PROBABLE CAUSE AUSTRALIA

A Continuing Inquiry into the JFK Assassination

Issue 5 - Feb. 1994

Probable Cause Australia is the only Australian magazine dedicated to the JFK assassination.

Editorial

Welcome to the second big year of Probable Cause! Thank you all those people who are still supporting us and for your feedback on our big double issue 3 & 4. Due to the overwhelming support for a big November double issue, we've decided to make each November issue double the size!

Well, as you can see by the cover, the promised articles seen on the back page of the last issue have been bumped aside as we make this issue a special "Case Closed" edition. While in the States last November, it was sickening to see the amount of air time Gerald Posner and his Warren Commission- supporting book "Case Closed' received, and we are going to make sure you get the other side of the coin in this issue. Rest assured, 'Case Closed' is far from the definitive book on the assassination. There are many holes...and we'll poke 'em.

Plus there's a big review of the ASK Symposium in Dallas and the dedication of Dealey Plaza as a National Monument - along with farcical reactions of both Dallas Police and the U.S. media. Walt Brown manages to squeeze himself in, with an article on Marina Oswald and also as winner of the 'Best quote while we were in Dallas' award. After spending two days trying to find Walt and his lovely wife Jill, we managed to bump into them in the Dal-Tex building! Of all places! (The Dal-Tex is now a restaurant, we just all happened to be having lunch at the same time.)

The quote?? I won't spoil it. Read the article on ASK.

Notable quotes also include Bill Clinton stating that he's happy with the Warren Commission's version of events. He said this on November 22 and a huge moan was heard by all...except the media. As Cyril Wecht said at ASK, "It's time Clinton stopped pretending to be Kennedy and actually do something in his memory." The President of the United States is a big, bumbling baby who has let us all down. He's just like his own saxophone - a lot of noise, but mostly hot air. A big disappointment.

While I think of it, the final installment of 'Prince of Thieves' the Nixon/Watergate affair has been held over till next issue due to lack of space.

LATE NEWS
News that didn't make the body of this issue:
It's sad to announce that Larry Howard, Founder and Director of the Dallas JFK Assassination Information Centre died of a massive stroke on February 5, 1994. He was 54. A man who never stopped trying to get to the bottom of the assassination miasma, Larry was the heartbeat that started the Dallas KAIC, the inspiration behind our own Centre and he shall be sadly missed. His death came as a sudden, shocking blow to us all. He leaves behind a wife and two small children.

Perhaps he now knows the answers ....

Jackie Onasis (now suffering from cancer) and the Kennedy family are suing author Robert Groden over his new 'coffee table' book, 'The Killing of a President.' This glossy hardcover is the complete guide to all the assassination photos and films and includes, for the first time, color autopsy photos. It seems this is what has upset the family and Jackie O.

They say they've waited till the book is out so the publicity doesn't make the book a best seller. It already is. This book, along with Groden's first of four videos, 'JFK: The Case for Conspiracy' both show why he is highly regarded in the research community.

Our view is if the Kennedy's are to sue, they have to sue David Lifton, Harrison Livingston and everyone else who has ever used the autopsy photos. Color shouldn't matter. It's all public property.

Case dismissed. All adjourned.

Read and enjoy Probable Cause 15. It marks the second year of our newsletter - the 31st year of the search for the truth. Truth shall prevail.

Steve Gerlach.

"CASE CLOSED" OR POSNER'S POMPOUS & PRESUMPTUOUS POSTULATIONS by J. Gary Shaw - Copyright October 1993

Author/Attorney Gerald Posner has now earned the distinction of having written the most error-ridden, mistake-laden, misleading, misinformed and, therefore, the most thoroughly deceitful - book on the assassination of President Kennedy. His book, with its arrogant, self-serving, and extremely presumptuous title, Case Closed, is pure propaganda from start to finish. Perhaps a better title for his fanciful composition would be "Eyes Closed." Those few gullible souls still out there who like the Warren Report will no doubt love Posner's supportive, but rather inventive, contribution.

In cooking up and serving this intricate pot of deception, Posner has made masterful use of every tool of the propagandist's craft and utilizes a combination of opinion (his), innuendo, insinuation, distortion, false assumption, selectivity, confabulation, error and omission. (I'm trying to be kind). Mixing these ingredients well, while stirring in a liberal dose of character assassination (aimed at dissenting witnesses and researchers alike), the end result is a book so flawed, so erroneous and misleading, so selective and biased that, were it not for the massive media effort to sell this piece of deception to the American people, it would be completely ignored by serious Kennedy researchers and critics. However, because, of the predominant focus and attention being given the book by the major media, Case Closed must be viewed as a very dangerous piece of journalism. Dangerous - not because of its content, and what it purports to reveal and prove, but because of the manner in which the media has embraced and propagated the book as "truth" and "the final word" on the question of conspiracy in the death of the President.

The media elite has welcomed Posner's "Oswald did it" book with a warm open embrace, and have labeled it "brilliant." "meticulous," "exhaustive, "definitive," "conclusive," "convincing," "the last word," etc., etc., ad nauseam. These newsmakers, who have long yearned and searched for just such a book, have quickly climbed aboard the Posner bandwagon. They, no doubt, view the book as their vehicle to vindication, exoneration for their disgraceful, non-probing acceptance of the government's official "lone-nut" version of the assassination. With Posner's well-hyped postulations, they now feel they can go their merry way with a few egotistical parting words, "See, we told you so."

Needless to say, it would require several volumes to address and correct all of the erroneous statements and conclusions found in Case Closed. However, because of serious restraints upon my time and energy (not to mention the threatening nausea), as well as my own personal interests and involvement, I will limit my response to only two of the many examples of Posner's use of selectivity of evidence, misleading statements, and erroneous opinions or conclusions: (1) The Julia Ann Mercer Story, and (2) The Rose Cheramie Affair.

The Julia Ann Mercer Story
In 1983, Henry Hurt, author of the fine book Reasonable Doubt, became the only non-law enforcement person to personally interview Julia Ann Mercer. He shared with me at that time, and later in his book, the results of that interview. Here is the real "Mercer Story."

On Friday, November 22, 1963, about an hour and a half prior to the execution of President Kennedy, the 23 year old Miss Mercer was driving west on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. She had just passed in front of the Texas School Book Depository and was headed toward the triple underpass. Traffic there was congested because a pickup truck was illegally parked just ahead of her; one half of the vehicle rested on the sidewalk, the other haft in the street. Miss Mercer was forced to stop directly behind the truck to await an opportunity to pass. While eating, she observed a passenger dismount from the truck's cab, remove what she believed to be a rifle wrapped in paper from the rear of the truck, and proceed on foot up the grassy embankment toward the stockade fence. He was a white male in his late twenties or early thirties and was wearing a plaid shirt.

Finally, as traffic cleared and she was able to pass the truck, Miss Mercer looked directly into the face of the driver of the vehicle. He was round-faced and of heavy build. She also noted that the truck's driver-side door had lettered signage which included the words "Air Conditioning." She then continued on toward Fort Worth and stopped for breakfast at a Howard Johnson's restaurant located on the toll road about midway between Dallas and her destination. While in the restaurant - a place she frequented often, and, therefore, was casually acquainted with some of the employees and regular customers - she commented in the presence of several people that "the Secret Service is not very secret." She discussed having seen the man, whom she believed to be carrying a rifle (hence, in Miss Mercer's mind, a Secret Service agent), going up the embankment.

After leaving the Howard Johnson's and proceeding on toward Fort Worth, she was pulled over by, two police officers who had been at the restaurant and overheard her comments. The officers, she learned, had been notified that the President had been shot at the same location where she had seen the man with the rifle and wanted to take her back to Dallas for questioning.

Upon arriving back in Dallas, Miss Mercer was taken to the sheriffs office and interrogated off and on for several hours by policemen and plain clothes officers whom she perceived to be federal agents. She had to recount the story of the pickup truck and the two men several times before finally being allowed to go home.

Miss Mercer was awakened around four o'clock the following morning (Saturday) by two men identifying themselves as FBI Agents, and taken back to the sheriffs office. She had had little time to read newspapers or watch television. At the sheriffs office, she was shown photographs of several different men and asked if she could identify any of them as the two men she had seen in Dealey Plaza. She was able to pick out both of the men from the photographs but was not given their identities by the agents. Curiously, Miss Mercer says that she picked out the young man with the rifle from a snapshot, not the usual mugshot. The backdrop of this snapshot, she recalled, contained a sidewalk, some shrubbery, and a white wall. It was not until the next day, Sunday morning, when she saw Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on television, that she recognized these two as being the same men she had seen Friday in Dealey Plaza and later identified from photographs for the two FBI Agents.

