thoughts of a conspiracy, he drop kicks it shut with a resounding slam that will echo for generations to come. ‘Reclaiming History’ will no doubt go down as one of the seminal pieces of investigative historical truth telling ever written.

    • Dennis Berube
      November 21, 2016 at 20:48

      Dear “Drew Hunkins”,

      I’m sorry but are you addressing anything in particular or just looking for another space to be a cheerleader for a book? A book that has been thoroughly discredited by Jim DiEugenio both on his website and in his book Reclaiming Parkland. Not only did Bugliosi not write the entire book, he conducted zero field research in his “20 years” of research. He basically just attempted to slander people and write a rambling critique of everything using any misplaced or misquoted thing he could. And when he failed in this (which was often), he simply ignored that bit of evidence or semi-addressed it in his CD companion to the book which brings it in over 2800 pages I believe. I assume you read all of it though.

      As Gary indicates, the warren commission looks worse today than it ever has and is an absolute joke.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 13:47

        Bugliosi did indeed research and write the entire book! That’s a blatant lie!

        His book demolishes DiEugenio’s book.

        • November 23, 2016 at 02:24


          Bugliosi admits to having two other ghost writers for the book. One was Dale Myers and the other was the late Fred Haines, who passed away before publication. (See Reclaiming Parkland pgs.78-79)

          Bugliosi’s book is pretty much a recycling of the Warren Report. There is no evidence that Bugliosi ever left his office to do any original field investigation on the JFK case. I know, I examined the entire book and the footnotes for my critique.

          Finally, I don’t know how Vince could have demolished me or my book since he never replied to anything I wrote about him. Including the fact that Oswald never received the rifle Vince says he ordered. And the rifle that is in evidence is not the one the Warren Report says he ordered. (ibid, pgs. 80-87)

          How Vince missed that key point in over 20 years of research is amazing.

          • Hank
            November 24, 2016 at 21:29

            Read Judyth Vary Baker’s book on her love affair with Lee Oswald in the summer of 1963.

      • Steve Naidamast
        November 22, 2016 at 14:46


        I have several of the books on the JFK assassination, including the original by Mark Lane who reviewed the entire assassination through a legal lens. All of these books have categorically concluded that it was indeed a government conspiracy of insiders that perpetrated the assassination.

        I read that Bugliosi’s book was nothing more than a hack job with a lot inaccuracies. It has been discredited by a number of analysts.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 15:52

        Lie number two is that “he conducted zero field research.” A blatant lie on your part since if you actually would’ve read Reclaiming History you will discover there are ample areas where Bugliosi does indeed conduct field research.

        • jaycee
          November 22, 2016 at 16:17

          Sorry DH, no lies blatant or otherwise. The origin and evolution of Reclaiming History have been known for some time now, including the identity of the co-authors. Also, it cannot “demolish” DiEugenio’s book because it was published first and so features no response to his critique. There has been no substantive critical response to Reclaiming Parkland and probably never will be because the old talking points supporting the Warren Commission have been crushed by the release of previously classified material since 1992 and the ARRB.

          • Drew Hunkins
            November 22, 2016 at 16:36

            Sorry jaycee, Bugliosi spent 20 years researching and writing Reclaiming History. Sure, he relied on other sources (who doesn’t), but he wrote the book himself. It’s something Bugliosi insisted upon right up until his death. Well aware Reclaiming Parkland came out AFTER Reclaiming History, Reclaiming Parkland was a lame attempt to discredit Reclaiming History that failed miserably. So, yes it demolishes Reclaiming Parkland since any fair observer who would happen to first read Reclaiming Parkland then read Reclaiming History would realize Oswald acted alone and wasn’t involved in any cospiracy involving the MIC, CIA or mob.

