The Warren Committee and House Select Committee on Assassinations findings concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person behind the killing of 1963 Officer J.D. Tippit on the same day as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Their conclusions are mostly based on eyewitness accounts. Read our article to see why these testimonies are dubious.

Let’s take a closer look at some of these eyewitnesses.

Domingo Benavides

Domingo Benavides was the closest witness to the assassination of Officer Tippit. He was driving on E. 10th Street when he heard three gunshots nearby. He didn't witness the shooting itself but saw the shooter walking away.

It’s worth noting that Benavides couldn't identify the shooter because he only caught his back as he ran away. He checked on Tippit, who was deceased by that time, and retrieved two shell casings left by the fleeing gunman.

Lastly, he noted the suspect's squared-off haircut, which didn't match Lee Harvey Oswald's tapered haircut. The only thing that matched was the “Eisenhower” jacket, but that’s circumstantial at best.

Helen Markham

Helen Markham was a key witness in the Tippit case. She claimed to have seen the shooting, but contradictions marred her testimony. While Markham described an encounter where a man shot Officer Tippit, her version conflicted with other witnesses.

Below are some of these contradictions:

• She was the only one to see the killer walking east, while others saw the killer walking west along 10th Street.
• Markham claimed the killer leaned into Tippit's open passenger window, but only the vent window was cracked open.
• She also stated that she spent 20 minutes alone with the dying officer, which contradicted Benavides’ testimony suggesting Tippit died quickly.

Assistant Warren Counsel Wesley Libeler called Markham’s testimony "contradictory and worthless," and others doubted her identification of Oswald. Top of Form

William Scoggins

Cab driver William Scoggins witnessed the assassination of Officer Tippit from his parked vehicle at 10th & Patton. While eating his lunch, he saw Tippit's patrol car stop, and a young pedestrian approached it. However, Scoggins’ view of the killer was blocked due to hedges.

When gunshots rang out, he saw a young man with a gun walk past his cab, and Scoggins took cover behind it.

At a police lineup, Scoggins identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw crossing the lawn.

By November 23rd, most Dallas residents were aware of Oswald's alleged involvement. During the lineup, Oswald was the only one who provided his correct name and stated he worked at the Texas School Book Depository.

To make matters worse, Scoggins later admitted he couldn't identify Oswald in a separate photo lineup, saying he was told he picked the wrong man.

Discover More Contradictory Testimonies at Kennedys and King

There are enough contradictory testimonies in this event and the one preceding it, i.e., the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Explore our website for a thorough analysis of dubious accounts and evidence that leaves enough room to believe Lee Harvey Oswald was but a scapegoat, a patsy in the JFK assassination.

Write us to share your thoughts and feedback about our work.

Bottom of Fo

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) lasted four years, and Douglas Horne was a part of it for three of those years. We have discussed his time inside the ARRB in one of our most recent articles. The now-author had quite the tenure. He started as a Senior Analyst but was soon promoted to the position of Chief Analyst on the Military Records Team.

Below is a summary of Horne’s perspective of the ARRB culture.

The ARRB's Limited Familiarity

Douglas Horne described a sense of "future shock" when he started his service in Washington. Except for Jack Tunheim, the board members displayed limited familiarity with the intricate details of the assassination of John F. Kennedy case.

Horne’s Attempts to Educate the Board

After recognizing this knowledge gap, Horne suggested a series of briefings to educate the ARRB members about the complexities of the JFK assassination. However, Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn dissuaded such an initiative.

Gunn said that the board had little interest in the conflicting evidence surrounding the case. He also said that the ARRB did not subscribe to the notion that a conspiracy had been orchestrated to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

The ARRB vs. The Public Opinion

In his book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board findingsAssassination Records Review Board findings, Horne estimated that up to two-thirds of the ARRB staff adhered to the conclusions of the Warren Commission. This was particularly surprising since the ARRB was established in the aftermath of the widespread public commotion spurred by Oliver Stone's film that strongly suggested a conspiracy.

During that period, public opinion polls indicated that over 75% of the population believed in a conspiracy. The ARRB did not reflect the public opinion.

Strong Bias and Resistance to Dissent

Within the ARRB staff and among independent researchers who questioned the findings of warren commission, a strong bias prevailed. Anyone who expressed skepticism about its verdict encountered resistance.

The bias even extended to David Marwell, the staff director. Marwell's appointment may have been influenced by his alignment with the prevailing views of the board.

The ARRB’s Final Report

To cap it all, the ARRB's Final Report included a phrase asserting that Oliver Stone's JFK was "largely fictional." This particular statement has raised eyebrows among those who closely scrutinized the evidence.

In numerous instances, a detailed examination of the film compared to the documents opened by the Review Board revealed that Stone's portrayal often corroborated the available evidence.

The comment in the report is either the result of a lack of objectivity or influenced by a preexisting bias. It serves as a parting shot directed at the creators of the film and those who continue to question the official narrative.

Kennedys and King is one of those whose dissenting voices the ARRB would have shot down had it existed today. Every claim on our platform is supported by concrete evidence, something you’ll see as soon as you open our first article. Support our cause to bring the truth behind JFK assassination to light.

Contact us to learn how you can be a part of our authors’ panel.

There are countless theories centering around the controversial medical evidence related to President John F. Kennedy’s mysterious death. Recently, two new pieces of testimony have emerged, shedding further light on the mystery surrounding Kennedy's brain and adding to the intrigue surrounding this historic event. Check them out in our latest article.

