Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK? - Part One
On November 24th of this year, ABC broadcast a special on the John Kennedy assassination. It was entitled Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK. It was in the tradition of their 2003 show hosted by Peter Jennings and directed by Mark Obenhaus. One of the lead talking heads, and the one with the most speaking time, was author and animator Dale Myers, who was a featured speaker for Jennings. How obsequious is the show to the Warren Report? Later in the two-hour program, we see Myers adoringly gazing at and passing his hand over that report and its 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. And during the show’s opening overture, Myers says that in all his years of research, there is no evidence to support a shot from the grassy knoll or the right front striking Kennedy. It would have been better to say that the agenda this program utilizes will curtail any evidence of that fact.
Right after this, the program introduces two related themes that it will intercut throughout. The first declaration is that JFK was the first celebrity president. One could make that same statement about Franklin Roosevelt, who was only five years older when first elected, and was also handsome and witty and charming. But their resident historian, Tim Naftali, does not want to go there. This then leads into the adjunct theme that the John Kennedy assassination was the first national conspiracy theory. Again, some historians would say that the Lindbergh kidnapping or the Rosenberg case would also qualify. But again, that is not what this program is about.
And make no mistake, this combination psychological thesis-that average Americans could not swallow that the handsome, charming president could be killed by one man, it had to be a plot-- is clearly enunciated by Naftali very shortly into the show. In fact, right after showing Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
The program then cuts to Kennedy arriving in Dallas on November 22, 1963. We see films of the motorcade progressing from Love Field, while comments are made about the presidential limo having an open top, ignoring the fact that JFK did this a lot. For example, according to author David Sloan, he did it in Key West, Florida, after the missile crisis and then in Tampa the week before Dallas, when he knew there had been a threat on his life.
The other fact that is ignored is the very odd Secret Service protection that was offered that day. Some examples being: an agent being called off the rear bumper of the car as it exits Love Field. (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers, p. 48) Or the strange motorcycle formation that was cut down to just two cycles on each side. (Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, pp. 1402, 1404) Also, the lack of any requests for supplemental personnel to ensure against things like any open windows on the route. Or that the local authorities were alerted the night before Kennedy arrived that the route was altered; thus providing a near-perfect milieu for what military snipers call an L-shaped ambush. (Vince Palamara, Survivor’s Guilt, second edition, pp. 103-06) Authors like Doug Horne and Vince Palamara have written about these matters at length. There is also the fact that these failures should have resulted in strong subsequent disciplinary hearings and action. They did not. Somehow, the ABC program neglects to tell the viewer that the Warren Commission pretty much avoided all this negligence. When, in fact, the totality of this security collapse is what caused Kennedy’s death.
II
We now go to what happened in Dealey Plaza. Even though the program shows scenes of dozens of spectators running up the grassy knoll, Myers tells us that the first shot missed, and the next shot went through Kennedy and -- of course both originated from behind. He later says the third shot is the headshot. But the infamous Z frame 313 is not shown, an issue we will return to later. Weirdly, someone on the soundtrack--who was nameless--says there was a 95% chance of four shots being fired and two assassins. This was the HSCA version, but again, that is not attributed or delved into.
In a recurring motif, Washington Post reporter Mary Jordan—an inexplicable authority-- now goes through a Who’s Who of possible suspects: FBI, CIA, Cuba, the USSR and the Mafia. And this becomes the occasion to introduce a second recurring motif: the labeling of those suspicious or critical of the official story as “conspiracy theorists”. As the late Lance DeHaven Smith showed, that phrase began to be used by the New York Times in 1964, and then it spread to the MSM in 1967. At the time of issue of the infamous CIA dispatch called “Countering the Critics”. (Click here https://www.kennedysandking.com/reviews/dehaven-smith-lance-conspiracy-theory-in-america)
Now comes a truly desperate strophe in the show. Chris Connelly, an ESPN sports and entertainment reporter and producer —about as qualified as Mary Jordan—says that a man in the sixth-floor window ran down the stairs. How Connelly knows this is never explained. Since no one saw anyone run from the sixth to the second floor. And here comes the deus ex machina of the program: they rely on Howard Brennan to convict Oswald. We are to believe that no one associated with the show was familiar with the fact that Brennan had been torn to shreds all the way from 1966 (Edward Epstein, Inquest) to 2021 (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers).
In Epstein’s book, it was revealed that not even the Commission lawyers, e.g., Joe Ball, wanted to use Brennan. (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 143) As Ball noted, when the Commission did a reconstruction with Brennan, he had problems identifying a figure in the window. Ball also noted that Brennan stated that the shooter was standing while firing. He then stepped down out of sight. (McKnight, p. 109) Yet this was not possible since photographs showed the window was not open high enough to do that, unless the assassin was firing through glass, and there was no shattered glass found. So the Commission had to conclude that the sniper was kneeling. (Epstein, p. 144, Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 83) But if that was the case, then how could Brennan give a description of height and weight? Which is what the program says happened.
Then there was the chain of evidence in the Brennan case. How did Brennan’s testimony originate, and then how was it passed on to the Dallas Police to be broadcast? Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin wanted the FBI to provide this chain. But Director J. Edgar Hoover would not commit to any. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 109) Why? Because there was confusion about its origins. Brennan said that he gave his info to a policeman, neither identified nor called by the Commission, and he took him to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. But the problem was that Sorrels was not in Dealey Plaza at that time, which was about ten minutes after the shooting. He did not arrive back there for about half an hour. (Lane, p. 86)
So then the onus for Brennan’s initial description fell to police Inspector Herbert Sawyer. Who could barely remember anything about Brennan, including his name and how he was dressed. Which is really something considering the fact that Brennan was wearing a hard hat. (Lane, p. 87). When Sorrels finally did talk to Brennan, another problem was created, actually two. First, the description on the police radio had already gone out. And second, Sawyer said he had a no clothing description; but Sorrels--who took Brennan to the Sheriff’s office-- said he was given one by the witness, the suspect was wearing a light jacket. (Lane, p. 88)
As Connelly notes, Brennan failed to identify Oswald at the first line-up he attended. Consider what ABC left out. Brennan told the FBI on the 23rd that he still could not be sure it was Oswald. (Commission Document 5, p. 12 ) But further, the late Ian Griggs surfaced fascinating information on this issue: namely, that he could not find Brennan’s name listed for any of the official line-ups. (No Case to Answer, pp. 85-90) Further, there were never more than four people in the lineups. But Brennan said there were six. Finally, Brennan could not recall if there was an African American among them. (Griggs, p. 91) This is Texas in 1963. In fact, Detective Will Fritz’s testimony on the matter suggests that Sorrels might have invented the line-up where Brennan made a positive ID after the fact. (ibid., p. 94)
Finally, there is the following, as related by Vince Palamara. As noted above, Brennan told the FBI that he could not positively identify Oswald even after he had seen Oswald on TV. (Honest Answers, p. 186) Further, Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge, or recoil or the muzzle flash. (ibid) And then there is this: Brenan’s job supervisor said they took Brennan away for three weeks. He came back a nervous wreck. He would not talk about the assassination after that: “He was scared to death. They made him say what they wanted him to say.” (ibid., p. 187)
Later on, Brennan refused to talk to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) unless he was under subpoena. When the HSCA said they would do so, Brennan replied he would fight the subpoena. And if forced to appear, he would simply not say anything. In addition, he refused to sign any written statement. And even when offered immunity, he would not appear. (ibid., pp. 188-89)
As Palamara concludes, “Are these the actions of a truthful man?” Yet this is what ABC relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor.
III
A rich piece of unintentional humor follows. Dale Myers intones that people who do not know what they are talking about are the ones making claims about someone up on the knoll. In other words, witnesses like Lee Bowers, Sam Holland, and Joe Smith are now ruled out in favor of the hapless Mr. Brennan--the man who refused to appear for the HSCA even when offered immunity.
Let us just use one of those discarded as an example of the show’s--and Myers’-- imbalance. Josiah Thompson’s 1967 volume, Six Seconds in Dallas, is considered a perennial in the field. One of its high points is Thompson’s interview with Holland. Holland—like at least six others-- insisted he had seen smoke rise near the stockade fence, which would indicate a shot from the knoll area. (Thompson, p. 121) Holland heard four shots, not the Commission’s three; and the third and fourth were very close together, like a double shot. Which would tend to eliminate the Oswald thesis since the Commission said he had a manual bolt-action rifle. Holland added that the third shot had a different sound to it, like it was fired from another weapon. He also told friends that his Commission testimony had not been transcribed accurately. (Thompson, pp. 83-84)
But further, Holland was so certain of the origins of the sound that he ran from the overpass over to the parking lot behind the picket fence behind the knoll. (Thompson, p. 122) When he got there, he saw footprints behind a station wagon (it had been raining that morning). And on the bumper of the car, there were muddy spots, as if someone had raked off their shoes, while standing there waiting. The prints did not extend further than the width of the car.
As Thompson said about Holland, his testimony stood up, and he could find no flaws in the detail. That Myers and ABC valued Brennan over Holland is a flashing red flag as to how agenda-driven the show was.
IV
The program now shifts to two subjects: the evidence on the sixth floor, and the murder of policeman J. D. Tippit.
Predictably, ABC retains the whole “sniper’s nest” idea: that Oswald built a shield of boxes behind him with the rifle resting on one in front. As researcher Alan Eaglesham proved with pictures, plus the testimony of Dallas photographer Tom Alyea, the boxes were moved by the police from their original position. Alyea was the first civilian photographer on the sixth floor, and he talked about this rearrangement in an interview he did with Tulsa World newspaper back in 2013. This rearrangement was done before letting the rest of the reporters into the crime scene area, and, according to the testimony of Officer J. C. Day, it was still being done for police pictures until the 25th. Also, Alyea said the shells were not scattered as the pictures portrayed. They were originally in the diameter of a hand towel. Which is not how they would have landed if ejected from a rifle. (James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited, pp. 145-46).
Per the rifle, the program never brings up the identification problem. The rifle was first identified as being a Mauser rifle, and there were three reports in evidence that it was the German rifle and not the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano that was first found. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, by James DiEugenio, p. 81) Secondly, how could the envelope with the money order and coupon to pay for it be sent from Dallas on March 12, 1963, and arrive at the Kleins’ mail order house in Chicago--and be deposited at their bank--the next day? And why does the money order sent have no stamps on the back of it, like it never was passed through the Federal Reserve system? (ibid., p. 82)
Fourth, the rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the Commission says Oswald ordered. The rifle in evidence is a short rifle that is 40.2 inches long and weighs about 8 lbs. with sling and sight. The one Oswald allegedly ordered is a carbine that is 36 inches long and has a weight of 5.5 lbs. (ibid., p. 83) Fifth, as former SWAT team member Brian Edwards said during Oliver Stone’s documentary, JFK Revisited, that Oswald could not have applied the screw on the butt end of the short rifle that is evidence today. And there is no evidence that someone did it at a rifle shop. (Op cit, JFK Revisited, p. 143)
Needless to say, the program brings up none of these anomalies, and Myers simply says that the rifle in evidence was ordered by Oswald.
The program then goes with the Sawyer/Brennan story as being the reason for a description going out on the police radio of a man 5’10” tall and 165 lbs., armed with a .30 caliber rifle. And this was used by Tippit to pull over Oswald. Myers then used that to say: Oswald killed Tippit, so that means Oswald killed Kennedy.
To go through all the problems with Oswald being the assailant in the murder of Tippit would take much too long, since the show pretty much glides over that case. But suffice it to say the following: if Helen Markham is your chief witness, you are in trouble, since she might even be worse than Brennan. (Epstein, pp. 142-43) Secondly, it is highly problematic that Oswald could have negotiated the 9/10 of a mile walk to the Tippit scene at 1:08, the time he was likely killed. Third, the shells do not match the bullets, and the bullets do not match each other. Fourth, according to Tippit expert Joe McBride, the best witness to the shooting was Acquilla Clemmons, and she said there were two shooters, neither of whom was Oswald. (Click here, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium)
When we go to Oswald’s capture at the Texas Theater, there is no mention of the two wallets problem. That is, Oswald had one on him, but there was also one found at the scene of Tippit’s murder. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp. 862-63) The show then gets unintentionally humorous with Oswald’s detention and interrogation. They say the police had no tape recorder, so we do not know what was actually said. The show’s scenario stops anyone from saying: why not go buy one? Or why not call in a stenographer?