            Any honest reader of Reclaiming History knows beyond a doubt that Bugliosi proved his case in spades. At one point in Bugliosi’s incredible book he offers up five quick pieces of evidence seriously pointing toward Oswald’s obvious guilt: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That’s pretty heavy by itself. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer Tippit of the Dallas Police Department. That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed. Thirty minutes later at a Texas movie theatre he resists arrest and pulls a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt

          • Jerry Policoff
            November 23, 2016 at 23:36

            Sorry HD, but Oswald was not the only person to leave the building, and Bugliosi even acknowledges in a footnote that at least one other, Charles Givens, also left and was unable to get back in so he went back home (this was an example of how the Warren Commission got some “minor” things wrong). Yet Bugliosi also sites, again with a footnote, the testimony of DPD Lt. Jack Reville as proof that Oswald was on the sixth floor. Reville testified that he interviewed Givens inside the Depository after the assassination that day and Givens told him about returning to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes shortly before the shots were fired and seeing Oswald lurking about suspiciously. Obviously Reville perjured himself because Givens had gone home (as Bugliosi clearly was aware), and thus could not have told Reville anything. Givens did tell the FBI that day (before changing his story later) that he had last seen Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Bugliosi had an agenda and was rather sloppy. He was part of the cover-up.

          • Hank
            November 24, 2016 at 21:32

            read Judyth Vary Baker’s book about herself and Lee Oswald in 1963.

    • Matthew Carmody
      November 21, 2016 at 21:53

      I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing. Maybe you should take a look at Reclaiming Parkland by James DiEugenio for his takedown of Mr. Bugliosi.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 12:08

        Di Eugenio’s book is a desperate and flailing attempt to beat back the amazing work that is Reclaiming History. Di Eugenio’s like a feeble warrior waving a sword at a tidal wave when it comes to his book versus Bugliosi’s.

        Please, I implore everyone who hasn’t read Reclaiming History to give it an honest try. It will save you from wasting your lives.

        • Forbes
          November 22, 2016 at 19:16

          I wonder how Bugliosi contends with the most basic of evidence. Most witnesses heard either 3 or 4 shots. But those same witnesses tend to agree that the last 2 shots were very close together. In other words, impossible to have come from the same gun.

          I suspect that there were 4 shots. Those who thought 3 may not have realized what they were hearing when the first rang out. 4 shots is supported by the motorcycle recordings.

          I wonder how he deals with the evidence of the Parkland doctors who described exit wounds at the back of the head and entry wounds in the throat.

          Does Bugliosi really believe Ruby killed Oswald to protect Jackie?

    • John Crites
      November 22, 2016 at 03:43

      Bugliosi has to put the ridiculous and impossible theory in his book that one bullet hit the street , just jumped up and continued another block with the force enough to splatter a curbstone , causing a wound to James Tague’s cheek . Without this stupid unproven , never tested scenerio, Buglieosi could not pin the assassination sequence on Oswald .
      You can throw the rest of that doorstop away , those pages alone prove how phony this book is .

    • William Hamilton
      November 22, 2016 at 04:11

      Drew Hunkins,

      You’re right: Bugliosi has done the world a favor with his book “Reclaiming History”. He examined all the JFK assassination conspiracy hypotheses and found no evidence whatsoever that Oswald coordinated his shooting with any other individual on the planet or that any other individual was aware of what he was going to do. The coordination had to take place in a very narrow time window–about a week–during which Oswald did nothing but go back and forth to his job at the book depository and spend time by himself in his rented room, where he never had visitors or received calls on the shared telephone. He was such a loner that he creeped out one his previous landladies, who asked him to leave.

      So after fifty years, no one has been able tell us exactly how (or why) Oswald informed those grassy knoll riflemen that he was going to take a few shots at the president. Or how those grassy knoll riflemen found out what Oswald was going to do. Remember, Oswald didn’t have a dedicated phone number, didn’t have a car or even a driver’s license, didn’t have any friends, and didn’t have much money.

      The likelihood that two shooters would independently attempt to shoot JFK at exactly the same time at the same place is zero. So either there was coordination, or the whole sniper’s nest scene, with the boxes, the rifle and the spent shells on the sixth floor of the depository, was set up by a vast conspiracy of Dallas police officers. The likelihood of that happening is also zero.

