03-05-2009, 12:24 PM
A full list of the audience's details is available upon request from MI5 and, of course, Langley:
Quote:The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)
The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination [part 2 of 2: Lane's responses to questions from the audience]
By Mark Lane
Quote:This is a transcript taken from a tape recording made of Mark Lane’s extemporaneous lecture. To the best of our knowledge, there are no errors in this transcript from the tape recording of Mr. Lane’s lecture, but as Mr. Lane did not proof-read this transcript, we wish to guard against any possibility of error being imputed to him by making clear that any error which may be found in this transcript must be ascribed to the process of transferring his remarks from tape to paper.
We emphasize that we have no reason to think such error exists, but the procedure wherein remarks are transferred from one medium to another is subject to error, and it is important that it should not be possible for anyone to impugn Mr. Lane’s scrupulous and meticulous accuracy because of this remote possibility of secretarial failure.
Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December, 1964
The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)
The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination
By Mark Lane
Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December, 1964 [part 2: Lane’s responses to questions from the audience]
Question from the audience.
Answer: There are many discrepancies, and let me see if I can deal with some of them that you’ve raised. First of all, the Commission never deals with the basic proposition of the origin of the shots, never. The Commission makes reference to the overpass, not to the wooden fence when they give the statistics. Secondly, the area here (1)* the Commission says was 177 feet when the shots were fired. It was not much greater from here (2)* perhaps another 30 or 40 feet. In the first place, the figures which you’re quoting are the figures relating to the overpass, not at all to this area (the grassy knoll). This was closer to the car in several respects than the overpass, as you can see. Secondly, in terms of the medical statements, Dr. Humes has made this statement in his testimony: “When I examined the wound in the President’s throat, I could not determine whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.” Dr. Humes states: “I could not determine that because the wound had been so completely altered and disfigured by Dr. Perry, who had conducted the tracheotomy on the President’s throat, utilising the bullet wound as the basis for the operation.” Dr. Humes said: “I must yield to Dr. Perry on the question of whether the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound or an exit wound.” Dr. Perry had already stated very freely and very openly and most repeatedly: “The wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound.” No question in his mind about that, he said it over and over on November 22nd, November 23rd, November 24th and days afterwards, until such time as it was concluded that since Oswald was there (in the Book Depository Building) and the President was actually facing forward, the wound in his throat had to be an exit wound.
Now there is a transition which took place in terms of when the changes were brought about. I’ll tell you how that took place. Of course the final statements now tend to confirm that conclusion reached by the Commission, but what is very enlightening I think is to determine how the statements got that way. On the last day of May and the first day of June, it was first said by the Government that the bullet which entered the President came from the back. They had a picture in the New York Times of the Secret Service Agent sitting in the limousine, and a chalk mark was drawn on his back, stating exactly where the bullet entered and it was here, more than five inches below the collar. They said: “That’s where the bullet entered.” Shortly thereafter, the FBI displayed the shirt and the jacket, pictures of which are now documents before the Commission, showing that there is indeed a bullet hole, or a hole, in the shirt and in the jacket, a little more than five inches below the collar.
Alright, then the next question was raised: If that’s the bullet which entered the President’s back, shot from not a 26 degree angle, but a 23 degree angle, because the street was on a 3 degree angle, the Commission says, the angle of the bullet when compared to President was just 20 degrees, but the Commission said (comment from the audience) – that’s the Commission’s conclusion. Yes, I’m telling you what the Commission elects, though. The question is how a bullet going that way, going downward, could then go on and hit Governor Connolly, because that’s another matter that we’ll get to in just a bit in terms of whether or not that bullet hit Governor Connolly. It became necessary for that bullet to hit Governor Connolly. I’ll tell you why: because there were four shots that were fired. One struck a kerb over here (between Commerce and Main Streets, near the Triple Underpass) and a man by the name of James Tague testified before the Commission that he was standing there and as the bullet hit the kerb it shot concrete up in his face, and his face began to bleed, so Tague went to the Parkland Memorial Hospital to be treated for the concrete in his face. That’s one bullet. One bullet hit the President, that’s one, (not necessarily in that order), one hit the Governor, then another one hit the President. That’s four.
Now, the Commission states that the rifle requires a minimum interval in the hands of the great rifle experts who work with it, 2.3 seconds in between shots. Now, from the time the first shot was fired till the last shot was fired, the Commission says was six seconds, therefore only three shots could have been fired, because there’s not sufficient time even for the three intervals. Now we have four bullets fired, because there’s not sufficient time even for the three intervals. Now we have four bullets fired, but they’re done in a period of six seconds, and 2.3 second intervals were required between shots. In other words, Oswald is not the lone assassin, unless one bullet can be removed. One shot must be removed.
Now how can we do this, ah, yes, if we take one bullet and press it into double duty that day, have it hit the Governor, have it hit the President, go through the President, then hit the Governor, and that’s one bullet. The second one hit the President in the head, and the third one strikes over here (the kerb, near the Triple Overpass) and then we get down from four bullets to three bullets and still have the result of three bullets, and then we have the six seconds and it makes sense with the 2.3, so that’s what happened. That happened after this was published, though, in May, end of May and beginning of June, then the question was: How did that bullet go out, hit five inches below the collar and then go out of the throat? It could have happened originally if it hit a bone, and was deflected upwards, that’s possible, but now since that bullet has to go through the President, and after going through the President, it must go through the Governor’s back, exit, smash out two ribs, crash through his wrist, fracturing it, and end up in his thigh, the doctors all agree that if it struck any bony material in the President and was deflected, it would have lost sufficient velocity so it could never have done what it did to the Governor. So now the bullet could not strike a bone, in fact it must strike no muscle, it must find its way in between muscles, and that’s what happened, it came out the throat. So it didn’t go in here (1) they were wrong when they drew the chalk mark – actually the bullet went over here (2) the autopsy point, right over there, and came out the throat. Even then, it went about the same level it came out, and should really have gone in a little bit higher, but this is the Commission’s finding, their review of the autopsy.