According to Miss Mercer, her story was changed in official reports to indicate that she could not identify either man: Ruby as the driver of the truck or Oswald as the young man with the rifle. She is one of several witnesses who say that their original statements have been altered by the authorities. In Miss Mercer's instance, alteration was a must. To give credence to her report would mean that Ruby and Oswald knew each other before the assassination...which spelled 'conspiracy' - a word which was immediately taboo to investigators into the President's death.

And what of Posner's overly-simplistic view of the Mercer story? In the U.S. News and World Report excerpt of Case Closed, Posner charges that "Conspiracy buffs have gotten a lot of mileage from the statement of Julia Ann Mercer, a motorist caught in the traffic at Dealey the morning of the motorcade." In reality, Posner himself could have gotten a lot of mileage from this story had he chosen to do his homework and author an unbiased and factual book. That his discussion of the incident is cursory and misleading appears to be by design rather than accident or ignorance.

Posner dogmatically asserts that "..subsequent investigation found that the truck, which had stalled, belonged to a local construction company and had carried three men, who took tools from the rear to fix it. They were under constant surveillance by three Dallas policemen." Posner's opinion that the three policemen had the men "under constant surveillance," even if true, is of little consequence. First of all, it should be noted that the policemen never made this assertion; only Posner does. More significantly though, one has to wonder at Posner's naiveté. He seems to have never heard or thought of disguise, deception, diversion, cover, etc., being used in a plot to kill a world leader. These, after all, are just the common everyday tools of the murderer's or assassin's craft. Pardon my stupidity, Mr. Posner, but somehow I really can't picture the assassins, all clad in dark, pin-striped suits, driving up in a black limousine, openly removing their weapons, and moving into position for the kill.

Could it be possible that disguise and deception were utilized in this instance, and the policemen deceived? That such may very well be the case with the Mercer incident is found in the fact that the "subsequent investigation" to which Posner alludes, conducted by the FBI, failed to locate either the men or the truck.

Finally, according to Posner's closed-mind approach, he writes that "The Mercer story was fully discredited a little more than two weeks after the assassination." The truth of the matter is that the FBI was still searching for the truck and its occupants at late as December 29, 1963 - five weeks after the assassination; not 'two weeks' as Posner erroneously states.

Also of note, in his book Posner has added the date 'December 9, 1963' to the above U.S. News version of his assertion that Mercer's story was 'fully discredited.' This is an obvious reference to a December 9, 1963 FBI report concerning the statements of Dallas Patrolmen Joseph M. Smith, E. V. Brown, and Joe Murphy. In this report, Patrolman Murphy allegedly told the FBI that he '...was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged...' but that '...it is the property of a company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard.'

Question: now, in a real investigation, where would real investigators be most likely to proceed first in initiating their search for the owner of the truck and its occupants? If you said the 'First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard' ...WRONG!!! If FBI agents ever visited or questioned anyone at the bank, or, if there was any construction going on at this location at all there is no evidence of such to be found in the official record. On the other hand, however, the FBI did approach and request the assistance of fourteen different 'Wholesale Air Conditioning Parts Supply Companies in Dallas' in an attempt to locate the mysterious truck and its occupants. If this lookout was productive, the results are not in the official record.

And what of the three patrolmen: Smith, Brown, and Murphy? Each of them gave testimony before Warren Commission counsel, but not one of them was questioned, nor did they volunteer information regarding the so-called "stalled truck" incident. [Note: If the reader is a student of the law and desires a crash course in how to conduct a superficial, incomplete, and totally inept oral examination, the interrogatories of these three patrolmen are classics. The transcripts of their testimonies are in volumes VI and VII of the Warren Commission Hearings.]

Also noteworthy is the speed with which the suspicious truck incident was dismissed by the Secret Service. Their "lone nut" predilection exposed itself within two hours of the assassination as Agent Forrest Sorrells, upon learning of Miss Mercer's report, said, "I didn't pursue that any further - because then I had gotten information that the rifle had been found in the building and shells and so forth." Is Sorrells saying that there couldn't have been another rifle because he knew there was only one in the plan?

Author Gerald Posner, in both his book and the U.S. News excerpt, takes an arrogant backhand swipe at critics Lane, Garrison, Marrs, and Crenshaw (therefore, me as Dr. Crenshaw's co-author), for what Posner smugly charges as "citing unchallenged" the "fully dis- credited" Mercer story. "Fully discredited" is Posner's dogmatic but presumptuous opinion only. However, what is really at issue here is not the utilization and retelling of the still unsolved Mercer episode by the critics as proof that something is desperately wrong with the official investigations into the President's death; it is Posner's own pick and choose (Definition: misuses and abuse) approach to the facts regarding this issue.

The Julia Ann Mercer story was dismissed by the authorities early-on, and was never thoroughly investigated or explained...and Posner must have known this. He cannot, in my opinion, be as ignorant of the facts in this case as his writing demonstrates. But to ascribe any reason other than ignorance of the facts as the underlying cause for his having written such a flawed and intellectually dishonest book is thought provoking . . . and I now find myself deep in thought.

The Rose Cheramie Affair
In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the Protective Research Section, a preventive intelligence division of the Secret Service, had received information on more than 400 possible threats on the life of President Kennedy during the period from March through November of 1963. Knowledge of one such threat, never reported to authorities until after the assassination, concerns the allegations of Rose Cheramie, a former stripper for Jack Ruby. Posner offhandedly dismisses the Cheramie issue with a footnote. He does so in his customary way; by utilizing insinuation, innuendo, and outright error.

Of all the reported threats on the President's life, perhaps none is more chilling than the one revealed by Rose Cheramie. On November 20, 1963, two days before the assassination, Miss Cheramie was found bruised and disoriented, lying beside a road near Eunice, Louisiana. The state trooper who found her reported that, while driving her to the hospital she described being abandoned by two men whom she perceived to be of Italian extraction. The men, she said, were on their way from Miami to Dallas to kill the President. The trooper described her as "quite lucid". Several employees of the hospital also confirmed that Miss Cheramie had stated before the assassination that the President was going to be murdered.

As bizarre and incomprehensible as it may seem, the Louisiana State Police trooper did not report this sinister revelation to the Secret Service - or to other responsible authorities - until after the assassination and following the execution-style murder of the prime suspect in the case, Lee Harvey Oswald. Only then did the remissful trooper contact Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz and notify him of Miss Cheramie's potentially explosive information. Amazingly, according to the trooper, Captain Fritz's response to this information - information which should, at least at this early stage, have been considered an important potential lead - was simply that he was "not interested". Louisiana authorities dropped the matter and a provocative and potentially revealing component of a possible conspiracy was lost forever.

Rose Cheramie died less than two years later on September 4, 1965, becoming one of several individuals associated with the investigation of the Kennedy assassination who died within three years of the event. If she was ever questioned by authorities concerning her purported prior knowledge of a plot to kill the President, there is no report in the public record. And her untimely and violent death, like her allegations of the "two men from Miami" who were planning to kill the President, is shrouded in mystery.

For the second time, this time in east Texas, Miss Cheramie was found injured and lying beside a road. Suspected of having been struck by a passing automobile, she was taken first to the nearby home of a physician, and then on to the hospital. Her death certificate reported, at three different places on the document, that she was "DOA" (Dead on Arrival). Official hospital records, however, describe resuscitation efforts, and treatment of her injuries for a period of more than eight hours. More significantly, these records, in addition to enumerating her other injuries, also describe a mysterious "deep punctate stellate wound" above her right forehead. Such an injury, according to medical textbooks, can often occur with contact gunshot wounds - that is, when the barrel of a gun is placed against a victim's body and discharged. This type of injury is especially applicable to a gunshot wound of the skull, in which case the gases expelled from the barrel of the weapon are trapped between the thin layer of skin and its underlying bone and causes a rapid expansion and bursting of the surrounding flesh. The resultant injury is a hole having radiating-tears which form a stellate (starlike) or cruciform-appearing wound of entrance. Unfortunately, the autopsy that could shed light on the actual or probable cause of Miss Cheramie's death has been lost and cannot be located by the responsible authorities.

The driver suspected of striking Miss Cheramie swears to this date that he did not do so. He reported that she was already lying beside the road when he came upon her and that he had to swerve his car to avoid hitting her. A subsequent investigation of the alleged "accident" appears to confirm his story. An examination by a Texas Highway Patrolman revealed that there was no blood, flesh, or hair located on the suspect's vehicle.

Of further suspicion is the driver's reported sighting of a late-model "red" Chevrolet which he remembered seeing parked near the scene when he passed that location a few minutes prior to his finding the injured Miss Cheramie. This observation was confirmed by Miss Cheramie's sister, who, when questioned by state investigators, was asked if she had any knowledge of any friends of Miss Cheramie who owned such an automobile. According to the sister, these investigators had also noticed the red car's presence at the scene as they were making their usual patrol of the area just a short time before the accident.

It should also be noted that the death of Miss Cheramie, who had a prior record as a government informant, occurred just one month after she had re-contacted the FBI to, allegedly, offer a tip concerning a New Orleans' based heroin smuggling operation.

With the Cheramie story, as with other portions of his book, Posner first misleads the reader by using insinuation. He writes that Dr. Victor Weiss, a resident physician at the hospital where Miss Cheramie was taken for treatment, "...told investigators that he did not hear her say anything about the assassination until November 25, the day after Ruby killed Oswald." With this statement from Dr. Weiss, as reported in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (X HSCA 200), Posner apparently hopes to convince the reader that Miss Cheramie did not tell anyone of the plot to kill the President until after the fact. Of course, had he chosen to be completely forthright, Posner would have explained that Dr. Weiss, Chief of Psychiatry at the East Louisiana State Hospital, learned of Miss Cheramie's revelations from several of the members of the hospital personnel who did hear her tell of the assassination plans prior to the President's murder. In Dr. Weiss' own words, "On the 20th of November...she (Miss Cheramie) quite openly and readily told a number of the staff, including the doctors attending her, that she was aware the President was going to be assassinated".

Furthermore, in a completely unbiased presentation, Posner would have informed the reader that in the same report, and directly across the page from his source for Dr. Weiss' statement, was additional confirmation of what Miss Cheramie had told the hospital personnel. There, on page 201 of HSCA's Volume X, is the sworn testimony of the Louisiana State Policeman who had picked up and transported the injured Miss Cheramie to the hospital on November 20th. Miss Cheramie, the trooper says, told him at that time that she was on the way to Dallas with the two men to "pick up some money, pick up her baby, and to kill Kennedy".

Next, Posner attempts to sway his reader by using his own unsubstantiated opinion and charges that " . .Cheramie had never worked for Ruby." Where he got this bit of misinformation is unknown; it's certainly not in the HSCA's investigative report on Miss Cheramie. And, as usual, had Posner cared to check his facts he would have found that there is verification of her having once worked for Ruby. It is found in an official report to Louisiana authorities dated April 4, 1967 which was filed by Louisiana State Police Lt. F. L. Fruge; the officer responsible for much of the original investigation into Miss Cheramie's allegations. In his report, Lt. Fruge unequivocally asserts that Miss Cheramie, while in custody, had " . . slated that she once worked for Jack Ruby as a stripper, which was verified."

Finally, with his assertion that Cheramie ' . . had a history of providing the FBI and U.S. Customs with elaborate and false stories about narcotics deals," Posner makes use of innuendo in attempting to denigrate Miss Cheramie, thereby casting doubt and suspicion on her disturbing story of prior knowledge of the assassination (and perhaps the assassins). His doing so is an obvious effort to turn the reader's attention away from the real facts - the veracity of the Louisiana state trooper and the hospital's attending medical personnel - and toward Miss Cheramie and her problematical reputation. In other words, when the message cannot be discounted or rebutted, then attack the messenger. And where have we seen this ploy before?

Conveniently, and understandably in Posner's instance, Case Closed makes little mention of another Miami-linked pre-assassination threat which was disclosed by a right-wing extremist named Joseph Milteer. Of course, this threat would be too difficult for Posner to explain away - it was tape recorded by police two weeks before the assassination and passed on to the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service. This threat, one of two which outlined plans to kill the President with high-powered rifles - both occurring in early November 1963 - was not relayed to agents responsible for advance preparations for the Dallas trip. In light of this, one cannot help but wonder if there might be a connection between this Miami threat and Miss Cheramie's "two Italian men from Miami?"

There is absolutely no doubt that Rose Cheramie possessed a very troubled past. Her lengthy record of arrests and convictions bears this out. But while her past record may cast doubt on Miss Cheramie's credibility in some matters, it does not in any way destroy the credibility and veracity of the several, honest, well-respected, and coherent individuals who heard her state - before the fact - that the President was going to be killed when he went to Dallas. Many of those witnesses who heard Rose Cheramie that day are still living and continue to tell the same story...not that Posner bothered, or even cared, to check. Posner's flagrant attempt to distract the reader's attention from the true facts of this affair is not only unconscionable, it is also intellectually dishonest.

In conclusion, it should be noted that Case Closed has been described by some as a "great" prosecutorial brief against Oswald. I don't see it that way at all. In my opinion, Posner's selective effort to ascribe motive, means, and opportunity to Oswald as the lone assassin would be thoroughly destroyed in very scant time by any first-year law student who acquaints himself with all of the facts in the case and is provided with fair and equitable adversarial conditions for presentation of Posner's case against Oswald. For, while Posner may be a slick attorney - and even a good writer - his astonishing lack of knowledge concerning the Kennedy case is laid bare for all to see in his poorly-researched, thoroughly misleading, and completely discredited book Case Closed. I predict a much shorter life expectancy for this book than that experienced by its ill-fated predecessor, The Warren Report.

ASK Not... - The 1993 ASK Seminar by Steve Gerlach

The Dallas Hyatt at Reunion Square is a big towering glass monolith (as most buildings in Dallas are) just across the "triple underpass" to the left and about a two minute walk to Dealey Plaza. Some rooms even have views of the Plaza and the surrounds. It hosts many conferences and seminars, and during November it becomes the home of a traveling band of 700-odd researchers, students and readers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

This five days of seminars running from Thursday November 18 through till Monday November 22 with lectures starting at 9am and finishing at 10.30 or 11.30 pm is definitely an exhausting stretch for anyone. Then again, there are those who come every year, they've seen the panels, know what's to be said, so they sit out the front in the lounge and talk to people like Marina Oswald and Beverley Oliver, Robert Groden and Jack White.

For those of us who have made the long and arduous trip from half-way around the world, there's no time for sleep, no time to rest as we have to digest all the information we possibly can...no time to even eat. We arrive at Noon on Thursday the 18th.

Straight out to Dealey Plaza and already it was crawling with tourists. People from the seminar, people of Dallas, and people from inter-state who weren't connected with ASK who had made the journey down here to pay their respects 30 years on. Normal people, everyday people, not wide-eyed assassination 'nuts' looking for guns and snipers and shooters and lost bullets. That's just what the media were saying.

Thursday's schedule consisted of "Dallas '63 Revisited" a panel made up of people who were living in Dallas in 1963 and their recollections of the times and how Dallas has changed; and also 'JFK 101: An assassination Primer' which dealt with the basic facts of the assassination.

After dinner. Norman Mailer gave the Keynote Address and talked long and hard about Oswald's life and his murky background and how hard it was hard to research someone who seems to have been three people at once. Mailer's new book on Oswald should be well worth the read.

Friday the 19th saw the opening of the ASK Mart, a place where authors and researchers alike could sell you their thoughts and advice. A place to meet and eat and mingle with Robert Groden, Jean Hill, and Cyril Wecht. Linda and Andy from "The Last Hurrah Bookshop" were there with the biggest table selling everything from Mannlicher bullets to Ruby's business cards and every book on the assassination you could imagine. Robert Groden's coffee-table book 'The Killing of a President' was sold out by the end of this day. In comparison, Linda and Andy had 6 copies of Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed' on display - they were still there when the seminar ended.

Posner, the hottest thing since sliced Warren Commission, did not show at the ASK seminar even though he was invited. Probably too busy with his three media interviews a day to talk to us 'nuts.'

The lecture 'Case Closed?' kicked off today with Jim Moore "Conspiracy of One" telling us all to get a life and that it was terribly unhealthy to know more about a day 30 years ago than you did about yesterday. This self-confessed "I think it was a conspiracy, no, I've changed my mind and now believe the Warren Commission" researcher was at least good enough to acknowledge the fact the Posner had made mistakes and had tripped himself up on many issues.

After telling us all to get a life and move on, he then wished us luck in finding out who killed Kennedy!! David Lifton had no trouble tearing him apart. What followed was a point by point examination of Posner's footnotes. The references are where Posner plays dirty tricks. Only people with the original evidence can see he has quoted selectively and misrepresented testimony. Things he accuses us of doing!!

The 'Intelligence Community & Defectors' panel was bogged down by Oleg Nechiporenko, the KGB agent, and his interpreter which made every question and answer take an eternity. 'Oswald in Mexico City' was an interesting discussion between Gaeton Fonzi and Jim Moore about whether or not Oswald did in fact go to Mexico - a topic covered in minute detail in Fonzi's new book "The Last Investigation."

By Saturday 20th, things were afoot. People were painting the grassy knoll fence white and the brownish Dealey Plaza grass green! Something was up. Rumours abounded that Clinton was coming for the dedication of Dealey Plaza as a National Monument on Monday. Perhaps he would then open all the files. Perhaps...perhaps.

The 'Photographic Evidence' panel saw nothing new of note. Jack White went through the usual business with Robert Groden but not to the same stunning effect as Groden's new video 'JFK: The Case for Conspiracy.' For lunch we decided to try the Dal-Tex building and this was where we finally ran into Walt Brown, his wife Jill, and their researcher Russell. It was great to finally meet face to face and Walt provided us with the quote of the trip. Taking us outside to the School Book Depository. He pointed to the sniper's window and said: "See this building? This is the building in which the most important thing never happened."

Good point. We spent more time at Dealey Plaza recreating the umbrella man photo (an eerie feeling to open an umbrella on Dealey Plaza) and then used the umbrella to prove beyond doubt that a person of average size could easily shoot over the picket fence at the President. He does not have to be 10 feet tall and does not have to stand on anything. It's an easy shot, and a deadly one.

'The Legal/Medical Evidence' was the most heated of all the panels. Anyone who places David Lifton, Cyril Wecht, Walt Brown and Gary Aguilar against Jim Moore, Robert Artwohl (another Commission apologist) was sure to get some fireworks. And it happened. What followed was a fifteen minute, dozen words a second speech by Gary Aguilar, accompanied by some 600 slides to prove beyond any doubt that Posner is wrong! When running out of time, Cyril Wecht donated five minutes of his allotted time to Aguilar so he could finish. The other side didn't have a chance. Also from this panel came the smashing news that Posner had actually written a book saying there was a conspiracy and wanted Random House to publish it. When Random House refused, Posner asked, "What kind of book would you like?" and re-wrote the book to the publishers specifications!!

Posner also attacks Jean Hill in 'Case Closed' because in her initial statements she states there was a white dog in the limousine between the Kennedy's. Well, after thirty years and with perfect timing, Aguilar produced still and moving pictures up on the screen, for the whole seminar to see, of Mrs. Kennedy being given a stuffed white dog from a little girl in the crowd when they arrived at Love Field. Mrs. Kennedy is seen to place the white toy dog between her and her husband as they climb into the official car. Posner sinks further and a cornerstone of his case is destroyed. Jean Hill is vindicated and becomes even more important as she saw more than anyone else that day. She was, without doubt, the closest to the Kennedy's when shots rang out.

The pro-Posner case was in ruins after the demolition job Brown, Aguilar, Lifton and Wecht performed on it. It was indeed strange that Posner would not show up to defend himself. Strange, but not surprising. We could rest assured the case wasn't "Closed".

'New Leads & Revelations' was split up into six groups and we went along to hear Walt Brown read from his soon to be published second book on the assassination, 'Blue Death, Red Patsy, White Lies.' Walt's statistical analysis of the Warren Commission was staggering and we hope to reproduce some of those stats in World Exclusive articles in upcoming editions of Probable Cause.

Sunday 21st, saw a general wrap-up of the events and a call to action that went along the lines of, "It's now or never" and the support for Clinton and his administration, the hopes we had that he would do something positive, were starting to turn into bitter disappointment ....

"I knew Jack Kennedy, Mr. President. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."

Also, the "Cuban Connections & Organized Crime" panel included Gaeton Fonzi, John Davis, Peter Dale Scott. The question still seems to be that Organized Crime seems to solve the case but it is the truth???

In the afternoon, eyewitnesses including Beverley Oliver, Ed Hoffman and Phil Willis took us all on a walking tour of Dealey Plaza as the Plaza had been sealed off by the police for this very event. That was, of course, till three Dallas Police Cars charged down Elm Street to tell us all to clear a way for peak hour traffic. Three Dallas Police Rookies and 700 assassination buffs who don't believe anything the DPD do or say makes for a dangerous situation. But all was defused when, whilst the DPD were having problems getting the crowd to move, one spectator shouted Oswald-like "I'm not resisting arrest!!" The laughs that followed calmed the situation.

Sunday 22nd was the big day. Dealey Plaza was sealed off with concrete bridge pylons on semi-trailers!! and the Plaza was cleared of all spectators so 200 Dallas police on foot and horseback!! could sweep the area for suspicious packages (and people) and then we were all allowed back into the Plaza past DPD officers one by one!!! to get a view of the dedication.

Nellie Connally fronted a cast of spectacular non-entities and from 11.30 till 12.30 we were treated to a ceremony of off-key singing and boring recollections as only the Americans know how to do. While this was taking place, two police helicopters hovered overhead to backup the 600 police in Dealey Plaza (that's right 600!!) Not to mention the 18 mounted police and the 22 DPD police cars sitting on the triple overpass. The Sheriff was standing on the top of the School Book Depository with binoculars, there were at least four police on each of the surrounding buildings and a gaggle of at least 20 on the grassy knoll.

"What a police turn-out" People said. "If this number of police were here 30 years ago, none of us would be here today!"

Very good point.

Not to mention that three police standing behind the picket fence at just about the area where thirty years ago shots were heard and, yep, you guessed it, police were seen after the assassination.

Then came 12.30.

12.30pm November 22, 1993.

Thirty years later.

And the band played a campy version of "When the Saints Come Marching In."

Disgusted was all we could feel. Here we were - 30 years on - 1 minute of silence was all we wanted.

"There's been 30 years of silence, one more minute wouldn't have hurt." Walt Brown said.

But we got the sickly sweet sugar feel-good crap that only the Americans know how to do. As the band blasted away out of tune and too loudly, I stood on the south side of Elm street, in Jean Hill's position.

And remembered.

And was moved.

Could imagine it all.

The smiling President.

His lovely wife.

Shouts and cheers.

Shots and Blood.

Panic, commotion.

Horror and Death.

And silence.

With the band playing at ear drum bursting level and the helicopters droning over head like some Vietnam nightmare and the 600 police in Dealey Plaza, I tried to block it all out.

Block it all out.

And listen to silence.

To death.

The police told the media there were no arrests and the media seemed surprised at this. What did they expect us "buffs" to do? Clinton didn't show either. He decided not to play JFK that day, only to state he'd reviewed the evidence and believed Oswald had done it. It's amazing what a few CIA debriefings will do.

And Dallas and American officials did their best to celebrate the birth of a new National Monument and tried to shatter the memories and images of what happened in Dealey Plaza 30 years ago with loud music and blaring helicopters.

No one mentioned the assassination. Even the plaque that was set into concrete on the north side of Elm St., just at the base of the Knoll, states for future generations this is now a national landmark for all and was dedicated by Nellie Connally.

It makes no mention of John F. Kennedy or the assassination 30 years ago.

THE COVER-UP CONTINUES

Lest We Forget

POSNER'S SINGLE BULLET THEORY OR HOW TO IGNORE THE FACTS WHEN YOU REALLY TRY By J. Gary Shaw - Copyright, November 1993

In his book Case Closed, and its U.S.News and World Report excerpt, Author Gerald Posner attempts to prove that the single bullet theory is correct and that "conspiracy theorists" are wrong in their contention that one bullet could not have caused the seven wounds to the two men, President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Posner calls his reconstruction of the theory "the shattered myth." In reality, what Posner has created is his own version of the magic bullet myth. He has done so by perverting the evidence while parroting the fraudulent Warren Commission 'lone gunman' parody. He has also, quite successfully, created, his own 'masterful myth.' The following is a summary of some of the flaws and fallacies of that myth:

Posner's - "The shattered myth"
Posner: "Oswald's second shot, the first to strike [occupants of the limousine]..."

Here, Posner, in a giant leap of faith, makes the assumption that Oswald was the shooter - the only shooter - and that his first shot missed. Truth is, there is very little - if any - solid, uncontested evidence to support these assumptions.

Posner: "Its [Posner's second shot] trajectory, based on the Failure Analysis computations and the Zapruder film is reconstructed here."

In his book, Posner refers often to this study by Failure Analysis Associates, a firm commissioned by the American Bar Association to reconstruct the assassination for its 1992 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Using computer enhancements, Failure Analysis provided evidence and expert testimony for both the prosecution and the defense. Drawing only from the prosecution's case, Posner neglects to tell the reader that Failure Analysis' CEO, Roger McCarthy, testifying for the defense, provided what the trial's host portrayed as "a compelling argument" for more than one gunman. According to McCarthy, the shooter "gave up some awfully good shots to take some awfully bad shots" in order to allow "the quarry into a second shooting" by another gunman. The trial's host further reported that '...no one, not even Failure Analysis, is ready to say conclusively who killed President Kennedy." The mock trial ended in a hung jury - a significant fact which Posner purposely, and prejudicially, fails to mention.

"KENNEDY [WOUNDING]"
Posner: "Bullet speed of 1,700-1,800 feet per second"

This estimate of the bullet's velocity at first impact is acceptable.

Posner: "Entry wound in back 6.5mm in diameter"

The wound in the President's back was not 6.5 mm in diameter. Though originally reported by the Bethesda pathologists to be 7x4mm, it was actually much larger. The HSCA medical panel determined the wound to be irregular shaped and 9x9mm (3/8" x 3/8') in size. This size is confirmed by the fact that one of the pathologists at Bethesda probed the wound with his finger. Posner fails to inform the reader of the fact that the only people to see, and probe, this wound stated that the bullet entered the back at a downward angle of 45 to 60 degrees (and, had "...no point of exit"). This is an impossible trajectory for a shot from the TSBD's 6th Floor southeast-corner window at Z-Frames 223-4, which was an angle of only about 20 degrees. Posner's computer-generated drawing negligently omits all mention of angles of trajectory (see Posner's 'View from above' below).

Posner: "Bullet grazed tip of a vertebra in the neck, slightly splintering the bone."

Complete speculation. The only firm evidence in the record of a bullet having entered the back located the wound near the third thoracic vertebra - several inches lower than Posner's reconstruction - and nowhere near his "vertebra in the neck" assertion.

Posner. "Cavity momentarily caused by bullet's passage."

Hypothetical. The bullet may very well have caused such a cavity, but there is no evidence for such an occurrence in the record.

Posner. "Exit wound in throat"

False. The only witness to view this wound prior to its being altered by surgery has stated on record and under oath that this was a wound of 'entry,' or 'puncture,' and that the bullet came at the President from the front. The wound was described as being 5 mm in diameter, and consistent with a wound of entry.

Posner. "By frame 226 the President began to show a neurological reflex - known as the Thorburn position - to spinal injury. His arms jerked up to a flexed position, hands nearly at his chin, elbows pushed out."

Complete speculation. First of all, the 'spinal injury,' as seen on the x-ray, occurred at the sixth cervical process, several inches higher than the back wound's 'official' point of entrance, near the third thoracic vertebra. Perhaps a better hypothesis would be that the damage to the cervical process was caused by a bullet which struck the President in the throat - from the front. The projectile was then stopped by the hard, gristly area at the rear to the President's neck, causing the damage to the cervical process. This would not be an unusual occurrence. In fact, a similar condition is seen with the wound suffered by Dr. Martin Luther King. In Dr. King's case, a larger and faster bullet (.30-06) than the 6.5 mm cartridge entered near his chin "with a total transection of the lower cervical and thoracic spinal cord and other structure of the neck." The spent bullet was recovered lodged just "beneath the skin near the shoulder blade on the left." It is note-worthy that military snipers are taught to aim for this particular point of the human anatomy. It is called "Crossing the T," and is considered to be one of the deadliest of kill shots.

With this as an alternate hypothesis, Posner's highly speculative "neurological reflex" and "Thorburn position" suppositions become moot points.

Such a hypothesis would also help explain the mysterious "butchery" performed on the President's throat following his departure from Parkland Hospital.

Posner: "Bullet tumbling"

Again, complete speculation. This statement assumes that the bullet which struck Kennedy is the same bullet which wounded Connally, and that the missile's passage through the President caused it to begin a "tumbling" action upon exiting his throat. There is no factual evidence that such action occurred.

"CONNALLY [WOUNDING]"
Posner: [Bullet speed] "1,500-1,600 feet per second"

Again, Posner attempts to mislead the reader with his speculation that the bullet first hits Kennedy, thereby, decreasing the bullet's velocity by 200 feet per second. This "theory of decreased velocity" of course, is crucial to Warren Commission apologists in attempting to resolve the troubling "pristine bullet" question.

Posner: "Entry wound in right shoulder was 1-1/4" long - the exact length of the bullet - indicating the bullet was tumbling end over end."

False. This wound was oval-shaped 0.8 x 1.5 cm (5/16" x 19/32") and was, according to Connally's attending physician, Dr. Robert Shaw, "...a puncture type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle]." The wound edges were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging the wound, and then sutured. It is only the Governor's postoperative scar that was 1-1/8" long. This is apparently where Posner derived his erroneous "1-1/4" long wound.

Posner: "Traverses chest and shatters right fifth rib"

Correct. But Posner fails to note that the bullet was determined to have traversed Connally's body at a 10 degree downward angle, which is totally inconsistent with the 45 to 60 degree · downward trajectory of the bullet which struck Kennedy in the back. This fact alone destroys Posner's fabricated straight-line trajectory reconstruction.

Posner: "Exit wound below the right nipple was large - nearly 2 inches in diameter - and ragged; the bullet was still tumbling"

Correct, except for the speculation that the bullet was "tumbling" on its path through Connally's body. It may have been. However, a mutilated, fragmented, or mushroomed bullet can, and often does, propel bone and tissue along its path which can also create an exit wound such as the one described.

Posner: [Bullet speed] "900 feet per second"

Here, Posner selectively decreases the velocity of the bullet by 600-700 feet per second upon passing through Connally's chest. However, actual ballistic tests have determined that a 6.5mm bullet would experience only a 21 per cent reduction in velocity when effecting a wound such as that suffered by the Governor. This means a decrease in velocity of only 315-330 feet per second, or a continued velocity of 1185-1270 feet per second, not the 900 feet per second speed Posner erroneously postulates.

Posner: "Entry wound at top of right wrist was ragged and irregular. The bullet, now traveling backward, fractured the radius bone."

Correct, except for the bullet "traveling backward." This is complete speculation based on absolutely no evidence. The wound could also be said to be typical of one caused by a mutilated, fragmented, or mushroomed bullet.

Posner: "[Bullet speed] 400 feet per second"

Here, Posner continues his assumption of the bullet's velocity having been slowed upon previously passing through the bodies of the President and the Governor. Then, in arbitrary fashion, Posner further reduces the bullet's velocity by 500 feet per second upon exiting Connally's wrist. It should be noted, however, that tests have shown that a 6.5mm bullet lost less than 5 percent of its original velocity when fired through the wrist of a human cadaver. Therefore, even while using Posner's hypothetical and erroneous 900 feet per second as the bullet's velocity upon exiting Connally's wrist, the bullet would still be traveling at a speed of about 855 feet per second - the equivalent of the muzzle velocity of a .38 Special handgun bullet. When Ruby shot Oswald with a similar weapon, the bullet passed almost completely through the accused assassin's body. It stands to reason, then, that a bullet traveling at such speed would, in all likelihood, have passed completely through Connally's thigh. It would not, as Posner contends, have been "...just able to penetrate skin" (See below).

Posner: "When the bullet came to rest in Connally's left thigh, having lost more than 80 percent of its velocity, it was just able to penetrate skin."

As noted above, this is complete speculation. It is based on assumption and error. The exact nature and cause of Connally's thigh wound is still in question. Posner's statement that the bullet had "lost more than 80 percent of its velocity" has already been shown to be erroneous in the preceding paragraphs. The actual loss of velocity for Posner's single bullet hypothesis would be closer to 50 percent - not 80.

There is a reasonable, alternative explanation for the type of wound Connally suffered to his left thigh. Upon striking dense material, i.e. a rib and/or wrist bone, a bullet will often break apart. The resultant fragments will continue on, but may be deflected in various angles. The velocity of these projectiles may also be greatly diminished. If this occurred with the Governor, which is highly probable, and a large fragment had exited from his chest or wrist and struck him in the leg, it could have caused a wound such as the one described to the Governor's thigh. A large, flattened or mushroomed fragment, with a greatly diminished velocity, could cause a large, shallow, entry hole. It would also be possible for a small piece of metal from that fragment to have sloughed-off upon impact. Because of its smaller size, this piece would have penetrated farther into the flesh than its much larger counterpart. This is not an unusual or unheard-of occurrence with gunshot wounds. Such an hypothesis could also account for the inconsistency of a very small fragment, which was or reportedly buried deep in the governor's leg, having been found beneath such a large entry hole in the Governor's thigh.

Of course, Posner never addresses the issue of how such a small fragment, reported to be approximately 1.5 mm. wide at its greatest width and 2 mm in length (or, about 1/16"x3/32"), could create such a large entry wound, described as being 1 cm (or, about 3/8" in diameter) - at least thirty-three times larger than the small fragment. Certainly an unmutilated 6.5mm (1/4") projectile could not cause a 1 cm (3/8") wound.

Therefore the only feasible explanation for this wound is that it was caused by a badly mutilated and/or mushroomed projectile. Where is this badly mutilated projectile?

The answer to this question may lie in a recent disclosure by Governor Connally; one which seems to shed new light on the entire single bullet issue. As is well known, both the Governor and his wife have, through the years, consistently and emphatically dismissed the idea of his having been struck by the same bullet that hit the President. Recently, the Governor has "dropped the other shoe" - so to speak - regarding the single bullet question. In an excerpt from his recently released biography, he casts further doubt and suspicion on the authenticity of the so-called "magic bullet." He writes:
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh."

That this episode, as described by the Governor, did, in fact occur, appears to be confirmed during the testimony of Parkland Hospital Nurse Jeanette Standridge. Mrs. Standridge, the charge nurse in major surgery, assisted in removing Governor Connally's clothes upon his being brought into Trauma Room 2 for emergency treatment. In her testimony, Ms. Standridge had the following exchange with Warren Commission counsel Arlen Spector:
"Mr. Spector: Did you notice any object in Governor Connally's clothing?
Miss Standridge: Not unusual.
Mr. Spector: Did you notice a bullet, specifically?
Ms. Standridge: No.
Mr. Spector: Did you hear the sound of anything fall?
Ms. Standridge: I didn't"

Governor Connally's revelation that a bullet had fallen from his stretcher while he was in Trauma Room 2 is suspicious in itself. That the Warren Commission knew of, and concealed, this incident, is not only suspicious...it is outright criminal. If the Governor's account is true, and there is no reason to doubt that it isn't, then the presence of this hitherto unreported bullet completely destroys the authenticity, credibility, and validity of the mysterious 6.5-mm Carcano "Oswald" bullet which was reportedly found and turned over to authorities by Parkland Hospital engineer Darrell Tomlinson. It also destroys the Government's, and Posner's, single bullet theory, and raises sinister, implications about their "lone-nut" predilection.

Posner's - "View from above"

Posner: "The trajectory plotted in accordance with the exact postures of both men, was not significantly altered until the bullet was slightly deflected by Connally's rib."

Here, Posner's computer-generated graphic portrays Connally to be leaning far to his left while turning slightly to his right. It is an attempt to align the bodies of the two victims in a manner consistent with Posner's own straight-line theory of trajectory. It is erroneous and misleading. It is also in conflict with the photographic evidence. Connally, at Z-Frame 224 is nowhere near the position portrayed in the graphic. Furthermore, since Posner has chosen to omit all references to the various angles of trajectory for this miraculous bullet, his graphic cannot really be defined as a 'plotted trajectory' - and it is certainly not 'exact.'

Posner's - "Flip" Flap

Posner places great emphasis on the sudden movement of Governor Connally's coat lapel and hat as seen in Z-Frames 224 and following. Using these movements as solid evidence of a bullet having passed through the Governor at this exact moment, he writes:

Posner: "At 224, the right front of the Governor's suit lapel flips up from his chest."

No argument here. The lapel does 'flip.'

Posner: "A film enhancement of that same frame...shows that the Governor's light-colored Stetson hat, which he was holding in his right hand, near his chest, started rising. It flipped quickly up during frames 227 and 228 and then at 229 it started coming down rapidly..."

Again, no argument. The hat, is 'flipped quickly up' at these frames.

However, are these sudden movements of the Governor's coat lapel and hat the solid evidence of a shot Posner would have us believe? Or, is there another, more reasonable explanation for this occurrence? Most definitely!

Anyone who has ever attempted to wear - or carry, for that matter - a hat on a windy day knows that there is. And, as Posner himself acknowledges, there was a 'stiff' north wind with gusts to 20 mile-per-hour during the motorcade. (Note: At the time Zapruder was filming; the limousine was traveling in a westerly direction. Both the lapel and hat 'flip' in a southerly direction.)

Also, the very fact that Connally continues to remain fully upright after Z-Frame 224, and does so for a period of more than three seconds (until Z-Frame 289) before he finally begins to crumple and fall toward his wife, is strong evidence that he has not been hit. During this three second period, the Governor was able to retain his hold on the Stetson hat and turn almost completely around in his seat to face the President - a clear indication he has not suffered the hammer-like blow which would be delivered by a bullet to his back. These movements by the Governor, while showing no trauma whatsoever, is sufficient proof that a bullet through his chest was not the cause of the lapel and hat flips.

Posner is neither blind nor stupid. He had to have taken note of Connally's total lack of traumatic reaction - for three full seconds - to an alleged shot at Z-224. This appears to leave only one alternative explanation for Posner's blatant exercise in misinformation: to deceive the American people. The ulterior motive behind this deceitful action bears further scrutiny.

Posner's - "The [trajectory] cone[s]"

Posner: "Using computer enhancements of the Zapruder film, Failure Analysis Associates calculated the trajectories of the two bullets that struck their target." The result of these calculations, after having worked "..backward, and allowing for a margin of error...," and with a computer having "...calculated a line through the entrance and exit wounds...," then the "...trajectories could then be splayed into..." cones.

These "cones", according to Posner, provide us with the origin of the shots - the 6th Floor southeast-corner window of the Depository.

Simply put, if Posner had been honest, he would have admitted that the only "official" angle of trajectory for a bullet fired into the President's back was the 45 to 60 degrees downward angle reported by the Bethesda pathologists. In doing so, though, his resultant 'cone' calculations at Z-224 would have provided a trajectory for a shot which could only have originated from high overhead, and therefore, totally inconsistent with a shot from any of the buildings surrounding Dealey Plaza. Perhaps Posner, in his diabolical attempt to make Oswald the lone and unaided assassin, should have considered having him shoot at the President from a hovering helicopter.

With his single-bullet-theory reconstruction, Posner, ignores and/or distorts the unwavering testimonies of Governor and Mrs. Connally; misrepresents portions of the photographic evidence; erroneously reports key points of the medical findings; fabricates the bullet trajectory; and, manipulates the ballistic evidence.

Together, when properly analyzed these evidentiary elements clearly demonstrate that:
(1) Kennedy was hit in the upper back, not the neck; and the angle of trajectory for this wound is inconsistent with any version of the single bullet theory.
(2) The President was shot in the neck from the front; an impossible shot from the so-called 'Oswald window' to the rear.
(3) Governor Connally was uninjured and remained in a fully upright position for three seconds after both he and, the President are alleged to have received their wounds; an impossibility for anyone who has, according to the single bullet theory, already received major gunshot wounds to their upper body.

Posner's approach to the Kennedy assassination is simply an updated, 1990's version of the Warren Commission's 'lone-nut' scenario. His heavily-flawed application of computer-generated information and images in attempting to reconstruct the shooting is a perfect example of the old computer adage..."garbage in, garbage out." This new, revisionist version of the single bullet theory is analogous to the old, farcical, 'Jack-leg' builder's standard specifications: "Cut to suit, beat to fit, paint to match."

Is the case closed? If Posner's erroneous, illogical, and misguided work is representative of the best the "other side" has to offer, then this case is far from closed - in fact, it is WIDE open.

Posner in New Orleans - Gerry in Wonderland - by James A. DiEugenio

Listening to the media accompaniment surrounding the release of Gerald Posner's 600 page volume 'Case Closed', one was reminded of the trumpet blare which sounded when the Warren Report was released 29 years ago. Reading 'U.S. News and World Report', a usually staid and reserved publication, one would have expected an investigatory effort worthy of Scotland Yard or the Mossad. What emerges after all the sound and fury is an effort more comparable to the Dallas or Los Angeles Police Departments.

Before getting to the main focus of this essay, one needs to comment on some general matters regarding Mr. Posner and his book. Reportedly, like John McCloy and Allen Dulles, Mr. Posner is a Wall Street lawyer. Based on three interviews with sources who read his previous book on Mengele, Posner whitewashed that notorious Nazi's ties to the Hitler regime before his McCloy-aided escape to South America after World War II. This may help explain Posner's quite questionable use of sources.

About the first haft of "Case Closed" deals exclusively with the life and careers of Lee Oswald. Like the Warren Commission and the five volume FBI report on the assassination, Posner's focus is on Oswald and it is in extreme close-up since it is always easier to portray a man as a lone nut if you draw him in a virtual vacuum. But to rig the apparatus even further, Posner uses the most specious witnesses imaginable in his single-minded prosecutorial proceeding. Scanning his footnotes for the first ten chapters, a rough approximation would estimate that about 75% of them originate from the Warren Commission volumes. In turn, many of these citings come from the testimony of Marina Oswald who, as lawyer Posner must know, could not have testified at Oswald's trial. Also, Posner never reveals to the reader how Marina was abducted and then stowed away at the Inn of the Six Flags Hotel. How she was virtually quarantined while she was being threatened with deportation. Posner never points out any of the problems and inconsistencies with her Warren Commission testimony which even some of the Commission members had reservations about, and which a skillful defense lawyer would be able to exploit to great advantage.

If that were not enough, Posner quotes liberally from the testimony of both Ruth Paine and George DeMohrenschildt, two people who - to say the least - have questionable motives in this case and both of whom have direct and indirect ties to the CIA. Again, Posner ignores those ties and actually states that DeMohrenschildt had no connection to American intelligence (p. 86), when the CIA admitted those connections over 15 years ago. Posner also uses Oswald's "Historic Diary" against him when every one, even Edward Epstein, admits that it was not a "diary" at all, but was composed in 2 or 3 installments, probably as part of Oswald's cover as an espionage agent. Finally, Posner quotes liberally from the work of Priscilla Johnson McMillan, the newspaper correspondent who interviewed Oswald in Russia, then helped the Warren Commission find Oswald's tickets to Mexico after the FBI could not. She then locked up Marina Oswald for 13 years with a book contract until "Marina and Lee", the mother of all "Oswald-did-it" books appeared in 1977. The working papers of staff lawyer David Slawson reveal that even the Warren Commission suspected Ms. McMillan had ties to the CIA.

This is all prelude to what the author does when his book reaches the locale of New Orleans. Posner seems all too aware that the city and Oswald's actions there in the summer of 1963 pose a serious threat to the main thesis of his book. Perhaps this is why his bibliography lists all of Harold Weisberg's books except 'Oswald in New Orleans'. For to admit that Oswald was associating with clandestine operatives like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Guy Banister poses a big problem for a man intent on painting Oswald as a demented communist zealot. Consequently, Posner shifts into a denial mode and sustains it by any means necessary. For instance, Posner begins Chapter 7 by stating that, according to Marina, Oswald was home early every evening for the couple's entire stay in New Orleans. Posner has often stated that he had access to the late Jim Garrison's files. If he did he would have found out that Oswald stayed overnight on more than one occasion in a room adjacent to the French Quarter restaurant "The Court of the Two Sisters". The room was arranged by a mutual friend of Shaw and Ferrie. Posner mentions that Oswald worked at Reily Coffee Company while in New Orleans but leaves out the facts of the Reily family's connections to Cuban exile groups and the peculiar coincidence of Oswald's colleagues being transferred from Reily to the NASA complex at nearby Michaud Air Force Base. Posner states that Oswald's expenditures of nearly $23.00 on pro-Castro leaflets was not exorbitant even though it was about 1/6 of what he was making per month, or the equivalent of a man making $3,000 per month spending about $500 on political flyers. On page 153, Posner writes that the altercation between Carlos Bringuier and Oswald on Canal Street in August of '63 and which resulted in Oswald's conspicuous arrest, was not staged. Yet he never asks the logical follow-up question: if it was not staged then why did Oswald write about it days in advance? Of William Gaudet, one of the CIA agents who escorted Oswald off on his strange tour of Mexico, Posner writes that he had no relation to the case outside of being next to Oswald when in line to buy a tourist card for south of the border. He adds that Gaudet was a 'newspaper editor'. Posner does not write that the newspaper Gaudet edited was a rightwing propaganda sheet about South American politics, that one of his reporting duties was supplying information to the CIA, that one of the men he worked for early in his career was a business associate of Shaw's, and that Gaudet has a virtually rent-free office in the International Trade Mart which was provided to him by Shaw.

Posner frequent, uses character assassination when he finds testimony contrary to his thesis. Orest Pena had stated to Harold Weisberg that he had seen Oswald at his bar, the Habana. That tavern was a frequent watering hole for Ferrie, Bringuier, Shaw and other militant Cuban exiles. Posner states (p. 167), that Pena recanted his story at his first FBI interview and vacillated before the Warren Commission. Posner does not state that Pena was visited by both Bringuier and FBI agent Warren DeBrueys and warned about his official testimony. Posner tries to finish off Pena by adding that he was later charged with managing prostitutes out of his establishment and was aided in his legal defense by "leading conspiracy buff Mark Lane." What he fails to add is that his legal problems come about after his testimony before the Warren Commission and that the charges were so weak they never came to trial.

Posner's most breathtaking balancing act relates to Oswald's relationship with Ferrie and Banister. On page 143, he states that the many Civil Air Patrol cadets who testified to Oswald being in Ferrie's CAP before he joined the Marines, must be either mistaken or lying since Ferrie was thrown out of the CAP in the mid-fifties when Oswald was supposed to be in his unit. Posner's blinders keep him from telling the reader that, at this time, Ferrie formed his own CAP unit in Metairie and it was this unit that Oswald was a member of. This information is available in the invaluable Southern Research Company investigation of Ferrie commissioned by Eastern Airlines during his dismissal hearings. These papers are on file at the AARC. Posner states he spent many hours there. Did he skip the Ferrie file? On page 428, Posner states that "there was no evidence that connected Ferrie and Oswald". In Garrison's files it is revealed that Ferrie stated this himself to two people - Ray Broshears and Lou Ivon. He also told them he worked for the CIA. If Posner needs further evidence of the Ferrie-Oswald friendship he should ask Gus Russo who he credits in his acknowledgments. Russo found a photo of the two together from a friend who knew the pair in Ferrie's CAP.

Posner's efforts to keep Oswald away from 544 Camp Street have a touch of the ludicrous about them. He tries to discredit the reliability of every witness that places Oswald there: Delphine Roberts and her daughter, David Lewis, Jack Martin, Oswald himself and the HSCA. He portrays Roberts as off her rocker and says she now states she lied to Tony Summers in the late 70's about Oswald being in Banister's office. She says today that Summers gave her some money to appear on camera for a TV special and this is why she said what she did. Posner ignores the following: 1.) Roberts told her story to Summers before he even mentioned anything about a payment 2.) On her own and without any promise of money, Roberts told essentially the same story to Earl Golz of the Dallas Morning News in a story that ran in December of 1978. 3.) Her story about seeing a "communist" outside the office leafleting the area, telling Banister, and him laughing and saying that he was one of them is partly corroborated by an interview with a third party in Banister's office at the time. Again this is in the Garrison files that Posner says he had access to.

In his desperation to discredit anyone associated with either the Garrison or HSCA investigation of the New Orleans part of the conspiracy, Posner occasionally winds up swinging at air. On page 138, he writes that Gaeton Fonzi was the HSCA investigator on the issues of Banister, 544 Camp Street, and David Ferrie. He smears Fonzi and the validity of these reports by saying "he was a committed believer in a conspiracy". Fonzi's name does appear on the reports in Volume X of the House Select Committee appendices. But in those reports related to the New Orleans part of the investigation his name appears along with the names of Pat Orr and Liz Palmer. If Posner would have talked to any of these people before smearing Fonzi, he would have found out that Fonzi only edited the New Orleans reports. Orr and Palmer did the actual field investigations and original writing in these sections, something that Fonzi has no problem telling anyone. I know of no books, articles or interviews by Orr or Palmer which would show them to be a "committed believer in a conspiracy". In fact, both have reputations for reserved judgment and objectivity.

Posner's depiction of the Clinton episode in the late summer of 1963 and which connects Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald epitomizes his stilted, fundamentally dishonest approach. He obtained some of the original memorandum made by the Garrison probe into the incident and attempts to show that since the eyewitness testimony does not jibe, then the witnesses are lying and therefore Garrison coached them into telling a coherent story at the trial. First, let us note that it is Posner in his section on Dealey Plaza writes that eyewitness testimony to the same event often differs (funny how his standards constantly shift). Second, I would like to know if Mr. Posner asked Shaw's attorneys - Irvin Dymond and Bill Wegmann - how they got these memos. But more to the point, Posner either doesn't know or doesn't think it important to inform the reader that the incident under discussion took place in two different towns. Oswald was first seen in Jackson, about 15 miles east of Clinton. Two of the witnesses who testified at the Shaw trial saw Oswald, or a double, in Jackson and in a different car than the one that appeared in Clinton later. Henry Palmer, one of the witnesses who talked to Oswald in Clinton - and it was Oswald there - interviewed him away from the voter rally and did not get a good look at the car which contained Shaw and Ferrie. Oswald's last appearance in the area was at the hospital back in Jackson where two personnel secretaries took his application for a job.

What Posner does with all this is worthy of a cardsharp. By implying that all the elements - the car, the passengers, the rally, the witnesses - are in one place at one time, he tries to cast doubt on the witnesses and aspersions on Garrison's use of them. It would be the equivalent of having a couple drive a different car into a service station, having a different car leave and go to another station, and then the original car returns with only the husband driving. Would we expect the two sets of witnesses to see the same thing? On the contrary, if they did we would have doubts about them. If this tactic would have seemed effective, wouldn't Dymond and Wegmann have used it at the trial? Posner lists the transcript of the Shaw trial in his bibliography. If he really read it he would say that Dymond's cross-examination of these people was quite gentle, he barely touched them. And when he tried to get tough, it backfired.

Posner writes of Clay Shaw that no one knew him as Bertrand (pp. 430, 437). I have been about haft way through Garrison's files and related FBI files. There are 11 different references to Shaw as Bertrand. Posner passes out the old chestnut about Shaw being only a lowly 'contact' agent who "like thousands of other Americans" was interviewed by the Agency about his foreign travels (p. 448). Posner does not state that Shaw filed 30 reports with the CIA over a six year period; that this relationship likely extended beyond the time period recognized by the CIA; that Shaw's connections to the European front organizations Permindex and Centro Mondiale Commerciale are, to say the least, suspect; that in the August 1993 CIA release made available at the National Archives, a document reveals that Shaw had a covert clearance for a top secret CIA project codenamed QKENCHANT.

