by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
The government case against Lee Harvey Oswald consisted of a single bullet --the so-called 'magic bullet'. Surely --the government knew it had a problem. The 'magic bullet' could not have been placed at the scene of the crime. If the case were heard today, the 'magic bullet' still cannot be placed at the scene of the crime. Without the 'magic bullet', the government has no case against Oswald. 'No case against Oswald' means:
- 1) Oswald would have walked;
- 2) the murder of JFK was not the work of a 'lone gunman'.
- Oswald, therefore, died for the sins of a junta that --with the death of JFK --seized power in the United States. That is why things have not been the same in the United States since our brightest hope was was dimmed forever on a Dallas street in full view of a horrified world! Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered so that he would be tried in absentia in the media. It is was not merely convenient but necessary that Lee Harvey Oswald be murdered before he could talk.
They government either found a 'magic bullet' or the government planted it! They planted it!
The government needed a magical bullet that did the work of six ordinary, non-magical, run-o-the mill, every day bullets most which got beat up and deformed in the line of duty. 'Magic bullets' are above all that.
Arlen Specter is credited with concocting the theory that a single 'magical' bullet could smash bone and cartilage but nevertheless emerge with nary a scratch! Arlen Specter would pull a pull a 'magical theory' out of thin air and an equally 'magic bullet' out of his ass.
The government had a problem!
Lee Harvey Oswald would have to be tried for the crime of murdering the President. For quite some time in our history, those charged with crimes were given trials. The government had not yet figured out that if you just call them a bad name (terrorist) you can dispense with all those niceties.
Someone, somewhere was alarmed! What if Lee Harvey Oswald should get a real lawyer, or a good lawyer or --worse --a real good lawyer!? What if LHO should get a trial and be acquitted? What if Lee Harvey Oswald proved his charge that he was just a patsy! Worse ---what if the public were convinced that LHO was --indeed --a 'patsy'!?
Connections: Al Capone, Nixon, Johnson
At this time a sleazy strip club operator and erstwhile mobster who had once run errands for Al Capone and may have worked for Richard Nixon obliged the government by putting aside their fears. Jack Ruby would silence Lee Harvey Oswald even as he implicated Lyndon Johnson in the death of JFK.
Dead men are not put on trial. It is no mere coincidence that Jack Ruby --the man who had shut up Lee Harvey Oswald --had been a a Richard Nixon 'asset'. A little known memo supports the charge that Ruby was Nixon's personal spy, or more accurately, one of several.
The 1947 memo, found in 1975 by a scholar going through a pile of recently released FBI documents, verifies everything we know about Ruby and Nixon. Undercover work for the young Congressman Nixon would have been in keeping with Ruby's history as a police tipster and government informant. In 1950, Ruby gave closed-door testimony to Estes Kefauver's special Senate committee investigating organized crime. Committee staffer Luis Kutner later described Ruby as "a syndicatelieutenant who had been sent to Dallas to serve as a liaison for Chicago mobsters." In exchange for Ruby's testimony, the FBI is said to have eased up on its probe of organized crime in Dallas and in 1959, Ruby became an informant for the FBI.By the time the Warren Commission released its voluminous 'cover story', it was clear that by murdering Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby had saved the government from having to prove its kooky theory that a single 'magic bullet' was solely responsible for seven wounds to two people: JFK and John Connally. It's absurd on its face!
--The Plot to Silence the Truth
Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.
Reporter : Are these people in very high positions Jack ??
Jack : Yes.
Why has nobody seen this footage at the time it was shot? Because certain people with enough power didn't want you to see it. Just like they didn't want you to see the Zapruder film. Imagine what would have happened if the american public was shown just both of these films.
Well, you won't see me again. I tell you that a whole new form of government is going to take over the country, and I know I won't live to see you another time.
--Jack Ruby, Statement to Warren Commission
The government's case against Oswald would have to succeed or fail upon whether or not it could convince a jury that a single bullet had created created some seven wounds in both JFK and John Connally. A 'single' bullet would have had to change course several times to account for the several wounds in both JFK and John Connally.
Now U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, was at the time an ambitious junior counsel for the Warren Commission. It was Specter who originated and championed the theory that a single 'magic' bullet had done the work of a conspiracy. Henceforth, the word 'conspiracy' is verboten in those cases in which it may be certain that there was a conspiracy.
The government was saved further difficulties due to timing. Oswald was, of course, long dead by the time of the so-called 'investigation'. Had Oswald gone to trial, it is doubtful that the government would have had such a theory just waiting in the wings to be rolled out. And if it had, it would most certainly have been hammered by any competent defense attorney. Would the 'state' have dared to put Oswald on trial and thus expose their lies to rigorous cross examination? Would the 'state' have dared to let a 'hot dog' defense attorney make them look like liars or fools of lying fools? Would they state have risked losing an attempt to get a conviction? Would the state have risked a public expose of mere lies, cover stories and baseless conjecture? Of course not! And, of course, they didn't!
Ruby saved the government considerable embarrassment. The 'magic bullet' would have been challenged by a competent defense; it might have been ruled inadmissible by an honest judge.
The 'chain of evidence' had been broken.
There is no evidence placing the magic bullet in Dealy Plaza at the time of the crime. It is doubtful that the 'magic bullet' had ever penetrated bone or flesh. A growing chorus -some 45 years after the event --says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the fall guy for a CIA/Government crime that most certainly amounts to high treason.
