A WHITEWASH OF THE WARREN COMMISSION WHITEWASH
by G. Edward Griffin 2009 September 28

Early this month, a good friend and staunch Freedom Force member sent me a copy of the book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, by Vincent Bugliosi. I was glad he did but wish he had not. I was glad he did because, otherwise, I would never have spent the money ($40) or taken the time to explore such a huge volume (1612 pages). I wish he had not because, although my friend was impressed by Bugliosi’s work, I was appalled by it and dreaded being in disagreement with a friend. Nevertheless, here is what I wrote:

Hello Dave.
What a pleasant surprise to receive a copy of Bugliosi’s monumental work, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Of course I immediately plunged into it, not expecting to finish it anytime soon but to test the waters and get a feel for the author’s approach.

As you know, I have been a JFK-assassination buff from the day it occurred, and my library is bursting with a large collection of books on the topic from just about every conceivable point of view. Having read some books does not make me an expert, but it does sensitize me to certain key elements to look for. I spent a great deal of time initially studying the index.

Having spent the best part of the evening in this fashion, I have come to the conclusion that Bugliosi has written a white wash of the original white wash put out by the Warren Commission which, in my opinion, is the second most corrupt investigation in the history of the world, upstaged only by the 9/11 Commission Report.

While most of the material in Reclaiming History is relatively inconsequential, appearing to be there for the primary purpose of adding size and weight to the volume in the vain hope of lending an air of scholarship, here are a few items that are, in my opinion, very important. Bugliosi may be correct on the 99% of his book that deals with inconsequential information but incorrect on 1% that is crucial. Furthermore, his writing style and manipulation of language suggests malicious deception.

It is clear from the start that Bugliosi has nothing but contempt for those who he labels “conspiracy theorists.” This is not a minor matter with him. It is a theme that recurs throughout the book and, in fact, he even devotes a chapter to a psychological analysis of those who accept the possibility of conspiracies, and he labels them as paranoiacs. We can easily guess what he thinks about those who are concerned about hidden agendas behind the war on terror, the war on drugs, and electronic voting machines.

This is not the place to rebut Bugliosi, but I don’t think I really need to with you. The point is that he makes no effort to conceal his “everything is as it appears to be” mindset. If he really believes what he writes, then it would be impossible for him to accept anything other than the official version of the Kennedy assassination. If he were to do so, by his own words, he would be classified as a wacko paranoic. On the face of it, therefore, he is self prohibited from accepting any contrary evidence, no matter how conclusive it may be to others. In other words, by his own admission, his analysis is biased.

This bias shows up on almost every page of his book. Repeatedly, he describes a claim that challenges the official version but, instead of analytically debunking that claim, he simply dismisses it as absurd or impossible – but offers no real analysis. Traces of sarcasm are everywhere, but I have looked in vain for true rebuttal – at least on the important issues. Let’s face it, there truly are some kooky conspiracy theories out there, and they are easy to debunk. Bugliosi spends a lot of time with those but very little with the bigger issues.

For example, one of the most compelling testimonies that exists is the videotaped statement of James Files who, incredible as it may seem, claims to be the one who fired the last shot, the one that penetrated Kennedy’s skull – and, yes, he describes in great detail how he did it from behind the fence at the back of the grassy knoll. I defy anyone to watch this man for the full hour of his testimony and not become convinced he is telling the truth. Speaking extemporaneously in answer to questions, he provides hundreds of minute details that fit perfectly with the testimony of other participants in the assassination team (one of whom I will mention in a moment) that never met him, so it was impossible for them to match up their stories. Bugliosi condenses Files’ story into a single paragraph and then dismisses it completely by saying simply that Files is not taken seriously, not even by most conspiracy buffs.

