by Gus Russo
As a last resort, the critic may play the demagogue, utilizing the paranoid’s impossible-to-debate argument: government law enforcement officers are corrupt by nature and, therefore, planted or lied about all the evidence. This is an argument that, thank God, is rarely taken seriously when trial time comes. If it were, virtually all criminal suspects would have to be set free. This is especially true of a murder investigation, imperfect by nature, where there is no confession. But there is a preponderance of good evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and it points clearly to Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt.
But don’t take my word for it. If the history of this case teaches us anything, it is that the main enemy of the truth of Dealey Plaza has been oversimplification. Because this is a book about people, not science, these considerations were merely summarized. Interested readers are urged to go to the first-hand sources—the scientists and reports cited below—and judge for themselves. Or better still, get to know some law enforcement officials and learn an important lesson: the overwhelming majority are motivated by patriotism and community service and would not allow the minority to perpetrate a murder conspiracy.
(For more details and sources regarding the shooting of the President, see the sources for Appendix A.)
APPENDIX A SOURCES
Interviews
The following is a representative, albeit partial, list of interviews conducted by the author in support of Appendix A.
1) Dealey Plaza witnesses:
Carolyn Arnold, Amos Lee Euins, Buell Frazier, Jean Hill, James Jarman, Bill & Gayle Newman, Arnold Rowland, Bill Shelley, Marilyn Sitzman, Malcolm Summers, Carolyn Walther, Bonnie Ray Williams, Phil Willis.
2) Federal, state, and local officials:
D.A. William Alexander, Off. Marrion Baker, Off. Billy Bass, David Belin, Det. Paul Bentley, G. Robert Blakey, Off. T.F. Bowles, Off. Elmer Boyd, Det. Michael Callahan, Off. Elmo Cunningham, Lt. Carl Day, Agent Vincent Drain, Off. Harold Elkins, Agent Frank Ellsworth, Off. J.W. Foster, Agent Robert Gemberling, Off. B.D. Gossett, Burt Griffin, Off. Bobby Hargis, Agent Wally Heitman, Off. J.B. Hicks, Det. Gerald Hill, Agent Jim Hosty, Agent Mike Howard, Off. Murry Jackson, Agent Sebastian Latona, Det. Jim Leavelle, Off. C. L. “Lummie” Lewis, Det. Rusty Livingstone, Sheriff Al Maddox, Off. Tom McMillan, Agent J. Walton Moore, Off. R.C. Nelson, Off. Billy Preston, Lt. Jack Revill, Ferris Rookstool, Sen. Richard Schweiker, Cong. Louis Stokes, Off. Tom Tilson, Off. Ray Vaughn, D.A. Henry Wade, Off. Marvin Wise.
3) Medical personnel and scientific experts:
Dr. Robert Artwohl, Massad Ayoob, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Jack Barnnett, Audrey Bell, G. Robert Blakey, George Bonebrake, Dr. David Dennis, Howard Donohue, Josh Grant, Joseph Hagen, Paul Hoch (assistant to Luis Alvarez), Dr. Pepper Jenkins, Dr. Lou Kartsonis, Cecil Kirk, Dr. John Lattimer, Paul O’Connor, Tom Robinson, Dr. Earl Rose, Dr. Lee Russo, Vincent Scalese, Dr. Robert Shaw, John Stringer, Josiah Thompson, Paul Vallandigham, Prof. Mark Weiss, Dr. Michael West, Ronald Wittmus.
Books, Articles, Films, and Goverment Documents
Luis W. Alvarez, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 44. No. 9, September 1976, p. 819.
Massad Ayoob, “The JFK Assassination: A Shooter’s Eye View,” in The American Handgunner, March/April, 1993, p. 102.
James C. Bowles, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes: A Rebuttal to the Acoustical Evidence Theory (Unpublished, Dallas, 1979).
Dennis L. Breo, “JFK’s Death: The Plain Truth from the Doctors Who Did the Autopsy,” JAMA, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992.
———, “JFK’s Death, Part Two: Dallas MDs Recall Their Memories,” JAMA, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992.
Francis Corbett, “John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis,” Itek Corporation, 1975.
