the John F. Kennedy murder almost 25 years ago took a new wrinkle recently with the broadc

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

the John F. Kennedy murder almost 25 years ago took a new wrinkle recently with the broadcast of the Jack Anderson special which marked that anniversary. A part of the program that Anderson presented was a call-in type of format where those persons willing to invest the price of a telephone call could express their opinion as to whether or not the murder should be reopened. The tally at the actual end of the program was overwhelmingly in favor of reopening the investigation, and the rider was that the lines would be kept open for further voting on the issue for the 24-hour period following the end of the program. Anderson, in one of his syndicated columns that appears in many newspaper across the United States, published the results of the 24-hour poll just this last week and the results carry along in the vein that the televised results did the night of the broadcast. The columnist noted in releasing the outcome that 405,442 Americans said they wanted the investigation reopened as opposed to 6,598 persons voting to keep the investigation as dead and buried as John F. Kennedy is. While this straw poll of Anderson's may be open to some criticism along the lines of it could well be that mostly persons who wanted the case reopened would call in, the figures are such that it seems there is a hellacious amount of interest in actually getting the case reopened. You just can't argue with that amount of callers who want it reopened and the big sticking point is that nobody else in recent times has provided an opportunity for persons on either side of the issue to express an opinion. So it looks like for the time being the results of Anderson's straw poll are going to have to stand-the American public overwhelmingly wants the JFK assassination investigation reopened since they feel there are still too many loose ends left dangling, let alone anybody who was responsible for engineering it getting away clean with it. And, while Anderson did a good thing in airing any type of special at all on what was behind the assassination, and did the public a service in providing them a forum to get their message out, he of course did toot his own horn in regard to whom he thought was responsible for the murder. Anderson's conclusion, based on what the persons he talked to during the special had to say, was that the American Mafia was behind it and actually planned it as well as carried it out. This, incidentally, was the same type of conclusion that the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to when it folded up and issued its conclusions in 1979, and that conclusion is what you could call "the party line" of official assassination conclusions ever since. Anderson of course is entitled to express his opinion as anybody else is in America, but the current problem with what he postulates is twofold: it is all too easy to make a target of various Mobsters who may have had a part in the Presidential; murder when most of them are currently deceased and can't be hauled in front of any investigative body to answer for it, and a lot of the evidence developed by Committee investigators pointed in quite a different direction. The direction that evidence pointed in, treated in the file on this bulletin board labeled "Who Shot JFK?", was the executive branch of the federal government. Gaeton Fonzi, the investigator for the Committee who spilled the beans at least eight years ago about the former Chief Counsel of the Committee trying to fit the evidence to his preconceived idea of who did it, gave a pretty graphic rundown on the fact that his investigative effort was leading down a trail that led him into the executive branch of the federal government. When what Fonzi noted is combined with other independent evidence that has been dug up over the years by independent researchers into the assassination, the picture becomes even clearer that the actual planning and some of the parts of the assassination and the coverup could well have originated somewhere in the federal government. This is not to say that the Mob may well have been involved in the JFK assassination. It could well be that the Mob was involved in various aspects of the murder, and they definitely had the motive to be involved since the Kennedy brothers were giving those people an awfully hard time. But to concentrate on what part the Mob played in the assassination to the exclusion of any other group has the outcome of skewing the facts of the case around to a large degree, and Anderson has been in the communications business long enough as a working newsman (if that is the correct term for what he does) to realize this. The problem is compounded by who some of the sources Anderson used, in the form of people like Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis and the ilk, who were not only connected with known Mob figures but with American Intelligence as well. These guys like Sturgis have never forgiven John Kennedy for what they saw as a betrayal on his part in withholding air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion where the anti- Castro Cuban exiles attempted to take their country back by force but wound up getting shot up and defeated on the beaches. The hard truth is that the President never promised any American air support to the exiles, who were being heavily backed by the Central Intelligence Agency in all regards, and were probably led to believe by their CIA handlers that they were going to get the air support. Kennedy's attitude about the Cuban exiles was precisely the same as his attitude toward the South Vietnamese-if either of those groups could not settle their problems on their own the U.S. had no direct part to play in helping them to do it. This attitude of Kennedy's even extended to his plans to bring 1,000 American GIs home from Vietnam by Christmas of the year he was murdered, with no replacements, and followed by further no replacement pullouts of American troops after that. JFK obviously meant what he said in that regard and what it amounted to was a sort of cooling off of all the entanglements in brushfire wars that the U.S. was involved in around the world. One need not speculate too wildly about how the U.S. would have been affected differently during the 1960s and early 1970s if Kennedy's Vietnam pullout would have gone into effect. First, the country would not have come as close to fragmenting apart politically and socially as it did as a result of the Vietnam War, and some of the traumatizing problems of the U.S. would have been avoided. The problem was that Lyndon Johnson, in the same week following the assassination, had a spokesman stand up in public and note that the U.S. was going to help the South Vietnamese any way it could. The next thing we knew was that the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and opened the door to the massive