What garbage! The truth is that all the buffs I have met take Files very seriously, indeed. It’s only the FBI and Bugliosi who claim he is not credible. Furthermore, if he is not credible, I am still waiting for Bugliosi to explain to my satisfaction why not. Simply saying he is not credible does not put the matter to rest. If you are interested in seeing the Files testimony, I think it still is on the Internet. A DVD version can be obtained here

Chauncey Holt, another member of the assassination team, gave an on-camera confession just eight days before his death. Although he had never met Files, he corroborated all the key elements of his story. They both were working for the Chicago Mob in this assignment and described it as a joint operation with the CIA. Here, again, there are hundreds of details: name, dates, places, minute descriptions of meetings and preparations. It is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that directly challenges the official version of the assassination; yet Bugliosi doesn’t even mention it.

Holt’s name is listed only once in the index, but no mention of him could be found on the page shown. I was unable to locate any reference to him anywhere except on a list of eighty-two names on page 1497. Bugliosi describes this as a list of gunmen who “conspiracy theorists” have claimed were shooting at Kennedy that day. That, of course, makes the so-called theorists look ridiculous, as it was intended to do, but the technique is dishonest. I don’t know about all the other names on that list, but putting Chauncy Holt on it is either sloppy research or calculated deception. I am not aware of anyone who has claimed that Holt was shooting at JFK. Anyone who actually has listened to his testimony would know that he claimed, not to be a shooter, but a backup person to provide logistic assistance to the assassination team.

Here is a 1612-page book of the Kennedy Assassination, and one of the most important pieces of evidence, in the form of a near-death confession of one of the participants, is not even mentioned and, in fact, his role in the plot is inaccurately described. It’s the same technique used by the Warren Commission (and the 9/11 Commission, by the way). The testimony of Chauncey Holt is available on DVD here

There is much more along these lines, but perhaps one more example will be sufficient. The former mistress of LBJ, years after he had died, was persuaded to tell her eye-witness account of a meeting LBJ attended the night prior to the assassination. Speaking before a video camera, Madeleine Brown gave details that are a sharp challenge to the official version. She said that, on the evening prior to the assassination, she attended a social event at the Dallas mansion of the Texas oil magnate, Clint Murcheson. In attendance were J. Edgar Hoover, John McCloy (who later was appointed to the Warren Commission), Richard Nixon, H.L. Hunt, a host of Dallas dignitaries and, of course LBJ. She said that, at the end of the gathering, he whispered in her ear: “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise.”

That is pretty interesting testimony, especially considering that, at the time of speaking before the camera, Miss Brown still held great personal affection for LBJ and even had born a child to him. She certainly was not seeking revenge. She said that she just felt an obligation to tell the truth about what she knew.

So what is Bugliosi’s reaction to this? It is simply to sneer at it and assure the reader that her statement is not to be believed. He writes: “So, if we’re to believe Miss Brown, Lyndon Baines Johnson … decided not only to murder President Kennedy, but also to tell others about it.” Here again, we have a sneering rejection of the testimony and what can only be viewed as a distortion of facts. Brown never said that LBJ “decided to kill Kennedy.” When I viewed her testimony, it was clear to me that the decision had been made by others, that LBJ had merely been advised of it, but that he was an enthusiastic supporter (for very good reasons of his own, by the way). So he did not “decide to kill the President.”

Admittedly, there is not much ethical difference between deciding and supporting, but using the phrase: “Johnson decided to kill the President” is a verbal construction calculated to cause the reader to reject it on the face of it. If Bugliosi had written: “Johnson was an enthusiastic beneficiary of the plot,” (which is a correct representation), readers would have been far less inclined to reject it as implausible. Here again, we find Bugliosi putting a twist here and spin there to create an emotional reaction on the part of his readers and to ridicule or obfuscate the evidence that runs counter to The Warren Commission Report.

In my view, this book has no value except as an example of propaganda to cover the evil deeds of those who have corrupted our government.

Thanks again, Dave, for sending this to me.

Printed on 07 September 10 at 17:52

URL of this page:
http://www.freedom-force.org/printerfriendly.cfm?pffile=bugliosi_content.cfm

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
Contact us at info@freedomforceinternational.org