The 'magic bullet', credited with miracles yet to be duplicated and cannot be placed at the scene pf the crime. Yet the 'magic bullet' is marked in evidence by the Warren Commission. Every other bullet marked in evidence by the Warren Commission is seriously deformed, damaged, twisted or smashed. Every other bullet so marked can be connected to Dealy Plaza. For every other such bullet there is a chain of evidence that must meet the standard of a court.
Yet it is the 'magic bullet with nary so much as a dent that is said to have done the work of some six or seven other bullet/fragments in evidence. One wonders where those bullets came from! They look like they struck something hard like bone. The 'magic bullet' --by contrast -- looks like it was fired through crepe paper if fired at all.
With the untimely death of Lee Harvey Oswald, the government was saved the trouble of having to prove its case. Lee Harvey Oswald had been shut up for good. He would never have the chance to convince a jury hat he was, as he had said, 'a patsy'!
Patsies are supposed to 'take a fall'
But Lee Harvey Oswald was no ordinary patsy. Even if he had not spilled the beans, his case would have been thrown out of court by an honest, competent judge. Even if he had not revealed secrets that higher ups intended to keep secret, the dismissal of charges against him would have have forever denied a dishonest Warren Commission a chance to rewrite history and put an official label on it. The masterminds of high treason had already decided that it was much easier to murder a talkative patsy than it would have been to buy off an unpredictable judge.
The question then is why is the 'state' so dogmatically adamant about the 'magic bullet theory'? As Shakespeare put it: 'methinks they protest too much!' The government is organized and invested in the cover stories. Warren Commission critics, by contrast, are dispersed throughout the populace.
The 'state' theory is handed down from above and defended with all the powers of the 'state'! Now --if the 'state' or agencies of the state, say, the CIA, FBI, were in any way 'embarrassed' by the facts, efforts by said agencies are completely understandable.
The guilty always try to cover up their crimes
Of all Warren Commission exhibits of 'bullets' and/or bullet fragments, only one --CE 399 --is very nearly pristine. Every other exhibit is mangled, smashed, and/or deformed to such an extent that the untutored eye might not recognize them as bullets or bullet fragments. Many of these 'exhibits' have a documented history, i.e, a 'chain of evidence' sufficient to make them admissible evidence had the case against Lee Harvey Oswald ever gone to court.
The 'state's case' i.e, the 'official theory' does not follow from the evidence. The state's case then as now rests upon the flagrant dismissal of real evidence recovered at the scene but upon a fanciful ex post facto 'cover story' invented by Arlen Specter. The government chose to cherry pick its evidence and when that didn't work, they would simply invent a cover for which there is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever.
Anyone wishing to defend the government's position must:
- cite proof that the magic bullet was at the scene of the crime at the time of the assassination.
- prove that CE - 399 was the fatal shot. There is no evidence to that effect. The government has merely asserted a 'theory'. And because Oswald was 'conveniently' murdered, the government's hand was never forced; it never had to put up or shut up!
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is [Deputy Attorney General Nicholas] Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
--FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, speaking on the telephone to Johnson aide Walter Jenkins two hours after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, HSCA Report, vol. III, pp. 471-73. (The Warren Commission -- charged with determining the truth in the JFK assassination -- relied upon Hoover's FBI as its primary investigative arm.)
"We have not been told the truth about Oswald."
--Senator Richard Russell, former Warren Commission member, conversation with researcher Harold Weisberg in 1970, Whitewash IV
The official version of the assassination of President Kennedy has been so riddled with contradictions that it is been abandoned and rewritten no less than three times. Blatant fabrications have received very widespread coverage by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished.
Photographs, evidence and affidavits have been doctored out of recognition. Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald have been completely blacked out. Meanwhile, the F.B.I., the police and the Secret Service have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence to give. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.
It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the Warren Commission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before the publication of the Warren Commission’s report, leaks to the press have made much of its contents predictable. Because of the high office of its members and the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission has been widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce the truth. An impartial examination of the composition and conduct of the Commission suggests quite otherwise.
The Warren Commission has been utterly unrepresentative of the American people. It consisted of two Democrats, Senator Russell of Georgia and Congressman Boggs of Louisiana, both of whose racist views have brought shame on the United States; two Republicans, Senator Cooper of Kentucky and Congressman Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the latter of whom is a leader of his local Goldwater movement and an associate of the F.B.I.; Allen Dulles, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Mr. McCloy, who has been referred to as the spokesman for the business community. Leadership of the filibuster in the Senate against the Civil Rights Bill prevented Senator Russell from attending hearings during the period. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl Warren, who rightly commands respect, was finally persuaded, much against his will, to preside over the Commission, and it was his involvement above all else that helped lend the Commission an aura of legality and authority. Yet many of its members were also members of those very groups which have done so much to distort and suppress the facts about the assassination. Because of their connection with the Government, not one member would have been permitted under U.S. law to serve on a jury had Oswald faced trial. It is small wonder that the Chief Justice himself remarked that the release of some of the Commission’s information “might not be in your lifetime” Here, then, is my first question: Why were all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the U.S. Government?
If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct confirmed one’s worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that cross-examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointed the President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of the supporters of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. To my knowledge, he did not attend hearings, but satisfied himself with representation by observers.
In the name of national security, the Commission’s hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policy which has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my second question: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in France during the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?
--Bertrand Russell, Nobel LaureateAdditional resources: