The Final Trigger
By Randall Windle
Randall Windle’s book is a rather odd one, beginning with the title. It is called The Final Trigger. So one would expect that the work would include some kind of explanation as to what specifically caused the JFK murder: a certain event, a certain time frame. I read the book carefully and completely and took copious notes, and I could not find anything I recognized as such a “trigger” mechanism. The subtitle of the book is ”The Truth and Lies of JFK’s Assassination”. Again, this is confusing because, for one reason, the author seems to take the Warren Commission’s questionable story by Howard Brennan seriously. (p. 4)
In the first chapter of the book, Windle lays out in a synoptic manner the visit to Dallas, the actual motorcade route, the assassination and its immediate aftermath. He then describes the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit and then the shooting of alleged assassin Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby on the 24th. It is difficult to decipher if Windle is describing the official story for narrative purposes, or if he really believes at least some of what he is writing. For example, most students of the Tippit murder place his shooting earlier than when Windle does. The late Larry Harris—perhaps the foremost student of that case—placed it at 1:08 PM. Which is an important point. Because if it took place then, there is a serious problem in getting Oswald to the scene of the crime—10th and Patton—in time to commit the murder. In fact, most commentators would say it is simply not possible.
In describing the murder of Oswald by Ruby, Windle does not go into any detail about how Ruby got into the basement of the police station. (p. 12) Which is another key point. Later on in the book, he seems to accept the Warren Commission version of Ruby coming down the Main Street ramp. (p. 194). Which today, in my view, is simply not tenable. Officer Roy Vaughn was guarding that ramp, and he and two other police officers, Sgt. Putnam and Lt. Pierce--also on the ramp at the time--did not see Ruby. But then there is also Sgt. Don Flusche. He was ignored by the Dallas Police back in 1964. But the House Select Committee on Assassinations found him. He was standing diagonally across from the Main Street ramp, leaning against his car. He saw Pierce’s car when it emerged and the pandemonium inside the basement after Oswald was shot. He told the HSCA that he knew Jack Ruby, and “There was no doubt in his mind that Ruby did not walk down the ramp and, further, did not walk down Main Street anywhere near the ramp.” (HSCA, Vol. 9, p. 134)
But this very much debatable point is how the author finishes up Chapter 1 of the book. I should add that there is relatively little about Ruby in the entire volume.
II
From here, Windle jumps to his first of two chapters—and a bit more-- on John F. Kennedy. (In discussing Kennedy’s first book, he calls it While England Slept. The proper title is Why England Slept, p. 14) He does an adequate, if quite compact, job in describing Kennedy’s childhood, his health problems and his military experience.
He then goes to Kennedy’s brief journalistic career and then his real emergence as a political figure in Massachusetts. This section is even more concise than Windle’s previous descriptions. For instance, he deals with Kennedy’s congressional and senatorial career in less than a page. In my opinion, it is not really possible to fairly review Kennedy’s presidency if one deals this hastily with what he did in Congress. To point out one important missing item: I could find no mention of Senator Kennedy’s famous Algeria speech, made in the Senate in the summer of 1957. Many recent commentators credit that speech with putting Kennedy on the map as a real national figure and probable contender for the Democratic nomination for president.
Moving to his presidency, Windle writes that Kennedy withdrew air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion. (p. 25). This is not really accurate. As the declassified record reveals, the so-called D-Day air strikes were not part of the final plans. These strikes were not to be made unless a beachhead had been secured, and since that was not accomplished, they did not occur. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 45)
Windle quotes an academic I had not heard of before, Carlos Eire of Yale, who attacks Kennedy vituperatively over the Bay of Pigs. Yet, the author does not note the fact that both Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell later admitted that they had deliberately misled Kennedy about its chances for success. (ibid, pp. 46-48) Kennedy realized this afterward, which is why he fired both men. In speaking about Operation Mongoose, Windle writes that the endgame was to take out both Castro and his regime. (Windle, p. 28) The problem was that Robert Kennedy, as ombudsman over the project, put so many restrictions on the operations involved that it never came close to achieving an overthrow.
The author does a better job of summarizing the Missile Crisis. He uses the actual communications between Moscow and Washington to sketch in that dramatic crisis, which lasted about two weeks and galvanized the world’s attention. He uses the in-person description given to Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin by the Attorney General of his brother’s predicament: “If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.” (Windle, p. 37)
From Cuba, the author goes to Kennedy’s Federal Reserve Order 11110. According to some authorities on this issue, like Edward Griffin, this has been misinterpreted. It was only a technical correction, not a massive order to convert to silver from gold reserves. Windle then briefly notes the June 10, 1963, American University speech and makes some rather dubious statements about Kennedy’s Vietnam policy. He writes that there is not enough information available to predict what his endgame was in Indochina.
Anyone who reads this site will understand that I disagree, and that I have explained why I disagree. I think there is enough data to state that President Kennedy was getting out of Indochina, that LBJ knew this, and then, as president, Johnson deliberately reversed that withdrawal policy and replaced it with an escalation policy. There are books on this very topic, like Gordon Goldstein’s Lessons in Disaster, David Kaiser’s American Tragedy, and James Blight’s Virtual JFK, among others, that convincingly prove this point.
After again, concisely dealing with the plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago, and then the Joseph Milteer/William Somersett tapes, the author dips into some National Enquirer-type material. He calls Kennedy’s alleged dalliances with Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner and Ellen Rometsch, “important affairs”. (p. 44) In the first case, he admits there was really not much to the JFK/MM story, but says there was more to the RFK angle based on a note that he misinterprets from Jean Kennedy to Monroe. MM expert Don McGovern exposed this as a myth long ago in his fine book Murder Orthodoxies. Windle then says that Judith Exner did not get enough mainstream exposure as she should have. Can the man be serious? Exner got plenty of coverage, even when she was lying her head off about being a messenger between JFK and the Chicago Outfit. This writer exposed Exner for the phony she was many years ago. (Click here https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-posthumous-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy) Concerning Rometsch, ace archives researcher Peter Vea saw hundreds of pages of FBI documents on her courtesy of attorney Jim Lesar. According to Vea, none of them ever came close to proving that there was an affair going on.
The author concludes this second chapter by saying that as RFK was going after organized crime in public, JFK was “using the arms of the mob in ways beneficial to his administration.” (p. 50) He does not footnote that phrase. Later on, he tells us what it’s really about. But let me just say this: There is no credible evidence that JFK ever used organized crime for anything in any way. In their own report, the CIA admitted that he was not aware of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. (See CIA IG Report, pp. 132,33) Professor John Binder has shown that the allegations in the novel Double Cross, about the mob influencing elections in Illinois at the request of Joe Kennedy, are fallacious. (Public Choice, February, 2007)
III
Windle’s chapter on Lee Oswald is somewhat confusing. I think he wants to convey the view that Oswald was a real communist. For instance, he uses Dr. Renatus Hartog’s psychological profile of Oswald, done when he was in New York, as a source. (p. 52). Jim Marrs, among others, has explained how that report was distorted by Hartogs and later by writers like Gerald Posner, to say things it never actually depicted. (Crossfire, revised edition, p. 96). He also writes that Oswald did not score well on a Russian test, without ever explaining why on earth he was given a Russian test in the first place. And I also could not detect any mention of the report the Warren Commission received of Oswald studying at the famous Monterey School of Languages. (Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, p. 44) Nor does he mention Rosaleen Quinn, a woman who was studying Russian under a tutor. She went out with Oswald when he was in the service. She said he spoke better Russian than she did. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 372).
He also writes that in September of 1959, Oswald finished his time in the Marines. That is not really accurate. Because he applied for a hardship discharge before his term expired. These were notoriously hard to get and took a long time to approve. Yet Oswald’s sailed through with alacrity. (Philip Melanson, Spy Saga, p. 12)
In this rather dubious chapter on Oswald, there was one arresting segment. Windle quotes a woman named Inna Markava, a Russian source on a Radio Free Europe broadcast. She allegedly knew Oswald. She says that Marina Oswald played a role in Oswald’s decision to leave the USSR, and that she was involved indirectly with the KGB. And that is why she was allowed to leave Russia with Lee. (p. 74)
Windle spends a few pages on George DeMohrenschildt’s relationship with Oswald. And he mentions that it was later revealed that J. Walton Moore instructed George to befriend Lee. (Windle, p. 87) But he does not say that the Dallas CIA station chief was less than honest about the closeness of his relationship with DeMohrenschildt. According to George’s last wife, Moore dined at their home every other week. (Melanson, p. 89) Windle adds a point about DeMohrenschildt that is worth quoting. In his manuscript about Oswald, the deceased White Russian wrote that it was easier for the public to believe that a misfit loner like Oswald shot Kennedy than to find out “that the assassination was a devilishly clever act of revenge caused by the Bay of Pigs disaster….” (p. 91)
Reverting back into Warren Commission mode, Windle states that Oswald ordered both the rifle and the handgun that were allegedly used in the Kennedy and Tippit murders. (p. 91) The revolutionary work on this subject by John Armstrong in his book Harvey and Lee has brought both transactions into serious doubt. (Click here https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html and https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Pistol.html) As part of Windle’s assumptions about these transactions, he buys into Marina Oswald’s testimony about Oswald taking a shot at General Edwin Walker in April of 1963, and this being the reason that Oswald wanted to move to New Orleans. (Windle, p. 104)
To say that the author’s treatment of Oswald in New Orleans is cursory is too mild. I could detect no mention of the Clinton-Jackson incident, for example. Which today is one of the most important events linking Oswald to Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in the run-up to the assassination. Authors like Bill Davy, Joan Mellen and myself have demonstrated with much evidence that this incriminating event occurred. (See, for example, William Davy, Let Justice be Done, pp. 101-117) I also could not find any of the witnesses who placed Oswald inside 544 Camp Street, where Guy Banister’s office was located. (Davy, pp. 39-43) Or the pamphlet that Oswald had stamped with that address on it. (Davy, p. 37)
Windle does mention the New Orleans interview that Oswald did with conservative host Bill Stuckey. But what is left out is Paul Bleau’s milestone work on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Bleau has dug up evidence that Oswald was in communication with that group prior to his move to New Orleans. (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/exposing-the-fpcc-part-1) Even the Warren Report admits this likely happened. (WR, p. 407) But Bleau’s work pins the possible communication back into 1962. And in a parallel landmark discovery, Bleau discovered that Stuckey was seeking help from the FBI in finding a chapter of the subversive FPCC in New Orleans in the spring of 1962. (FBI Memo of 4/6/62)
So if one does not believe that Oswald took a shot at Walker, which the late Gerald McKnight did not, then the move to New Orleans begins to look like part of the CIA/FBI campaign against the FPCC. Planned well in advance, Oswald was going to be a part of that crusade.
IV
After this, Windle segues to the famous Silvia Odio incident. He does not make much of the discrepancy between the time frame of this happening and the supposed departure of Oswald for Mexico City. (p. 111) Others, like the Warren Commission, have-- and for good reason. Odio said that Oswald was at her apartment door with two Cubans on September 26th or 27th. But yet Oswald was supposed to be on a bus on the 26th headed to Mexico City from the border town of Nuevo Laredo. (WR, p. 733) The Commission knew what a serious problem this presented since Odio had a back-up witness, her sister Annie. And she had written about the visit of Oswald and two Cubans to her father at the Isle of Pines off the coast of Cuba. The Commission did all they could to try to neuter her testimony, and Windle soft pedals this attempt at witness intimidation. For instance, Commission lawyer Welsey Liebeler interviewed her in Texas, took her to dinner, and told her, “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.” He then tried to seduce her afterward. (Gaeton Fonzi’s interview with Odio, 1/16/76)
The Commission also enlisted J. Edgar Hoover to provide a cover story saying that the people Odio saw were really William Seymour, Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard. But Seymour denied he was even in Dallas in September or that he had contacts with Odio. Later interviews with Hall, Howard, Sylvia and Annie Odio caused the further collapse of this charade. This was all exposed as a mirage before the release of the Commission volumes of testimony and evidence. But it was not included therein. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 387)
From here, Windle continues on to Mexico City. It’s pretty clear that he accepts the official version of this integral episode. In this day and age, with the complete declassification of the Lopez Report, that is a tough one to swallow. He writes that Silvia Duran saw Oswald at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. (p. 112) I interviewed Ed Lopez extensively about his report. I talked to him several times on the phone and three times in person. One of the things he told me was that when HSCA Deputy Counsel Gary Cornwell was done interviewing Duran, he asked her: How tall was this guy who claimed to be Oswald? She pointed at the diminutive Cornwell and said, “About his height.” Cornwell is about 5’ 6’’. We all know that Oswald was about three inches taller. And, in fact, when shown films of Oswald leafleting in New Orleans, she said this was not the man she saw in the embassy. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 647) Further, in Duran’s very first interview with the Mexican authorities, she said the man she saw was short and blonde. (ibid, p.646) Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue agreed with Duran. The man he saw was short and blonde and did not even resemble the pictures he later saw of Oswald. Finally, in declassified ARRB CIA documents, it is revealed that the Agency had two spies enlisted in the Cuban embassy. When they visited with them after the assassination, the CIA showed them pictures of Oswald and asked if they had ever seen him there. They both said no, they had not.
One has to add in two other evidentiary facts. The Agency has never been able to produce a photo of Oswald going into or leaving either the Cuban or Soviet embassy. There should be ten of these. The CIA has never been able to produce a tape of his voice at either place, even though both were bugged.
What makes this section so odd is that the author does note the call between President Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, saying that the picture sent up from Mexico City of Oswald is not him, and the tapes of his voice do not match the real Oswald, who is in detention. (Windle, p. 114) Further, Windle quotes the famous Hoover-written annotation about how the CIA sold him a snow job about Oswald in Mexico City. But he says this was part of the Warren Commission evidence. (p. 112) My information was that John Newman discovered it while researching his book, Oswald and the CIA, first published thirty years later. And that is likely the case. Since Windle’s footnote to this information about the Warren Commission finding is wrong. It traces to the HSCA volumes containing a manuscript by George DeMohrenschildt. (See footnote 32 on page 277)
V
I almost don’t want to write about what Windle says about the actual murder of Kennedy. I had so many disagreements with this section that if I detailed them all, it would amount to the length of a pamphlet. For example, he writes that there is agreement that the first shot fired hit James Tague. (p. 127). There is no such agreement. Many people think that the first shot was the one into Kennedy’s back. Including James Tague. (WC, Vol. 7, p. 555)
He also quotes Howard Brennan at length about the man he allegedly saw in the sixth-floor window. (ibid) Quite a few writers have demolished Brennan. (See, for example, Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment, pp. 83-94) But Jim Marrs actually talked to his work supervisor. Mr. Speaker told Jim that the feds took Brennan away from work for about three weeks. He came back scared and would not talk about the assassination afterward. (Marrs, Crossfire, p. 25) Finally, Vince Palamara found declassified HSCA documents that reveal that Brennan refused to testify for them under any circumstances. He would not even sit for an interview. And if he were formally subpoenaed, he said he would hire a lawyer to fight the action. Who could trust such an intimidated witness? (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)
Windle writes that there was no doubt that shots came from the so-called ‘sniper’s lair’ sixth-floor window. (p. 149). He then uses the testimony of the workers on the fifth floor who said they heard shells dropping above them. But that testimony was discredited long ago by Patricia Lambert. (The Continuing Inquiry, October and November of 1977) She showed that the infamous Elmer Moore of the Secret Service was involved in altering that testimony, first elicited by the FBI. For example, one of the three workers, Harold Norman, never mentioned any of those noises on the 26th of November. But he did for the Secret Service on the 2nd of November.
This apparent ignorance of the pernicious influence of Moore is compounded when Windle uses the Commission testimony of Parkland Kennedy surgeon Malcolm Perry, where he said that the anterior neck wound could have been one of entrance or exit. (p. 163) But this is after Perry was influenced by the visits of Moore and Secret Service agent Roger Warner to Parkland Hospital. As was revealed later by reporter Martin Steadman, Perry believed from the beginning, with JFK’s body on the gurney, that the anterior neck wound was one of entrance. Having said this in public during the November 22nd press conference. He was phoned that night from Bethesda Medical Center by the autopsy doctors. Under threat of removing his medical license, they wanted him to change his story. But he told Steadman about a week after the assassination that he knew an entrance from an exit wound. After all, he was a hunter. And this was an entrance wound. (“The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry,” Kennedysandking.com, May 24, 2021) As Moore’s acquaintance Jim Gochenauer said to Oliver Stone and me, Moore then convinced Perry to change his testimony when he visited him at Parkland. In a normal case, what Moore did would amount to two counts of obstruction of justice. (JFK Revisited, edited by James DiEugenio, p. 322)
Windle even seems to argue for the unbelievable Single Bullet Theory. He says that the Magic Bullet was yawing—going sideways-- in its path through John Connally. (p. 131) This rationale is as old as the Warren Report. (WR, p. 92) It is patently an excuse donned to explain that bullet’s remarkable intactness. This argument was negated by Gary Aguilar and the late Cyril Wecht in their reply to firearms experts Lucien and Michael Haag. As the principal creators of 2013’s Cold Case Nova program on the JFK murder, they had trotted it out again. The Haags argued that the bullet wound was somewhat oval-shaped. Aguilar and Wecht replied that it was no more or less oval-shaped than the posterior head wound in Kennedy, and no one says that that projectile was yawing. The Haags also argued that the Connally wound was 3 centimeters in length. This was also not accurate, since it was half that length after being debrided. Thirdly, there were no cloth fibers carried into John Connally’s back wound. But there were in the governor’s wrist wound. The lack of fibers, plus the clean-cut edges of the back wound, convinced both of the governor’s surgeons—Robert Shaw and Charles Gregory—that the projectile that hit Connally in the back had not struck anything previously. It was therefore not yawing. They were both convinced that Kennedy and Connally were hit by different bullets. (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 77) They were correct, as an examination of the chain of custody of the Magic Bullet bears out.
I won’t go into the closing of the book. Suffice it to say that in comparing the so-called Howard Hunt “confession” to Jim Garrison’s case in New Orleans, Windle shows a lack of knowledge and detail about the latter.
All in all, I thought this was a genuinely disappointing book. Especially for this time period, that is, after 2 million pages of documents were declassified by the Review Board. And a whole new flock of books have been published on those new disclosures. With all this new information, do we really want to go back to the obliterated tenets of the discredited Warren Report? I mean, the Magic Bullet in this era?