This is too long to explore other related matters that Posner mangles. But let me briefly mention three of the 'mysterious deaths' that Posner tries to set us straight on. On page 496, Posner insinuates that the death of Mary Sherman was neither mysterious nor relevant and that 'she was killed in an accidental fire'. Like John Davis, he lists the year of her death as 1967. Mary Sherman died on July 21, 1964, the same day that the Warren Commission began taking testimony in New Orleans. Posner could have checked the local newspapers on this because her death made headline news for days after. To this day her case is listed as an unsolved murder by the New Orleans police. There was a small fire in her apartment and some smoke, but they were certainly not the cause of death. Her severed arm probably had more to do with it; along with her discarded yet blood-drenched gloves (think about that one), and also the hack marks made from a butcher knife on her torso.

In the same section, Posner writes that there is no source for the claim that Gary Underhill was a former CIA agent, and "no corroboration that he ever said there was CIA complicity in the assassination." I hate to plug my own work, but in 'Destiny Betrayed', Posner would have learned there are several sources for Underhill's wartime OSS career and his later CIA consulting status, including Underhill himself. As for his accusations about the CIA and the murder of JFK he related them quite vividly to his friend Charlene Fitsimmons within 24 hours of the shooting. She then forwarded a letter to Jim Garrison relating the incident in detail. On the same page in which he discusses the Underhill case, Posner describes the murder of Mary Meyer in two sentences: "Mary Meyer (murdered) was allegedly one of JFK's mistresses. Except for her reported liaison with the President, she was not associated with any aspect of the case." Posner does not include "Katherine the Great" by Deborah Davis in his bibliography. If he would have read it he would have learned that Mary Meyer had been married to former CIA counter-intelligence officer Cord Meyer. That several acquaintances stated that Kennedy was quite taken with the pretty and bright Meyer. And that since she had been married to a CIA officer, he confided in her about his plans to reorganize the Agency in his second term.

When she died, Mary's former brother-in-law and CIA asset Ben Bradlee opened her apartment to CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angelton and he pilfered the diary in which Mary reportedly recorded Kennedy's future reorganization plans. Needless to say, the poor wretch accused of her murder was acquitted on weak evidence.

I have only dealt with a small part of Posner's work. I am sure if other specialists critiqued it they could come up with similar summaries in other fields of evidence. Suffice it to say that when an author evinces these kinds of tendencies, all exculpative of the CIA, all incriminating of Oswald, one has the right to question his bona fides. Posner is this year's version of the Breo and Lundberg show. And again the media has heralded him without a critical eye. Upon scrutiny, his work, like JAMA's is revealed to be a sham, maybe worse. And as with JAMA, two people are contemplating lawsuits against Random House and Mr. Posner. No doubt, the press will ignore the progress and revelations of those lawsuits.

For the rest of us, the ones who care enough to be serious, the struggle to reopen this case continues. No matter how many, Moores, Breos, and Posners come down the trail we must never lose sight of that aim. Perhaps then we can swear in Mr. Posner and ask him who exactly were the CIA confidential sources he consulted and why - 30 years after the fact - they still demand anonymity.

Marina Oswald Porter: Dignity in "Desperation" by Walt Brown

For more than 30 years now, the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been an ongoing concern to researchers, writers in the print media, tabloid sensationalists, and film makers. Some of the "players" in the categories cited have been working towards a believable, documentable solution of the case since 1963; some began early, drifted away, and returned; others came later, published and lectured, and lost heart; still others are just joining the hunt, as a new generation of concern was born with Oliver Stone's metaphoric JFK.

But one person, and one person only, has continued living the Dealey Plaza nightmare for every day and night of the last thirty years: Marina Oswald Porter. (No slight intended for JFK's widow, but she has had many moments in the sun since 1963; Marina Oswald Porter still lives in the ominous shadow of the Depository - and the knoll.)

In the early afternoon of November 22, 1963, Marina Oswald was tending to laundry with Ruth Paine when the news came that shots had been fired at President Kennedy. Inwardly, she became concerned, but did not show fear to her gracious Quaker host, who has since become the subject of much serious research. When it was learned that some of the shots were believed to have been fired from the Texas School Book Depository, where her husband worked, Mrs. Oswald was gripped with the kind of gut-wrenching fear that few can imagine. Mrs. Paine, on the other hand, thought that perhaps they could learn something of the incident since Lee's employment there would put him in the center of the action.

Ruth Paine was right about that, as Oswald was taken into custody following an odd flight-path from the TSBD, and when police arrived at the Paine house, Ruth invited them in, noting they were expected. When asked if a gun was kept on the premises. Ruth answered in the negative, but Marina corrected her. Her life has not been the same since that moment, thirty-plus years ago.

Marina and her two young children were then taken to police headquarters, where Marina was questioned through an interpreter. Subsequently, her testimony, filtered through a host of translators, would only serve to help the case being built (fabricated?) against her husband. She appeared before the Warren Commission on February 3, 1964, and again as late as September, 1964, and as the world went back to its day-to-day pursuits following the electoral coronation of Lyndon Johnson, Marina was left to raise two children in a world she did not know and one which certainly made little place for her.

Marina Oswald Porter is a survivor, and a noble one at that. I was asked to speak at Harvard at a symposium on the 30th anniversary of the assassination, and Mrs. Oswald was the 'surprise' guest. I can only say that her remarks were profound, her wisdom unchallenged, and when she seemed to search for the correct English word, she almost always found it.

She told her audience that she was making the appearance out of desperation, and her rabbit-caught-in-the-headlights look gave every evidence of her sincerity in that assertion. She wants the truth, for herself, her children, her grandchildren, and for America. Like many of us, she has the odd notion that we deserve it. When asked about fund-raising efforts to help her in her search for the truth, she insisted she did not want or seek a penny.

When all our presentations and panels were video-taped, Mrs. Oswald's remarks drew several extra cameras, and she had the courage to look right into them and challenge the press to do its job - not go on rubber-stamping a worn out, 30 year old misconception. "We're supposed to be making history, not reading about it," she told the press.

She took time to answer any and all questions, and cleared up some confusions in the process. She told the audience that 'Lee loved President Kennedy and what he stood for.' She surprised the audience by telling them that she was never a prisoner of the Secret Service, but rather was very thankful for their protection at a time when she was understandably terrified. She added that it was the FBI who were pushy and suggested that she remind herself that she was not a US citizen. She told of taking photos of Lee with a gun, with the famous stairs (which were torn down at the time of ASK in Dallas, and many of us got a souvenir "stair") in the background, but added that Lee then went and got something else, and she took the photo(s) we have seen forever. She told that Lee told of shooting at Walker and missing, but she denied any allegation that she would have subsequently opened a closet and showed the rifle to George DeMohrenschildt.

Of even greater import, she put things in perspective. A questioner asked if Lee could have been CIA, and she said she did not have any idea, but if he was so what? 'You can sweep floors in CIA and that doesn't make you dangerous.' She was asked about her recent citizenship, and told the audience of a subsequent trip back to Russia for a movie scene, adding, "I got spoiled by American freedom." That's a heck of a statement from someone who was denied all the rights of American freedom for so long. She ended her talk by answering a question about Oswald's Soviet sojourn, and she did it in ten words or less: 'He had been sent there and he came back.'

I have seen many speakers on the subject of JFK, and read all the books and seen all the movies. Many times I have been emotionally moved by the content of what I saw, read, or experienced, as in the case of the dedication of Dealey Plaza nine days after speaking with Marina. But no event since the announcement of the shooting of JFK moved me as much as the quiet dignity of the proud American standing before a crowd and asking for the truth. It was a moment I shall not soon forget.

Why not continue and read issue 6 of Probable Cause Australia?

Backcopies of all issues, including all photographs, are still available. Just contact the editor via the Feedback link on the Probable Cause Australia welcome page.

N.B. The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of the editor but all comments will be passed on to the relevant authors.

Credits

Editor-in-Chief : Steve Gerlach

Art Editor : E. Burton Mercer

Managing Editor : Paul Jones

Contributing Editor : Stephen Webb

Photographic Analysis : Tony Skomina

Internet : Steve Gerlach

Contributors : J. Gary Shaw, Walt Brown, James A. DiEugenio, Dallas JFK-AIC, Steve Gerlach, Paul Jones, E. B. Mercer, Steve Webb.

Art Direction : Louie Louie Enterprises Australia

Return to Issue Summaries.

web hosting • domain names • video sharing
free online games • photo sharing
free blog • short URLs