Vincent DiMaio, “Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques.”
Howard Donahue reconstruction on CBS News Inquiry, “The Warren Report,” Parts 1-4, June 25-28, 1967.
Tom Filsinger, “Groupthink and JFK Assassination Research.” in The Third Decade, Vol. 8, #6, September, 1992.
Dr. Dennis Ford, “Assassination Research and the Pathology of Knowledge.” The Third Decade, Volume 8, # 5, July, 1992.
Vincent Guinn, “NAA of Bullet Lead Evidence Specimens in Criminal Cases,” in The Journal of Radioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 72, No. 1 & 2, 1982; and “The Elemental Comparison of Bullet Lead Evidence Specimens” in The Chemistry of Crime, Samuel M. Gerber ed., Washington, DC, 1983.
HSCA Hearings, Volumes I & III (ballistics and trajectory).
Dr. John Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich), 1980.
———, “Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical Evidence. . .”, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, May, 1994, Vol. 178.
Jeffrey Lotz computer analysis of Zapruder Film for Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., (Menlo Park, CA) presented by Dr. Martin Fackler, president of the International Wound Ballistics Association, at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, San Francisco, CA, 1992.
Dale K. Myers, “The Secrets of a Homicide;” computer video reconstruction for Microtech (1995).
National Research Council report—“Reexamination of Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” by the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, chaired by Prof. Norman Ramsey (1982), published in Science, vol. 218 (1982).
Nova, “Who Shot President Kennedy?’” PBS, November 15, 1988.
Alfred G. Olivier & Arthur J. Dziemian, “Wound Ballistics of 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano Ammunition,” U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, March, 1965.
Frank Scott, “Report of Autopsy Color Photograph’s Authenticity,” August 15, 1978, HSCA Vol. VII.
Todd Vaughn Report of Shooting Reconstruction, September 18, 1994 (unpublished).
The Warren Report; esp. 79-194, 547-592
Dr. Michael West (with Johann Rush and Dr. John Lattimer), “Nix Film Analysis,” Itek Corporation, May 18, 1967, “The Shots Seen Round the World” video, and manuscript, 1992.
APPENDIX B
EYEWITNESSES
“Believing is Seeing.”
—Dr. Jim Gray
The details of the shooting in Dealey Plaza have been argued about incessantly since the moment it occurred. The debate has often been personal and vitriolic. The basic points of contention are the same as would be brought to bear in a criminal prosecution. In any crime, the two key types of evidence used to convict a suspect are eyewitness testimony and physical evidence—suspects are often singled out by either linking them to the evidence, or by demonstrating that they possess “means, motive, and opportunity.”
In the case of the president’s murder, eyewitnesses’ contradictory statements fueled the rumors of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza, with some theories suggesting Oswald’s complete innocence. These statements have often led the amateur investigator to make mistakes that a professional, familiar with the inherent peculiarities of eyewitness testimony, would have foreseen.
For many who have written about or researched the assassination, this is the only crime they have ever scrutinized. Those who evaluate evidence as a profession speak in virtual unison about the pitfalls of relying too heavily on eyewitnesses.
Eyewitnesses are most useful when they are numerous, and when the vast majority agree on the important details. In the case of President Kennedy’s assassination, they do. The contradictions are produced by a distinct minority of the witnesses.
In 1993, author Gerald Posner conducted a thorough review of all the eyewitness testimony gathered by both the Warren Commission and the later House Select Committee on Assassinations, numbering almost two-hundred witnesses.1 His work in this area was meticulous and definitive. It was also not well-received by those holding out for shots from other directions (especially the infamous “grassy knoll” located to Kennedy’s right front). Here is what Posner discovered:
88% of the witnesses heard three, and only three shots.
Only 5% heard four or more.
The origin of the shots (which is much more difficult to determine):
44% had no idea of the origin.
28% thought the shots originated from the Book Depository.
12% pointed to the grassy knoll area.
Only 2% felt that the shots had more than one point of origin.
