ÿthe 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
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
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
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
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
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
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