Now what about the jacket and what about the shirt – still before the Commission in the same shape they were shown to the American people at the end of May – they still have a hole down there, five inches down. That hole is more than 3½ inches below the corresponding spot on the President’s body. Well, that is true, you were a jacket – my clothes don’t fit as well as the President’s did obviously, but I know when I wear a jacket and when it’s buttoned up and I raise my right hand, as he was doing when the first bullet struck him, that will tend to have one’s jacket hiked up, not 3½ inches perhaps but if you’re sitting in the back of a car maybe it would help to hike it up. That’s for your jacket.
How about your shirt? Let me see you get your shirt 3½ inches above this point on your back (3). You can do that by pulling it up and holding it up with two hands, while awaiting the shot, but the President was not doing that. And so with the development, as the needs changed, the evidence changed, and there is absolutely no explanation in the twenty-six volumes or in the 888 page report as to why these two marks in the jacket and the shirt correspond with each other completely and with the original story at the end of May, but have no relation whatsoever to the final story that the bullet entered over there (3).
Now let us pose that rather absurd conglomeration of the development of the case with the statement of Dr. Perry that the wound in the President’s throat is an entrance wound and the statement of Dr. Humes that he could not tell but only Dr. Perry could tell. In addition to this, Dr. Clark said: “I examined the President’s back”, but thereafter when it was pointed out that there was a wound in the back, he said: “Well, I didn’t turn him over”, but on November 22nd he said: “I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.” Now Dr. Kemp Clark is supposed to be a proficient physician, and he was feeling the President’s back to see if it was possible that there was a wound there. Now is it possible that a large wound in the President’s back, full of blood, the shirt’s absolutely drenched with blood now, is it possible that the doctor ran his hand up the President’s back – the President was wearing no shirt, no jacket and no braces at that time – and he didn’t notice there was any blood there, didn’t notice there was a hole in the President’s back? It is very difficult for me to accept that fact.
Question from the audience
Answer: Oh, I see, well of course, these are two entirely different matters. Well, let me answer them…have you finished the question? Fine, why don’t you comment, if you like, after I’ve made my comments. They are two entirely different matters. First of all, Oswald’s dead, and nothing can affect his rights any longer in terms of publicity on the case, firstly, but far more important than that is that pre-trial publicity is harmful to the fair administration of justice, but the right to a public trial is absolutely essential in any free democracy, any free society, and there’s no conflict there, you have both in Great Britain, we don’t have the former in the United States, but you have both here. You have the right to a public trial, and you have the right to see to it that there is no pre-trial publicity in terms of unfair comments by the District Attorney upon what a defendant allegedly did. One is totally unrelated to the other, that is that prior to the time that the jury is chosen, the jury should not be prejudiced against the rights of the defendant by reading the papers every day that this is the man who did it, we’re certain we have him, there’s no question in our minds, so that over a period of weeks, they, the jurors, just walk around, the prospective jurors walk around, and I if you ask them: “Did so-and-so commit a crime?” “Of course he did, I read it in the papers, and I’ve been reading it every day, of course he did it.” That’s where the problem of pre-trial publicity affects the fair administration of justice, but once the trial begins you already have the jury, and there’s no problem in terms of pre-trial publicity, then the defendant’s only protection against the society which is seeking to convict him, is the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed only in a society which presents him with a public trial, so that what is transpiring is known throughout the whole society. There’s no conflict at all, I don’t think.
Question from audience
Answer: I’m not commenting upon integrity. You listen, I’ll tell you this, you can draw whatever conclusion you want from the facts. This much we know, that Earl Warren is supposed to be the man with the greatest integrity of all the members of the Commission. I question the integrity of a number of members of the Commission and their competence in general. It was a highly important Commission, very important Commission. It was made up of six political appointees, politically chosen, not traditionally chosen, and the Chief Justice. Of the seven members, only two, one beside the Chief Justice, have any background in terms of the courts at all. Who do we have on the Commission? Let’s go through the names and see if we all have faith in them.
We have Earl Warren, Chief Justice. We have two Republicans and two Democrats, two members of the House and two members of the Senate. We were told by the New York Times: “This represents a vast cross section of the American people.” The two Democrats happen to be racist Southern Dixiecrats. These are the two Democratic representatives: Hale Boggs of Louisiana and Richard Russell of Georgia. The two Republicans were Cooper of Kentucky and Congressman Ford, who is Goldwater’s sparkplug, who has been selling his articles, which contain false material from beginning to end, widely throughout the United States.
In addition to that, we have Mr. McCloy, the former High Commissioner for Germany, and the former Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, who was fired from that position by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. So you have a seven-man Commission, made up of five Republicans and two Southern Democrats, and in addition to that, every bit of evidence presented by the Commission originated with the Dallas police. Remember that. The bullets were found by the Dallas police. The case was developed against Oswald by the Dallas Police. Every bit of physical evidence which the Commission passed upon was developed by the Dallas Police. Now, it’s one thing to ask people to have faith in the Warren Commission. I don’t ever ask anyone to have faith in anything I say, nor do I think anyone has a right to say: “Have faith in what I say.” The facts, when shown to reasonable men, allow each individual to make his own conclusion, and that’s how a democratic society functions. The whole idea of having faith in this Commission is at war with the concept of a jury of one’s peers, which means that ordinary people are picked out and they rationally pass upon the evidence which they see. And here we have a non-judicial tribunal and we’re asked to have faith in the source of all the evidence against Oswald, the Dallas Police Department, and I think that that is asking too much of the ordinary reasonable person.
Question from audience
Answer: I don’t know where all the shots were fired from, I just can tell you this. The testimony which I commented upon is the testimony before the Commission. I don’t know if all the shots were fired from that area or not, but we do know that Governor Connolly was facing this direction (toward the crowd on the right of the limousine). He said he heard the shot: “And after I heard the shot, I turned to my right to look at the President, but I could not see him because the President gripped his throat with both hands and was then sinking over to his left. As he slumped to his left,” Governor Connolly said, “I spun to my left to look at the President and as I turned I was shot in the back.” Now when was he shot, it’s hard to tell from the pictures because the bullets don’t show up in the pictures. You can just guess. When he turned completely to his left, his back was to that area, (the area of the grassy knoll), and of course the car was closer to that area then, and he could have been shot in the back then. I don’t know if that’s true that he was shot then, but it is possible that before he turned to his left he was shot from the back. If so, the shots would have to come from back here somewhere (1).
Now he picked out a frame of the picture himself, he said: “That is the picture where I was shot in the back.” Now at the time, if he was accurate about that, and one can never be sure that a witness, a victim of a shooting, can be absolutely accurate in terms of when exactly he was shot, but if it is true, his back at that time showed that he had already turned to his right to look at the President, and if he was shot in the back then, if you extrapolate the line it would have to come back here, which would obviously be impossible because this is the Dallas Sheriff’s Office. The whole Commission’s conclusion rests upon the assertion that the bullet which struck the President also struck the Governor. If it did not, then we have four bullets, and if we have four bullets, then we have more than one assassin involved. The Commission’s report that Oswald was the lone assassin rests exclusively upon the fact that the bullet which hit the Governor came through the President first. Now, Mrs. Connally testified as follows: “The first shot was fired, struck the President’s throat, I turned to my right to look at the President, and he was clutching his throat with both hands.” Then she said: “John,” her husband, the Governor of Texas, on her right, “turned to his right to look at the President, then started to turn back to his left, and he was shot”, and Connally said: “I’ve done enough hunting to know that the bullet travels more quickly than the sound of the shot, and when I heard that shot it had already struck the President, and I was hit some time thereafter.” Well, if this testimony is accurate, if Mrs. Connally’s testimony is accurate, and if the pictures which tend to confirm both of their statements are accurate, then indeed the Governor was struck by a bullet other than the one which struck the President. If that’s so, then the whole case against Oswald as the lone assassin goes out of the window, because then we get back to four shots, and since they only had six seconds and that’s the interval required in between the shots, then the whole case goes out the window. How does the Commission handle it? Page 19, conclusion 3: “Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally,” etc., but it is, the whole case is predicated upon the fact that the bullet which hit the Governor hit the President first, and their language cannot change the fact that the whole case goes out of the window if it is not the same bullet.
Chairman: Before you answer the next question, can I announce before people do go that as a society, an affiliated society of Union, we’re not allowed to take contributions, but as you can imagine the whole of this colossal case, I think we’ve seen enough evidence this afternoon to show that there is a very real case being made out, must be sustained via voluntary contributions, and therefore I’m going to write on the blackboard the address of the British “Who Killed Kennedy?” Committee, to which you can address your postal orders and cheques. All of the money will be used in Dallas towards ascertaining the truth, so I’ll write it on the other board, and I hope that you’ll tell the people who’ve already left to do so also.
Question from audience
Answer: Well, that’s the testimony of Deputy Constable Weitzman saying that a railroad yardman said he heard the noise come from here, and thought he saw someone throw something into the bushes at that time. We don’t know what happened, because, as I indicated, Weitzman was never asked any additional questions about that, and there is no testimony anywhere in the twenty-six volumes indicating that anyone ever looked for that railroad yardman or if they found him, that he was permitted to testify. And the first we heard of that was when the Commission Report, when the twenty-six volumes were issued just two weeks ago. We have someone now in Dallas trying to find him. I have not been in contact with that operation in some days. I don’t know if he’s been found yet.
Question from audience: At the actual time, on the radio, I heard someone say, “People have been seen running away from the underpass, and policemen have gone after them”, but no mention…
Answer: Right, well here is the track, and there was a man who was standing over here (1). Mrs. Hill, a Dallas Public School teacher was standing here (2) and she said: “I saw a man standing there (3) just after the shots were fired at the President. He was wearing a brown overcoat and a brown hat, and I saw him run back here” (4). And she testified before the Commission: “That man is Jack Ruby. I saw Jack Ruby at the scene and he ran back behind the wall.” The Commission doesn’t even present that in their Report, although they have such evidence, and there’s no question that on the Dallas Police Radio (they present the monitored broadcast on Dallas Police Radio, in the documents) the first report is: “Shots have been fired at the President. This is Sheriff Decker stating shots have been fired at the President, and we are going directly to the Parkland Hospital to prepare all emergency treatment there. We do not know who else has been hit. The shots have all come from near the railroad overpass.” That was the first Dallas Sheriff’s broadcast, and of course it was broadcast widely in the United States as well.”
Question from audience: What about the Ruby meeting with Tippit and your refusal to give your source?
Answer: There’s been much mis-information about that fact in the current issue of Encounter, which I think I have here, in an article by D.W. Brogan called “Death in Dallas: The Myth after Kennedy” which is a great contribution to the myth because I think that D.W. Brogan, who I understand is respected as an historian, does not encounter any of the facts along the way in his long article, and he makes reference to the very meeting you’re speaking of and he says: “Will Mark Lane produce his missing witness to the Oswald, Ruby and Tippit meeting?” which of course is not the meeting, but the one that you made reference to is the one which the Commission has evidence regarding, and that is the meeting that took place on November 14th, at Ruby’s nightclub, the Carousel. And present at that meeting were three persons: Bernard Weissman, who placed a full page advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on November 22nd, which advertisement said: “Welcome to Dallas Mr. President, why have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favour of the Sprit of Moscow,” and on and on and on, and the other two persons were Ruby and Officer Tippit. Now one of the leading Dallas citizens, one of the leading professional citizens of Dallas contacted me and said: “I’m in a terrible position.” I said “What’s that?” He said: “I know Jack Ruby and I knew Officer Tippit. I knew them both fairly well, and I was at the Carousel Club on November 14th, eight days before the assassination, and they were there in a meeting with a man named Bernard Weissman whom I did not know then, but I heard his name come up in discussion. I’ve seen pictures of him. He’s now known in Dallas.” He said: “I didn’t think anything of it at the time, except that Ruby is a fellow who is very gregarious, goes round and buys everyone a drink in the club. He always used to buy me a drink. That evening he wouldn’t talk to anybody. He sat there intently. He has a limited attention span generally, but he sat at that table for more than two hours at that meeting, not talking to anybody else, just those two gentlemen. I just thought that was a little strange,” he said. “Then on November 22nd I realised that I’d been witness to a meeting at which two persons involved in the events of November 22nd were present, Tippit who had just been killed, and Weissman, who had already placed the advertisement in the Dallas Morning News and was then quite well-known in Dallas as a result of the advertisement. I didn’t think much of that until two days later when Ruby killed Oswald, and then I realised I was next to a meeting of three persons, all of whom were important principals in the tragic events of those two days. I know that if I ever give my name, I’ll be wiped out in Dallas, maybe anywhere, but I think it’s important someone knows that meeting takes place. Now will you give me your word that you will never reveal my name?” and I said: “Yes.” I came up before the Commission and said: “I have some information which may be of interest to you. It is not proof, of itself, because I can’t give you the source, but you can check it out in any other way and see if this actually happened. I said: “Since I cannot give you the source you just tell me now if you want me to give you the information. If you don’t I won’t give it to you, if you do, I will.” They said: “Alright, we’d like to hear the information.” I told them what I’d heard.
Well, the Commission was interested in getting the source, they said, and I made it plain to the Commission that if I was directed to give them the information – they had the power to make this direction and they had the power to send me to jail for contempt if I refused to give it to them – then I could in all probability secure permission to give the name. I could go back to my source and say: “Look, I know you don’t want to get into trouble, but I’ve done just what you said. I’ve honoured this commitment, but now they’re going to send me to jail, and I want to give your name.” Under those circumstances, very likely, I would have been able to get permission. Now the Commission said “Are you relying upon any legal protection in Attorney-client relationship?” If I had said “Yes, I am relying upon an Attorney-client relationship,” which I could have said, then the Commission could not direct me to give them the answer, because that relationship is superior to their power to make a direction. And so I said: “ No, I am not relying upon such a relationship,” inviting the Commission to direct me, and of course the Commission did not direct me, and merely said that I would not give them the name. Well, I made a commitment and I keep my commitments, and I won’t give them the name unless I’m so directed, and then secure permission from the source. But the Commission was able to get a lot of information which they don’t comment upon in the Report. Let’s see what they turned up.
First of all they found Larry Crafard. Larry Crafard was associated with Jack Ruby in the operation of the Carousel Club, his nightclub. Crafard left Dallas the day before Ruby killed Oswald, with seven dollars, that’s all he had, he had seven dollars in his pocket and he left to go back to Wisconsin from Dallas, which is a long, long distance. He couldn’t explain why he left at that point, but when he was brought before the Commission, they showed him a picture of Bernard Weissman and asked if he’d ever seen that man. He said: “Yes, that man was in the club on several occasions, and I used to serve him drinks. I’ve personally served drinks to that man.” “What’s his name?” and Crafard said: “I don’t know his name, that is I was never introduced to him. I can only tell you the name Ruby used to call him.” The Commission Counsel said: “What did Ruby call him?” He said: “Ruby called him Weissman, and he was in the club several times”- and that was Bernard Weissman.
In terms of Tippit, Ruby went all over Dallas November 22nd, November 23rd, the Commission concedes, went all over Dallas saying: “J.D. Tippit, the officer who was killed, was my friend. That’s ‘Buddy’ Tippit. Buddy Tippit and I were very close. I know him very well. He’s been in the club very many times.” What does the Commission conclude, based upon this evidence? The Commission concludes that there is no credible evidence that Ruby ever knew Tippit, nor is there any credible evidence that Weissman was ever in the club. That’s the Commission conclusion. That statement is an outright falsehood, because Jack Ruby never denied he was at the meeting. You can read every word of Ruby’s testimony now published, and he never denied it. This is exactly the question that was put to him by Rankin, Counsel of the Commission, and later put to him within five minutes by Earl Warren. Rankin said: “Mr. Ruby, there is a story around that you were at a meeting with Tippit and Weissman and a rich oil man.” Now where did that rich oil man come from? It must be Thomas Buchanan’s rich oil man. “You were present at meeting with Tippit and Weissman and a rich oil man in Dallas at your club. Is that true? Were you there?” Now suppose you were Jack Ruby and you were there with Tippit and Weissman and you were asked that question, might not you answer just the way Ruby did? He said: “Rich oil man. Who’s this rich oil man?” Counsel for the Commission said: Well, we’re trying to get the information from you. Do you know any rich oil men?” Now we’re all talking about rich oil men instead of the meeting, and Ruby’s very accommodating, he says: “Well, there are only two people I know who might be called rich oil men. One is a man who is now rich and he used to dabble in oil, and the other’s the man who now owns the Stork Club, and he used to dabble in oil, but I wouldn’t call either one of them rich oil men.” Then the Chief Justice moves in with this statement: “This is the story given to us by Mark Lane”, which is of course totally untrue because you were accurately presented the information as it is in the Commission's Report. In terms of my testimony there were three people, not four, and no rich oil man at all. Anyway, the Chief Justice said: “This story was given to us by Mark Lane. It was in the newspapers.” That’s not true, it was never in the newspapers, at that time. “So we subpoenaed him.” It’s not true, they did not subpoena me, they asked me to come, and I went voluntarily. “And he told us that there were these four people present.” It’s not true, I said three. He said: “However, we wanted to ask you this question, Mr. Ruby, and get your answer, and that is that.”
There was only one person at that hearing who was not satisfied to let that matter rest there, and that was Jack Ruby. He said: “Well, when did this meeting take place?” The Chief Justice said “I don’t have the exact date, but some time a week or two before the assassination.” What does he mean, he didn’t have the exact date? When I testified, I gave him the exact date and he had my testimony before him. If he didn’t he could have secured it easily enough. It’s a Commission exhibit. “I don’t have the exact dates, a week or two before.”
Then Ruby asked another good question. There was some very good questioning taking place that day, but it was all being done by Jack Ruby. Ruby used to call him Earl every once in a while, the Chief Justice, and he said: “Well, Earl, let me ask you this. Was it known at that time that the President was going to be in Dallas when that meeting took place?” That was an excellent question. If the meeting was related to the assassination, was it known that the President was coming to Dallas? I didn’t know when I testified on March 4th, but I know it now because I read it in the Commission Report. It was known on November 13th at a meeting of the Dallas Police Department – the Dallas Police Officers including those on J.D. Tippit’s squad - that this was the route which was going to be established, taking in this general area (1). That route was set on November 13th, and the next day Ruby, Tippit and Weissman met in the Carousel Club. The Chief Justice said: “Well, look, Lane won’t give us the source, and so we’re just going to leave the matter as it is, and that is that,” cutting Ruby off again. And Ruby said: “Look, I don’t want any matter to be gone over lightly. I want you to dig into everything, now matter how embarrassing it is for me. I want you to delve into it deeply. Ask me any personal, biting question you want. Ask me anything about that.” He said: “My background’s not too bad. I used to be involved in sporting events and sold tickets to people. You meet all kinds of people in Chicago selling tickets for sporting events.” And then the Chief Justice came in with a most incisive question. He said: “Did you sell tickets to the prize fights?” Well, Ruby talked about the prize fights for a while, and as soon as he finished talking about the prize fights, Counsel for the Commission, Mr. Rankin, stepped in and said: “Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any other subversive organisation?” and Ruby said, no, he was a loyal, patriotic citizen who would never do such a thing, and they never got back to the question of the meeting, never again.
The he was questioned by the FBI as the record shows, for a Polygraph test – that’s a lie detector test – and he was asked this question three times by agents of the FBI and it’s in the records: “Were you present at a meeting with Tippit and Oswald at your club?” and he swore that he was never present at that meeting. Tippit and Oswald, that’s possibly where D.W. Brogan gets that story from. But he was never asked: “Were you present with Tippit and Weissman?” and he never gave an answer. When the Commission says that he denied that he was present, the Commission is publishing an outright false statement, and they know it, because the testimony shows that the statement is unrelated to the testimony before it.
There are a lot of interesting things about Jack Ruby’s entrance into the jail that day. First of all, if Mrs. Hill is right, then Ruby was here (1) on the scene when the President was shot. Ruby was in the hospital. He was in the hospital when the President’s death was announced. Now we know that because there are two witnesses before the Commission. One is a woman who said: “I saw Ruby there. I was standing two or three feet away from him, right at the hospital.” What does the Commission say about her? “We don’t believe her. She admitted she never saw Ruby before and saw him only briefly then, so we discount her testimony.” How about Brennan? He never saw Oswald before. If he saw him then, he only saw him briefly then, at a much greater distance than two or three feet. They don’t raise those qualifying questions about Brennan’s testimony. And then there’s another person who comes before the Commission. Seth Kantor, a very distinguished reporter of the Scripps-Howard Publications in America, said: “I know Ruby as well as I know my own brother. I’ve known him for five years. I know him well.” He said: “It hurts me to say this, but I was in Parkland Hospital when it was announced that the President had died, and the only people in that hospital were doctors, people in the President’s entourage, and reporters, Federal and local police, and Jack Ruby.” He said: “There was Jack Ruby there, and I walked up to him , and I said, ‘Jack. My God, what are you doing here in the hospital?’ and Ruby turned around and he said. ‘You know, if the President dies,’ – it had not yet been announced that the President had died, it was after one, before one-thirty p.m. November 22nd – ‘If the President dies, you know Seth, that would be very bad for business for the night club owners in Dallas, very bad for business.’” That was probably the beginning of the fugue that we heard about, that he went into because he was so deeply devoted to the President that he had to go out and kill the man who was charged with the commission of the crime.
Well, the Commission doesn’t want to believe Seth Kantor. Now Seth Kantor’s one of the most distinguished reporters in America, and he said: “I knew the fellow for five years, and I had a conversation with him in the hospital. I said: ‘My God, Jack, what are you doing in the hospital?’ and he said: ‘If the President dies that will be bad for business.” The Commission cannot say Seth Kantor is a liar, not unless they want to bring down the wrath of some of the Scripps-Howard Publications upon them. They merely say Seth Kantor is wrong. He is mistaken. “Most probably,” says the Commission, “Most probably Kantor saw Ruby in the basement of the Court House the following day and has mistaken this.” Sure, that’s what happened. He walked up to him in the basement of the Court House and said: “My God, what are you doing here in the hospital?” and the day after it was announced that the President had died, Ruby replied immediately: “If the President should die, will that be bad for business.” Well, the Commission concludes just that which it wants to conclude, but if it is true that Ruby was here on the scene (1) when the President was killed, and if it is true that Ruby was in the Parkland Hospital when it was announced that the President had died, and it is true that he was present when Oswald died, even the Commission discovered that, then one might ask why Ruby was so involved with it all.
What’s Ruby’s story? Ruby’s story is this. He was down the overpass way at the Dallas Morning News at 12.15 on November 22nd in the afternoon, placing an advertisement for his nightclub. Well, he always went there Saturday night or Sunday morning after the last show, two or three o’clock in the morning. For years that’s the only time he went down to place an advertisement, and now all of a sudden, the first time in his life he was there, and swears that he was down there. He was seen at 12.15, and no one saw him again until 12.45. No one knows where he was during that half-hour, the half-hour during which the President was shot. Fifteen minutes before the shots, and fifteen minutes afterwards, nobody knows where Jack Ruby was. He’s the man so in love with the President that the thought that the President was killed by this punk as he said upset him so that he went into a fugue and went out and killed Oswald in an absolute passion, because he was in love with the President. Never saw the President in his life. Never even voted for him. He had the chance to in 1960. And here he is, the first and only time in his life he has an opportunity to see the President of the United States, the man he’s been in love with all these years, and all it takes is a two minute walk to this point, two minutes and he will see the President, the man for whom he was willing to kill someone thereafter. All he had to do was walk two minutes. He says he didn’t bother. He stayed in the Dallas Morning News and waited till the car had passed by. He wasn’t interested in seeing the President.
His Attorney, Joe Tonahill, summed up for the jury this way: “If you find Ruby guilty of murder with premeditation,” murder with malice it’s called in Dallas, meaning he had meditated the crime in advance, “You must reach this conclusion: Since it was known that Oswald was going to be transferred at ten o’clock in the morning, and since Ruby did not arrive on the scene till after eleven thirty, when one could assume that Oswald would have been long since transferred, if you come to the conclusion that there was murder with premeditation, murder with malice, you must first reach the conclusion that Ruby was involved in a conspiracy with the Dallas Police to kill Oswald, because otherwise how would he know that when the Police announced ten o’clock in the morning he could wait till an hour and a half later, stroll into the basement somehow, past the Dallas Police, unseen by the Dallas Police (that’s one mystery the Commission never clears up, how Ruby got into that basement), walk past the Dallas Police and arrive in the basement less than thirty seconds before Oswald was brought down, and place himself at the only place in the basement where Oswald could be shot, because this is a little cubicle that Oswald was being brought out into.” Here (just behind the basement door) was the little police car with the door open, and here on the outside (to the side of the car) were big armoured cars which were decoys into which everyone thought Oswald was going to be placed, but actually he was just going to be walked into there (the police car). “Somehow, though, Ruby knew,” said his Attorney, “if there was premeditation, that he could get there an hour and half late, somehow get passed the Dallas Police, walk to this point thirty seconds before Oswald was brought in, and then catch him right at that point, the only place where he could possibly be shot, and,” said Mr. Tonahill, “if you find Ruby guilty of murder with malice, you have come to the conclusion that the Dallas Police were involved in a conspiracy to kill Oswald.” They found him guilty.
I don’t think that means they passed upon this proposition at all. I don’t think the jury necessarily concluded that Ruby was involved in a conspiracy with the Dallas Police, but the questions which Mr. Tonahill raised so eloquently in Ruby’s defence are questions which have to be considered, and so does this question: When Ruby testified before Earl Warren, he said: “Mr. Chief Justice,” – it’s right in the records – “I know there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, I know there was a plot. Get me out of Dallas to where I’m safe. Get me out of this jail. Let me go to Washington for one day and I’ll tell you about that conspiracy.” The Chief Justice said: “Well, it’s getting to be time for lunch and we don’t have time to make preparations, because after lunch we have to go back to Washington. We don’t have time to make security preparations for you, so you’re going back to your jail cell. Is there anything else you want to tell us before you go?” He said: “Under these circumstances, no.” We are asked if we have confidence in the way this investigation was run. Of course we do not have confidence. We have no confidence in the investigation, nor in the fact that facts surrounding the assassination of the President have been suppressed by members of the Commission as well as by the Press and the media in the United States, which refused to allow any adequate comment or dialogue on these events.
Question from audience: You mentioned the fact that your name had been published in this Immigration Look-Out Book. I was wondering whether, in the course of any of your investigations, questioning or interviewing people, or attempting to have articles or books published in the United States after this event took place, you met any sort of Governmental interference at all?
Answer: Well, we have the general problem of all, or almost all the witnesses being told by the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, or the FBI – in some cases all three agencies – that they were not free to discuss the facts in the case. That was not directed at us very likely, but it affected our investigations as well. It was a direction which had no basis in law. They could not have been directed. They had no authority to direct these witnesses not to talk, but they did direct them. And I’ve been stopped by the FBI. We know through electronics engineers who’ve checked our telephone that my phones, both in my home and my office, are being tapped. I don’t know who is doing that, but I shouldn’t be surprised if it were agents of the United States Government. The FBI publishes lists every year. I don’t know how many millions of phones they have taped. If they were taping millions and not mine, I’d feel somewhat slighted.
Our major problem has been in terms of trying to get a dialogue in America, and it has not even been very easy to have a dialogue in England, frankly. Those are the only two countries in the whole world where there has not been a very serious dialogue and discussion in terms of what took place in Dallas. Here we have articles like this one in Peace News and such publications, and the Guardian, for example writes articles attacking, very personally, members of the “Who Killed Kennedy?” Committee. In many cases, the publications which do that here deny to those who are attacked room in the Letters to the Editor column just for defence of themselves and their own participation, and so our major problem has been, in the United States, and to a lesser extent, but still to a considerable extent, in England as well, an effort to begin a dialogue. This is still totally impossible in the United States. There’s not been one network television programme or radio programme, not one anywhere in America, for more than a year now, which has raised a single question about the Warren Commission Report, and not only about the Report, now that it has been released, but about any portion of the case as it was presented.
We had that which purported to be a debate scheduled. Les Crane – I don’t know if he’s known here. He is supposed to be Mr. Controversy. He has all kinds of controversial programmes – as long as they’re non-controversial – on national television network programmes in the United States. He invited Mr. Belli, Ruby’s trial Counsel, to debate with me the Warren Commission findings. I accepted, Mr. Belli accepted, and the programme was cancelled by the network upon advice from their legal department. The department took the position that there could be no such debate as proposed by Mr. Crane. Instead they would work out a different programme. They came back with the suggestion that there should be a debate. It should be between Melvin Belli, who is a very able, flamboyant lawyer, with a vast amount of factual information on one hand. Representing the accused on the other hand, raising doubts about the Commission Report, was going to be Lee Oswald’s mother. Well, this was supposed to be a debate.
I have great respect for her tenacity in raising these questions, although I would differ from her very, very often in terms of conclusions, in terms of judgement based upon the same set of facts. I don’t say this to demean her, but she is a woman who has never had any real, any formal education at all, and she was to take on one of the quickest and most able Attorneys in the United States, one of the best trial lawyers in America. When he said: “Do you deny that at such and such a date this and that was the finding of the autopsy report about the 19th rib,” etc. etc. She kept on saying: “Look, I’m just his mother and I believe he’s innocent. That’s all I can say.” Well this was the great debate. I called Mr. Crane, and I said: “How could you do that? On what basis did ABC TV make the determination that the debate was alright and that I was not to be permitted to debate Mr. Belli?” He said: “Well, I’ll tell you frankly. The legal department of ABC said: ‘Don’t have Lane on. He’s got the affidavits. He’s got the evidence. Have Mrs. Oswald on. It will be a much better show’.” Better, depending on your objective.
Question from audience
Answer: I don’t know if there’s any connection between the murder of Officer Tippit and the assassination of the President. We have two eyewitnesses. One who the Commission called, Mrs. Markham, strikes me as being such an unreliable witness, that even her description of the man who did it as being short, stock with somewhat bushy hair is suspect, frankly. I think that her conduct before the Commission and the fact that she’d been questioned so repeatedly by members of the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police, renders her testimony, probably, valueless at this point. It was by the time she reached the Commission. But in addition to this, there is a woman who was near the scene. Her name is Acquilla Clemmons. She said she saw the shots fired. The Commission never called her although we informed them of her existence, and she said: “I saw the man who did it. He was short and he was fat.” That was the only description. Now Mrs. Markham tended to make statements, thereafter, based upon what she saw when the shots were fired which seem to have been statements which she gathered from talking to others at the scene. I know she talked to Mrs. Clemmons, and this description of a short, stocky, bushy-haired man might have come from the fact that Mrs. Clemmons described the assailant to her. For example, Mrs. Markham said: “As soon as Tippit was shot, I saw that he had been shot twice in the head and twice in the chest.” Now, that’s what she saw immediately, while she was with him. The ambulance driver, who had some medical training, and the assistant ambulance driver who was back in the ambulance with Tippit, did not know that Tippit was shot in the chest until after he was brought into the hospital and they removed his jacket. No blood came through his jacket and the bullet holes in his chest were so small that the bullets did not exit and were not visible. The first moment the ambulance driver and the assistant ambulance driver knew that Tippit had been shot anywhere other than in the head (which was pretty badly blown apart) was after the body was taken to the hospital. Yet Mrs. Markham, who has no medical training at all, said: “As soon as I saw him, I knew he had been shot in the chest and head.” Then she identified the shirt, after saying that she couldn’t see the colour of the shirt at all. She tended to continually present a view based upon what other witnesses at the scene had already reported in the press, and I think that she just, maybe unconsciously, maybe consciously, presented evidence which was not what she had seen herself. So I don’t know if she was of any value at all in any respect.
Question from audience: I’d like to ask what I think will be rather a basic question, that is, what possible reason could the Johnson Democratic Administration have for hiding the facts about the assassination of President Kennedy?
Answer: Well, I can think of many possible reasons, one a very obvious one, but there is one which is overwhelming. Let’s just remember what the Commission said about the FBI. The Commission never blamed the FBI or the Dallas Police, the Commission was very kind to the law enforcement authorities. All they said about the Dallas Police was that there seemed to be some kind of breakdown of communications among the agencies. In fact, after Oswald was shot to death in the basement of the Court House while handcuffed to a law enforcement official, all the Commission could say was that they were faced with unique problems as the Press wanted to come into the room. Under the circumstances, they said, the Dallas Police took rather good precautions. Well, one shudders to think what might have happened to Oswald if the Dallas Police didn’t take those fine precautions that day. He might have been killed in the basement or something. So they were very kind to the authorities, very kind.
All they said about the FBI was there was a breakdown of information in the FBI. Since they knew about Oswald they should have given that information out. There was a breakdown of communication. Well, J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, has attacked the Warren Commission violently for taking that position. Newsweek magazine had a cover story about Hoover that talks about how Hoover may be finished now. Why? I mean there are many reasons why he should have been finished many years ago, but why would he be finished now? McCarthy could say anything that he wanted in America until he attacked the United States Army. No one can attack the United States Army and remain in political life in America. J. Edgar Hoover, the most powerful single man in America for more than twenty years has taken on a sacred cow now as important as the United States Army – the conclusions of the Warren Commission. He has been very sharp in terms of taking them on, and he may now be at the end of his leadership of the FBI because he’s dared to attack the Commission.
What did the Commission say? “There was a breakdown of communications.” Suppose the Commission told the truth. Suppose the Commission said whether the shots came from here (overpass) or from here (grassy knoll) – an area of three to four hundred feet? The place was an armed camp, with Dallas Police Officers all over the area and FBI agents all over the area. In addition to that, there were Secret Service agents all over the area in cars – carloads of them with sub-machine guns in their hands. It was an armed camp when the shots were fired. There was nobody up here (knoll). There was nobody in the Book Depository Building, nobody on the roof, nobody in front of the target, nobody in this whole bunch of trees. In fact, the former Director of the Secret Service said: “Our most serious problem in protecting the life of an American President came up when Eisenhower was President, because he was always on the golf course, and on the golf course there are many hills with trees and bushes.” He said this in 1961 in a Look magazine article: The classic place from which to shoot a President, the classic places we always examine most closely, are grassy hills with bushes and trees. Well, here’s a grassy hill with bushes and trees, and there was no Secret Service man or FBI Agent, or Dallas Police Officer anywhere around there, although the place was an armed camp. Now the very least one can say is that the Federal and local authorities failed in their obligations to protect the President, and because of their absolute failure the President was killed on November 22nd. That is the very least one can say about those authorities.
The day before the assassination, November 21st, the Secret Service, in order to reassure the American people, who were deeply concerned about that trip to Dallas, said that the greatest precautions in the history of America would be taken the next day in Dallas. Now why? Because Lee Harvey Oswald was there? Of course not. Because in 1960, when Lyndon Johnson was a candidate for the Vice-Presidency he was attacked, spat upon, and his wife was spat upon, in the Adolphus Hotel on Dallas, Texas. They started chanting: “You’re a Commie. You’re running with that Commie Kennedy.” He went on a Texas network television broadcast from Houston, Texas the next day in order to tell about his fear of the violent right wing in Dallas.
Then there was the advertisement on November 22nd. Before then, October 24th, Adlai Stevenson spoke on the leadership role the United States must continue to have in the U.N. While he was there he was jeered and booed by the violent right wing, and when he left he was physically assaulted, struck over the head with a club by a group of right wing extremists, one of whom was later arrested and charged with assault on Adlai Stevenson. That’s why Stevenson wrote to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and said: “Please tell the President not to go to Dallas. It’s not safe.” There were leaflets given out all over Dallas. “Wanted for Treason”, they said. There were leaflets and a set of posters with two pictures. One had a profile of President Kennedy, and one a full face picture with big letters: “Wanted for Treason”. What had he done? He was in favour of giving Negroes equal rights, and other such treasonable activities against the best interests of the American people. That was given out. Now everybody knew about the terrible problems of the President’s trip to Dallas, and they had nobody guarding this whole area, nobody in the Book Depository Building, nobody at all. The very least one can say was that these authorities failed absolutely in an obligation of which they were well aware before. Then you go beyond that and say: “Wherever the shots came from – from here (overpass) or here (knoll) or anywhere in between – the place was an armed camp and they never caught the guy who did it.” They never caught him. They heard the shots. They could have run to where he was somehow and caught him, or failing to do that they could have sealed off the area. They could have sealed off that area and they’d have caught him in a net.
Now when Frank Sinatra, Jr., was kidnapped, a few days after the assassination – which was a very important case, but I suggest, less important than this one – the FBI moved in after they’d had fifteen minutes notice in the wide open city of Los Vegas. They had fifteen minutes notice , and they established a net. They closed off the whole city. They set up road blocks at every single major intersection. They cut off the means of exit in terms of having agents at the railroad stations, the bus terminals, the planes, and every bridge. No one could get out of that city with Frank Sinatra, Jr., in the car. Now Junior was cramped in the back of the trunk, tied up there and gagged. Unfortunately, although the road blocks were very effectively set up, they were not too well manned, because when the FBI Agents stopped the car which had Junior in the trunk and checked it out, they forgot to look in the trunk. So they drove Junior through the roadblock. But at least one can say this about the FBI in that important case: They tried. But here you can’t say that.
I’ve talked to a French reporter who was over here (near the car) and after the shots were fired he met with a group of reporters – all non-American reporters – and discussed the case. They said: “You know, you are never going to get out of this area. None of us will get out of this area. We are going to be kept here for days, maybe for weeks. They’re going to close off the whole area, no one will be able to leave. Every single person will have to explain what he was doing when the shots were fired. In our country,” they said, “it would be done. They always close off these areas, if there is anything close to an attempt upon the Head of State, much less a successful assassination.” This reporter said: “I have to fly back to France. My relief has already arrived, and my vacation begins tomorrow. I have to fly back this afternoon.” They laughed and said: “Well, you’ll never get out.” He said: “Well, at least I’ll get a good story. I’ll go back to the Book Depository Building and hail a taxi, and say: ‘Take me to the airport.’ I’ll be arrested somewhere along the line, and I’ll write a first-hand account about the efficient American police.” So he went up to the Book Depository Building and stopped a taxi, and said “Take me to Love Field” – that’s the name of the airport in Dallas. He was driven to Love Field, got out at Love Field, and never saw a cop anywhere. He got on his plane and flew to Paris. No one ever talked to him.
Now they didn’t seal off the area. No effort was ever made. Even if it was Oswald who fired the shots, he was four miles away when he was caught. All they ever did was to send out Oswald’s description after the shots were fired. We don’t know when it was first sent out. We know that at 12.45 it was sent out, because the Commission asked for the transcript of all the broadcasts of the Dallas Police for that whole day. The Dallas Police gave them all the transcripts, with the exception of those starting at 12.26 up to 12.34 (the assassination was 12.30), four minutes before the assassination and four minutes after. There was just a note: “The transmitter broke down for eight minutes” – the only time it broke down all day. But we know that at 12.45 at the very latest, Oswald’s description was dispatched. That’s right in the transcript of the broadcast. Well, they never caught the assassin, and made no effort to maintain anyone in the area. They just sent out Oswald’s description and they caught him. He was dead within forty-eight hours, maintaining his innocence all the time, but denied the right to see a lawyer to tell the story and where he was, to anyone. Well, the very least the Commission must say, (even if Oswald did it, and they concluded that he did), is that the breakdown of the activity of the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Dallas Police was a national disgrace.
Firstly the President had been killed without their making any effort to protect him, and secondly their failure to apprehend the assassin within the area is an indication that the United States needs new police agencies. These are worthless – the very kindest statement one can make. If you go beyond that, then you talk about complicity of these agencies in the assassination. I have no such evidence about that. If I ever do secure such evidence, I will make it public in a public meeting held in Zanzibar or some such place. The very least you can say is that they failed in their obligations to prevent the assassination, to take some constructive steps to protect the President, and then to catch the assassin. If the Commission had said just that, there would have been war in America, because just saying there was a breakdown in communications was enough to bring about a sharp attack upon the Commission, and possibly the resignation of the Director of the FBI for having raised that question. So, if there was no other motivation other than the protection of the status quo in terms of the Secret Police in the United States, that might be sufficient motivation for the Commission’s front, and there may be other motivations as well.
Question from audience
Answer: Well, it depends, you mean from here, or from here? Well, the third shot was fired when the car was roughly here. By the time the fourth shot was fired the car might have been here. As it struck here it would have just missed. I don’t know where it was fired from actually. A Dallas Police Officer said he found a bullet. Later on they said he didn’t but there are pictures of Dallas Police Officers taken at the scene which were published in the French publications, not in the United States, and one in the Dallas Morning News as well, showing the Officer kneeling down pointing to the hole in the kerb. Now the Commission decided it wanted to examine the hole. The Commission could see that there was a hole there which had barium and antimony on it which comes from a bullet. The Commission wanted to examine that kerb. They were very interested in it, so they had it removed in the middle of August. That bullet hole had remained in Dallas over half the year, subjected to anything any vandals wanted to do (if they wanted to change the evidence) and subjected to weather. It was right out there in the open.
In the middle of August the Commission decided it wanted to examine it, so they had the kerb removed and brought before them for examination. And there’s a fellow by the name of Mr. Tague who was standing there. There’s no question in his mind that his face was bleeding just after the shot was fired. He said he saw it hit the kerb. There were others who were standing there (on pavement), at least three others, two here (on grass) and one here (by kerb) who said they saw flame come up from the kerb as the bullet actually struck the concrete. I didn’t say there were four shots. I just said there was testimony that one struck here, and there’s an indication that at least three other shots were fired. In addition to that, Mrs. Hill, a Dallas Public School teacher standing there said there were at least four, maybe as many as six shots, and many have testified that more than three shots were fired. Now, testimony of the number of shots that one hears in such a crisis situation has to be looked at very cautiously, because they can think they hear four when in fact they hear three. But there were a number of people who said there were more than three shots fired.