      I’ve got a library of about forty JFK assassination conspiracy theory books. I read them about 30 years ago to hone my skills at critical reading. I was initially intrigued by the “mafia did it” hypothesis. But the books that blame the mafia can never put David Ferrie, or any of the other nasty New Orleans mobsters in Dallas where they could coordinate with Oswald. And Jack Ruby would have to be in league with the Dallas police chief to get Oswald’s perp walk delayed an hour and a half so Ruby could pop in and shoot Oswald to prevent him from talking. Hard to imagine the police chief and Ruby as co-conspirators. What would they have to gain?

      The “CIA did it” books aren’t persuasive either. Neither the CIA as an institution or individual officers and agents would benefit from assassinating the president, their boss. The CIA is a nasty organization that lies and kills people and generally does more harm than good. However, it’s made up of careerists, not ideological fanatics. And the CIA has a big problem: it’s no good at keeping secrets. If there had been a CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy, somebody would have blabbed by now.

      The worst writing about the JFK assassination involves the medical testimonies. (David Lifton wrote a 700+ page book on this subject, entitled “Best Evidence”. It’s the worst JFK conspiracy theory book ever written. And it probably made the most money). The JFK medical reports are so contradictory and the illustrative diagrams are so anatomically incorrect that a writer can selectively pick and choose among the medical testimonies to “prove” shots came from anywhere.

      Picking and choosing among contradictory “facts” to misrepresent reality is a practice the New York Times and other news outlets use in their reporting of events and conditions in faraway places such as Ukraine, Syria and Israel. It’s a practice Consortiumnews readers should be familiar with.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 11:46

        Mr. Hamilton,
        Thanks for validating my point, it’s a lonely spot to be one of the few lefties who believes Oswald acted alone and wasn’t a part of any conspiracy.

        Reclaiming History is stunning, people who discredit it are simply afraid that they’ve wasted their entire lives chasing rabbit holes about a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Reclaiming History puts it all into perspective.

        I had always believed a conspiracy did indeed take place to kill JFK but after reading Reclaiming History I did a 180 and am now totally convinced that Oswald acted alone and was not a part of any conspiracy. The book is probably one of the best works of non-fiction in the 21st century thus far. Anyone who happens to be reading this post, I implore you to buy the book and give it an honest reading.

        Two quick points, if Ruby was working for the mafia, why was he in a Western Union just moments b/f Oswald was likely set to be transported through the basement parking garage? If Ruby was on the mob payroll he would have been much more organized and would never have been standing at a Western Union window while Oswald could potentially be moved any minute. The mafia (or CIA or MIC) simply don’t operate in that haphazard of a fashion when pulling off the biggest murder in global history.

        Secondly, if Oswald was a CIA operative or mob assassin why was he immediately out in the street flagging down cabs and riding buses right after committing the biggest homicide in world history? He even tops it all off by killing beat cop Tippett. Even Harold Weissberg, the dean of assassination researchers, admits that the FBI and the Warren Commission did a very thorough job in checking out Oswald and determining that he had no intell/MIC connections whatsoever. Weissberg concedes this point and he’s the grand daddy of assassination researchers.

        Anyone who reads Reclaiming History and comes to an honest conclusion simply can no longer believe a conspiracy existed to kill JFK. People who think a conspiracy existed to kill Kennedy need to come to terms with the fact that Oswald acted alone and wasn’t a part of any conspiracy so they can stop wasting their lives believing in rubbish. Reclaiming History will reclaim their lives for them. I’m so happy I read it relatively early on so I didn’t waste any more time devouring half-baked conspiracy books that simply analyze a bunch of loose ends.

        • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
          November 23, 2016 at 00:29

          “Drew” and “William,”

          Bugliosi? Please! While the topic here is how the Warren Commission botched the Kennedy case, if we must, let’s deal with some of Bugliosi’s imbecilities.