Alternatively, keep reading for the gist of these testimonies and their implications.

The Mastrovito Interview

The first testimony regarding JFK’s medical evidence comes from James M. Mastrovito, a 20-year veteran of the Secret Service who served from 1959 to 1979.

The Relevance of James M. Mastrovito

Mastrovito's career included a stint on the White House detail from 1960 to 1962, and he eventually rose to become the Director of the Intelligence Division within the Secret Service. What makes Mastrovito's account particularly intriguing is his involvement with the Kennedy file, which contained a substantial amount of material related to the president.

The Testimony

The most astonishing revelation from Mastrovito's interview with the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was his claim that he had received a piece of President Kennedy's brain. He described the brain matter as being contained in a vial with an identifying label.

Notably, the vial was from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). When asked who had handed him the vial, Mastrovito stated that it was Walter Young, the first chief of the Intelligence Division, who had given it to him.

Unfortunately, Young had passed away a year before Mastrovito's interview. Shockingly, Mastrovito disclosed that he had disposed of the contents of the vial in a machine designed to destroy food.

The Vrtacnik Interview

Ken Vrtacnik worked at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) from 1964 to 1965. He was interviewed by Dave Montague and Doug Horne, who were part of the ARRB medical inquiry.

In his interview, Vrtacnik confirmed and supported the testimony given by Mastrovito. He disclosed that he saw President Kennedy's brain during his tenure at AFIP. According to Vrtacnik, the brain specimen was stored securely in a locked room as part of the AFIP complex.

Like Mastrovito, Vrtacnik was certain that it was Kennedy's brain because it was clearly labeled as such. He also emphasized that the brain specimen was subject to strict control and security measures.

The Plot Thickens

The revelations by Mastrovito and Vrtacnik add a new layer of mystery and controversy to JFK’s medical evidence.

In his documentaries JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, Oliver Stone had previously raised questions about the weight and condition of Kennedy's brain based on available evidence. Stone argued that the official weight of Kennedy's brain, reported as 1500 grams, appeared inconsistent with the extensive damage caused by a gunshot to the head, as seen in the Zapruder film and reported by medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda.

Additionally, the condition of the brain, as described by witnesses, was severely damaged, with some reporting that a third of the brain was missing. However, the photographic evidence from the autopsy contradicted these accounts, showing a relatively intact brain with minimal disruption.

If the autopsy was conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital and President Kennedy's brain was handed over to Admiral George Burkley for internment, how did a part of Kennedy's brain end up at the AFIP?

More importantly, why are we only hearing about this now? Read our articles to follow this line of inquiry into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. You can also support our decades-old cause through the contribution methods mentioned on our website.

Reach out for feedback and support.

The civil rights movement was led by remarkable individuals like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and more. Most of these leaders, including King, were “dispatched” because they tried to change the status quo.

Behind the scenes, the King faced a formidable adversary in the form of J. Edgar Hoover, the controversial FBI director. Hoover's obsession with King is a dark chapter in American history, highlighting the extent to which government agencies can misuse their authority. Click here for more on this.

Let’s reexamine the complex relationship between J. Edgar Hoover and MLK.

Guilt by Association

Hoover's obsession with King began with a disturbing strategy: Guilt by association. Despite the absence of evidence linking King to the Communist Party, Hoover sought to tarnish King's reputation by connecting him to leftist and communist organizations. This tactic aimed to undermine King's credibility and harm the civil rights movement.

For example, after King was stabbed during a 1958 book signing in New York City, the FBI noted that one of his blood donors, Benjamin Davis, was a Communist Party member. The Bureau also highlighted King's name on a petition for clemency for a man imprisoned for not wanting to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). This guilt-by-association strategy aimed to smear King's name.

Surveillance and Intrusion

J. Edgar Hoover, in true FBI fashion, ordered the surveillance of King’s activities. The FBI had been tapping King's phone in Atlanta since the late 1950s, long before any concrete evidence of wrongdoing emerged. The intrusion into King's privacy violated his civil liberties and raised concerns about government overreach.

As if that wasn’t enough, the FBI “investigated” the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) offices to gather information on King. This pattern of surveillance and intrusion intensified as Hoover's fixation grew.

Direct Conflict and Smear Campaigns

The conflict between J. Edgar Hoover and MLK escalated when the latter wrote an article for The Nation, advocating for greater FBI involvement in combating civil rights violations in the South. King also pointed out the lack of agents of color within the FBI, suggesting that this might hinder their commitment to civil rights causes. Hoover responded by questioning why King had not been investigated by the FBI and underlined this in a memo.

Hoover's main charges against King were rooted in accusations that two of King's supporters, Stanley Levison and Jack O'Dell, had communist affiliations. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, Hoover spread these rumors to politicians on Capitol Hill, creating a cloud of suspicion around King's associates.

Where Does the US Stand Today?

We live in a capitalist society. If anything, the elites that remained untouchable back then have only brought more social classes into their fold.

The purpose of revisiting this dark period in history underscores the importance of safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring transparency and accountability without exception. It reminds us of the need to protect individuals who champion social justice, even in the face of powerful opposition.

An alleged target of that opposition, Martin Luther King, is the victim of one of the most mysterious political assassinations of the 1960s. Dissect these mysteries by checking out the MLK assassination tab.

Get in touch for comments and feedback about our most recent article.