The two percent view—actually four people who thought the two shots originated from two different spots—came to their point of view between the Warren Commission Report of 1964 and the House Select Committee research in 1978. None of them made such an assertion about a second gunman when they gave their original statements. Therefore, it must be considered that their perceptions and memory may have been “enhanced” by fourteen years of allegations by amateur investigators. This is further complicated by the phenomenon known as “memory merge,” wherein memories of entirely different events are blurred together. Author Harrison Livingstone has written of “memory merge:”
During periods of great stress, in a crisis or emergency when events are unfolding with great rapidity—such as the events of November 22,1963—the mind plays tricks and does not register each detail. Some events are imprinted in the brain and merge with others, missing connecting links. . . . We think we saw something we did not.2
Of the legal reference material available on the subject of eyewitness testimony, there is virtual unanimity on this issue: eyewitness testimony is fraught with difficulties, all of which must be taken into account before the testimony is accepted. This section merely scratches the surface of the subject. For the eyewitness testimony, the bottom line is: it is most likely accurate when taken immediately after the event, and when corroborated by other testimony. Experts point out the especially troubling accuracy rate of so-called “flashbulb memory.” This refers to completely unexpected momentary occurrences—such as the Kennedy assassination.
One seeking to arrive at a better understanding of the phenomenon of “enhanced memory” and “flashbulb memory” might wish to consult (for example):
Loftus, Dr. Elizabeth. Memory: Surprising New Insights Into How We Remember and How We Forget. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1980.
Loftus, Dr. Elizabeth and James McBride. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. New York, Kluwer Law Books, 1987.
Loftus, Dr. Elizabeth and Katherine Ketcham. The Myth of Repressed Memory. New York, St. Martin’s, 1994.
——— Witness for the Defense. New York, St. Martin’s, 1991.
Sobel, Nathan. Eyewitness Identification: Legal and Practical Problems. New York, Clark Boardman Co., 1972.
Wells, Gary L. and Amy L. Bradfield. “Good, You Identified the Suspect:” Feedback to Eyewitnesses Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 1998, Vol. 83, No. 3.
Yarmey, A. Daniel. Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony. New York, Free Press, 1979.
Attorneys Mark Zaid and Dennis Ford authored a 1993 monograph which summarized the legal and scientific communities’ historic skepticism about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, with specific emphasis on the Kennedy assassination. Entitled “Eyewitness Testimony, Memory, And Assassination Research,” it relied heavily on the acknowledged expertise in this field of Elizabeth Loftus and Patrick Doyle.
APPENDIX C
JACK RUBY
“All I wanted to do was just be a hero, but it looks like I just fouled things up good.”
—Jack Ruby to Dallas Detective Jim Leavelle, Nov 24, 1963
“After Oswald’s death, we wanted to find out if there was any conspiracy involved, if there was a connection between Ruby and Oswald. We spent many, many, many man-hours running down every lead possible, and all proved futile. We were never at any time able to make any connection between Ruby and Oswald. . . and had to conclude there was none.”
—Jim Leavelle, Dallas Homicide detective
Author’s Note: During my research on Jack Ruby, I was fortunate to obtain three key sources of information, one of them never before disclosed. First was a rarely-heard tape of Ruby’s “Deathbed Interview” with his rabbi, Hillel Silverman. The emotional interview was conducted just days before Ruby’s death from cancer in January 1967.
Second, I was able to obtain over a dozen letters and notes Ruby wrote from his cell. Lastly, in conversations with Jack’s brother Earl, I learned of a “Jailhouse Diary” Ruby kept during his three-year incarceration. The existence of this 100-page diary, written at Earl’s urging, has never before been disclosed. Through an exclusive arrangement with collector Robert White, a current partial owner of the Jack Ruby estate, I was provided the original diary. Like the known statements of Ruby and his friends, these artifacts offer clear and consistent evidence of Ruby’s motive for killing Oswald.
When an assassin is “taken out,” as in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, serious consideration has to be given to the possibility that the assassin’s death was an attempt, by any remaining “conspirators,” to silence him. This possibility must, of course, be balanced with the knowledge that high-profile killers occasionally inspire an otherwise uninvolved individual to seek revenge. Abraham Lincoln’s assassin was felled by an over-zealous Union soldier who felt it was his “calling” from God. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was slain by a fellow inmate. However, Jack Ruby, like Oswald, led such a colorful life, at the fringes of “normalcy,” that conspiratorial possibilities held more than a little potential.
Much has been made of Ruby’s underworld acquaintances, leading some to claim proof of mob involvement in both Kennedy’s and Oswald’s murders. However, Ruby’s true history, like Oswald’s, has been turned inside out in order to make the mental leaps necessary to conclude that the mob was involved.
So who was Jack Ruby, and what was his motive? Recent interviews, combined with a newly-discovered journal Ruby kept in jail, give clear and consistent answers to these questions. To understand why Ruby was driven to kill Oswald, one must first comprehend Jack Ruby’s manic-obsessive nature and his fierce temper. The key recipients of Ruby’s obsessive love were Dallas, JFK, the police, and Judaism. These facets of Ruby’s personality leave his friends and relatives in total agreement about why he shot Lee Oswald.
Who Was Jack Ruby?
Born in Chicago in 1911, Jacob Rubenstein (later changed to Jack Ruby) was an Orthodox Jew whose childhood eerily paralleled that of Lee Oswald. His father physically abused his mother, which led to their divorce when Jack was ten years old. This left him, like Oswald, at the mercy of his mother. Chicago social workers described Fanny Rubinstein as “disturbed” and “mentally deficient,” words that conjure up the professionals’ descriptions of Oswald’s mother, Marguerite.
The Jewish Social Service Bureau knew Ruby (and family) well because it had been called in to deal with his truancy—again, like Oswald. The Bureau concluded that Fanny was “thoroughly inadequate in the further training of this boy.” The courts thus placed Jack and his two brothers and one sister into a foster home. Fanny was eventually committed to a mental institution.1
Upon his release from the foster home, Ruby took to the streets, where he became known as a neighborhood tough guy who survived by his wits. An admirer and lifelong friend of champion boxer Barney Ross, Jack Ruby prided himself on his penchant for quickdraw fisticuffs. Ruby’s temper was volatile and legendary, earning him the nickname “Sparky.” Jack’s younger brother, Earl, says of his infamous sibling, “He was always highly temperamental. You couldn’t insult him. He got into a lot of fights. He would just stick up for his rights, like whenever anyone made derogatory remarks about the Jews, or when anybody insulted or annoyed our sisters.”2 Invariably, however, Ruby would soon calm down and render a heartfelt apology for his uncontrollable outbursts. Ruby’s temper would escalate during his later years in Dallas.
In his younger years, Jack earned money by selling racing tip
sheets, and, with his brother Earl, hawking novelty items such as medicinal snake oils, costume jewelry, vitamins, bottle openers, stainless steel razor blades, etc. Such a street-wise, seat-of-the-pants existence inevitably led to contact with the criminal element. For a time as a youngster, Jack “Sparky” Rubenstein even gained the acquaintance of infamous crime boss Al Capone. According to Ruby’s lifelong friend Barney Ross, Ruby and Ross were two of twelve teenagers to whom the mobster would pay a dollar “to run innocuous errands.”3 Ruby’s actions were so innocuous, in fact, that he never incurred any major legal problems. And there is absolutely no evidence that Ruby attempted to parlay this association into an ascension up the ranks of organized crime.
After a brief attempt to succeed on the West Coast in the 1930’s, Ruby returned to Chicago to try his hand at union organizing. Bill Roemer, a Chicago FBI agent and leader of the city’s anti-crime effort, recently recalled, “We checked that union out. Ruby was nothing in that union. The mob came in and took it over later.”
The takeover occurred after Ruby’s friend, union secretary Leon Cooke, was murdered in self-defense by union president John Martin (acquitted of pre-meditated murder at his trial). “It was a legitimate union when Jack was involved,” says Jack’s brother, Earl. “But the mob was pressuring the union all the time, and then they eventually grabbed control and forced Jack out. . . The mob came in and took control of the union after Cooke was killed.”4
In the re-telling, the Cooke murder has become so distorted that Ruby somehow became involved in it—that it became his first “hired” assassination. In reality, Ruby’s friendship with Cooke was so strong that when Ruby would later change his name legally to “Ruby,” he added the middle name Leon, in honor of his friend.