          From my 9,000 word review of Bugliosi’s book, slightly edited, here’s an example of Bugliosi’s “scholarship.” (See:

          A typical example is Bugliosi’s carelessness is his mocking of skeptics who say that Robert Kennedy was, to borrow from Bugliosi, a “conspiracy theorist.” He counters not with an informed discussion, but by producing an RFK quotation of support for the Warren Commission and argues that RFK accepted the Warren Commission. [ 6 ] Ironically, in the very week that Bugliosi’s book premiered, a new best-selling book by David Talbot, Brothers, was published proffering book-length documentation of something skeptics have long known and Bugliosi could have known if he had really looked: While RFK toed the official line in public for the obvious, political reasons, in private, and until the day he died, he remained active as, to borrow from Talbot, “America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist.” [ 7 ] [F-1]

        • November 23, 2016 at 02:41


          Bugliosi never did any field research. Therefore, he never knew that there was a direct alley way from behind the city hall to the block on which the Western Union was. He also discounts Don Flusche, the Dallas police officer who was standing right in front of the Main Street parking lot entry, which the Warren Report said Ruby used to walk down into the basement. Flusche told the HSCA that Ruby did not walk in that way: he was there the whole time and knew who Ruby was. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 227-28)

          The HSCA found out that the security officer that day, Patrick Dean, lied about Ruby not being able to enter that back door because he would have needed a key to do so. Not true. Dean then flunked his polygraph test about this, even though he wrote his own questions. (ibid, pgs. 229-30)

          Keep on trusting those great Dallas cops.

          • William Hamilton
            November 25, 2016 at 15:18

            The Warren Commission report no doubt has many errors, as would be expected in any study of its magnitude. However, the errors don’t invalidate the Commission’s ultimate conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Nor do those errors prove that the Warren Commission tried to cover up an assassination conspiracy.

            What Bugliosi’s book does is to examine the evidence presented in the Warren Commission report as well as well as evidence from independent sources that’s come to light in the decades after the assassination. He examines the evidence as one would expect of a skilled trial attorney and criminal prosecutor: always citing reasons that pieces of evidence are misleading, mistaken, reliable, etc. After weighing the results of his research, he makes 32 persuasive arguments, concluding that there is no credible evidence of conspiracy.

            It’s important to note that Bugliosi works from evidence to reach a conclusion, unlike nearly all conspiracy theorists, who start with a hypothesis and then try to find evidence to support it, disregarding evidence that challenges their hypothesis. One piece of evidence conspiracy theorists universally disregard is Oswald’s character as a completely unsuitable individual for a role in any conspiracy. Another issue they avoid is the extreme difficulty in managing a conspiracy involving multiple diverse individuals, especially when the conspiracy must be carried out on very short notice.

            All this is not to say the US government doesn’t kill people and lie about it. Consider the Waco massacre of 1993.

      • Dennis Berube
        November 22, 2016 at 11:59

        “Neither the CIA as an institution or individual officers and agents would benefit from assassinating the president, their boss… However, it’s made up of careerists, not ideological fanatics…it’s no good at keeping secrets. If there had been a CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy, somebody would have blabbed by now.”

        No offense Mr. Hamilton, but these statements are not tenable positions by a long shot.

        -JFK remarked he was to “smash the CIA into a 1000 pieces”. There’s benefit right there without mentioning Cuba, Congo, firing Dulles, Bissell, NSAM’s 55-57, Indonesia, and many more CIA reasons.
        -If you think those CIA people back then were not fanatics, you simply haven’t read enough about them I guess. The ones under suspicion here are all rabid right wingers who mostly cite the Bay of Pigs as the worst thing that ever happened in history.
        -Sorry, but many people have “babbled” or told their part of the story over the years. I’m not sure what makes you say that. Just because NBC and FOX don’t interview these people doesn’t mean they haven’t talked. But just because someone was asked to kill a witness and told that story (Dan Marvin/Col Pitzer), doesn’t mean they know the entire plot to kill JFK, they would absolutely not know anything they did not need to. There was never any 1 person who had full command of the entire details, simply not how it’s done.

        • Drew Hunkins
          November 22, 2016 at 12:08

          Where did all these countless conspirators meet to plot and plan to pull off the biggest murder in global history? Madison Square Garden?

        • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
          November 23, 2016 at 00:32

          David Talbot’s excellent “Devil’s Chessboard” brilliantly explores Allen Dulles’s possible connection to the events in Dallas.

      • November 23, 2016 at 02:31

        Mr. Hamilton:

        Your comments about the sixth floor crime scene are quite uninformed and flat out wrong.

        If you go to Allan Eaglesham’s site, called Manuscript Services, you will see that he proves the sniper’s nest was arranged after the fact and that the shells were not originally dispersed as they were when the photos were taken. In other words, the scene was altered by those oh so pure Dallas cops, who put away more innocent people than and other city, and some states.

        Go back to sleep Lucky Pierre.

      • Jerry Policoff
        November 23, 2016 at 23:42

        Who ever said anything about Oswald being one of the shooters. Not only did he deny it, not only would it have been impossible for him to get downstairs in time to be seen calmly drinking a coke just outside the second floor lunchroom, not only did he have no paraffin residues on his face or hands, but at least six witnesses saw him downstairs. Oswald shot no one. He was framed.

    • Stew Gorry
      November 22, 2016 at 15:02

      All it takes is one viewing of the Zapruder film to completely discredit Bugliosi.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 22, 2016 at 15:16

        Bugliosi’s dissection of the Zapruder film is some of the finest work in the entire book. I urge you to read those passages.

        • November 23, 2016 at 02:52

          Bugliosi says that since the blood spatter in Kennedy’s skull goes forward, and that indicates a shot from the rear.

          This is false on two counts. First, not all of that splatter went forward. Some of it did go straight up as can be seen in the film, and some went backwards as the motorcycle cop testified to.

          But second, even if it were true, it would not mean a shot from the rear. This is because of the medical phenomenon of cavitation. This means that when a bullet strikes the skull, the disturbed blood and tissue forces open the weakest spot of the skull in order to escape. These openings are usually along the sutures at the top. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 137)

          I guess you have not read my book. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to show how good it is at showing how wrong VInce was.

        • David Smith
          November 23, 2016 at 12:40

          The back of JFK’s head was blown out in chunks to the rear, that can only happen by an entry wound from the front. When Jackie crawled onto the trunk, she retrieved a piece of her husbands skull. Therefore the JFK headshot was from the front and to argue otherwise is 100% wrong. Bickering about the direction of blood spray is meant to distract the discussion from the salient fact.

    • posa
      November 22, 2016 at 21:45

      The Warren Commission documented that Oswald’s rifle was inoperable… splints had to be added to the broken gun sights just to hit a target with that weapon… the fact is no one has been able to replicate the purported lone-gunman marksmanship with the defective Mannlicher–Carcano that Oswald was supposed to have purchased… and furthermore no one has EVER been able to fire a rifle downward from a 35 degree angle and make the bullet exit higher at a reverse, upward angle that’s higher than the entrance wound…and then reverse course again in mid-air to do further damage to Gov Connelly.

      these simple, documented facts prove that neither Oswald — nor any other human–could not have accomplished the extraordinary feat attributed to him using Mannlicher–Carcano

      That’s all it takes to refute the lone gunman theory

    • SpLee
      November 22, 2016 at 23:00

      Hello?? Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Cover up. And with a cover up, you get a conspiracy. Case closed. Why? Many reasons probably but who truly knows.

    • Gary L. Aguilar, MD
      November 23, 2016 at 00:17


      I’m perhaps one of the few people who have reviewed Bugliosi’s door stopper of a book. It was seriously flawed, as I pointed out in the longest book review ever published by “The Federal Lawyer,” the official journal of the Federal Judiciary. His misrepresentation and distortion of the Neutron Activation Analysis evidence is one of myriad examples that typifies his lawyerly, conclusions-driven book. But let me suggest you read the review, which is available on-line, here:

      Gary Aguilar

      • Hank
        November 24, 2016 at 21:33

        read Judyth Vary Baker’s book about her love affair with Lee Oswald in the summer of 1963.

  31. Jonathan Marshall
    November 21, 2016 at 16:06

    Good article, Gary.

    • Padraig
      November 22, 2016 at 17:57

      So when u speak to the now retired M.D. who received Kennedy’s body and then 48+ hours later Oswald’s body;
      and then interview the cameramen who were in Dealey Plaza Nov 22nd
      let me know.
      and u apparently don’t know how many citizens video recorded the presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza
      hint much more than 1. finally u don’t know how many bullets were found that day

    • Hank
      November 24, 2016 at 21:31

      read Judyth Vary Baker’s book about herself and Lee Oswald in 1963

Comments are closed.