American troop influx into Vietnam. Why? One need only look at the economic charts for the 1960s, where the war obviously was the main reason for keeping the economy healthy and avoiding the 30-year depression cycle that otherwise would have put us into hard times again. And, while it's purest of speculation as far as this article goes, there was also the Golden Triangle area where Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia come together that did so much to begin the burgeoning drug problem in America that plagues the United States today. The American presence in Southeast Asia did much to keep that narcotics supply flowing out of the Golden Triangle to American, one suspects. So, while the American Mafia would have profited from Kennedy being dead in more ways than one, big business and other groups such as the military would have directly benefited from JFK's death as well. It's a lot easier to get ahead during a military career if there's a war on, and we certainly couldn't let the economy drop down the tubes if we could get a war going, either. So, while Anderson did the American people a favor in coming out with the special and providing the forum, he managed to be one sided in his presentation and the thrust of how he did it was misdirected also. As a working reporter, this writer knows for a natural born fact that what Anderson did in the special was what any working reporter should have done in the first hours, the first day and the first week following the assassination-GO OUT AND TALK TO THE WITNESSES AND THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE ASSASSINATION AND SEE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT IN REGARD TO WHAT THEY SAW AND HEARD HAPPEN. But that is what Anderson and other newsmen were and should have been doing in an investigative sense while what those people saw was still fresh in their minds, and a different approach was called for the presentation of a 25th anniversary look at the assassination. He should have given a more well rounded view of the basic research into the murder and its conclusions, drawing on those researchers who have looked into it over the past 25 years like Fonzi, Anthony Summers, David Lifton and other honest researchers. Instead of that, he goes out and digs up some interviews with people like Frank Sturgis and others who have a definite axe to grind due to their personal dislike of John Kennedy and who are, in the bargain, CIA connected personnel who are basically flim flam men and con artists in the bargain. Think about that-the average CIA man is not the "cowboy" type of individual who wanders about in a trenchcoat with an Uzi strapped under his armpit. The usual CIA field operative is a counterintelligence man in the sense of being a propagandist rather than a spy in the classic John Le Carre sense, although that type of CIA man does exist also. And Anderson laid himself wide open to be the avenue for American people. Problem is, since Jack Anderson was the conduit and has a good reputation for honesty and veracity in reporting, a lot of people are going to believe what he says even if his sources are tainted. I'd never interview those guys as the basis of an expose into the Kennedy investigation because the CIA and other facets of the federal government apparently were involved in aspects of the assassination, as outlined in the "Who Shot JFK?" file. But at least the Anderson presentation did open the door for possibly getting another investigation going, hopefully this time an honest one. Anderson by implication in his column of last week favored an independent commission to look into the JFK murder again, when he noted that he would present persuasive evidence to such a commission if President-elect George Bush appoints one to reopen the case. The columnist made that remark in response to his note in the same column that the Justice Department two months ago tried closing the door on the investigation by claiming that "no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy." This is the same Justice Department that failed to act back in 1979 when the Assassinations Committee turned over its files to the Department when it ran out of funds and came out with its report. Obviously nothing has changed for the Justice Department in nine years, even though the acoustics evidence developed by the Committee pinpointed another gun firing in Dealey Plaza. This is in addition to other eyewitness testimony which goes to support the conspiracy factor. An independent committee, commission, or better yet a special prosecutor with enough funds and the freedom to pursue a new investigation AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION INSTEAD OF AS A CONGRESSIONAL OR GOVERNMENTAL PROBE would be the best way to develop any new JFK investigation. This would be along the lines of what Richard Sprague, the first Chief Counsel of the Assassinations Committee, wanted to do, including subpoenaing any and all government agency files relating to the murder, even tangentially. The problems that led to Sprague being ousted as Chief Counsel and G. Robert Blakey being installed, along with his predisposition to believe the Mob done it and trying to tailor evidence to fit the preconception INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING WHAT LEADS THERE WERE TO THEIR CONCLUSION, resulted in the current official line that the Mob did it that is being spouted right and left. While there has been some comment lately on the Compuserve boards to the effect that any new JFK probe would be an exercise in futility because it would not bring the president back to life and all the main actors are dead, one has to remember that these things are not necessarily the point. While nothing in this world is going to bring JFK back to life, no homicide case is ever closed except by a conviction in a court or by enough time having elapsed where any perpetrator or perpetrators having logically died a death from natural causes. Lee Harvey Oswald was never proven to be the murderer in a court of law, so that leaves us with what amounts to an unsolved murder on our hands. We might also remember that nobody gets up one morning and decides to shoot a U.S. President dead in the middle of a street just for the hell of it, or because he might get some perverse pleasure or form of glory out of it. The main reasons that somebody kills a head of state is because that person is a direct threat somehow, or is causing them a great deal of inconvenience, or that somebody wants to take over the government for their own purposes. In the last case, especially, the possible reason cries out for a new investigation on a strictly independent basis. If you agree with that, write or call your Congressman, Senator and President-elect George Bush or the White House and let 'em know where you stand. Putting the heat on is the only way to get things accomplished as far as the voters are


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank