Advocacy
Research-Revisiting the Warren Commission
John Delane Williams
In "typical" court proceedings, an
advocacy research/presentation of the facts is envisioned. The advocate for the
prosecution (the prosecutor) would present the evidence that the prosecutor
thinks will present the best case for convicting the defendant. In a perfect
world (which we DO NOT live in), exculpatory evidence which suggests that some
doubt exists as to whether the defendant is guilty, would be at least be made
available to the defense. The advocate for the defense is charged with
defending his/her client, testing the evidence brought by the prosecution, and
presenting countering evidence that can show, at least, that a reasonable doubt
exists. The forgoing does not come anywhere close to the activities of the
Warren Commission. Hypothetically, the
Commission and the staff were to examine all of the information (presumably
facts), and without prejudice, render a report that fairly addressed the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Prejudice can be simply be stated
as prejudging. In fact, the Warren Commission functioned from the moment of its
conception to be prejudiced. The first
meeting of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy (the actual title of the Commission that has come to be known as The
Warren Commission) took place on January 27, 1964. The entire transcript of
that meeting was published with annotations and comments by Harold Weisberg,
[1] courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act. Howard Willens, a staff member
who came from Bobby Kennedy's Justice Department, wrote a memorandum for the
record on the day following the meeting: "...(W)hat the commission was up
to from the first, [was] the search for means of foisting off a preconceived
conclusion, the deliberate hiding of what actually happened when JFK was
killed." [2] Willens early on made the
case that the Warren Commission was in
fact prejudging the work before them.
The Relation of Bayesian Statistical Analysis to
Prosecutorial Advocacy
A lesser known (but not less important) statistical
analysis approach, is Bayesian analysis, after the British statistician Thomas
Bayes. A Bayesian analysis [3] differs from a standard approach by allowing an
individual's (or group's) beliefs about an event enter into the decision
process. A natural analog is a horse race. In projecting the winner of a race,
the odds of a horse winning is not based on an objective analysis of
performance data (though persons may use objective information in assessing
their subjective choices). The "odds" reported are pari-mutuel odds,
that is, the "average" of people's subjective choices when they place
their bets for the race. Of course, many times a favorite does not win the
race. The race is the objective outcome, which need not correspond to the
bettors choice. Bayesian analysis also allows for testing past events that have
an unknown aspect. In particular, solving a murder case involves an outcome
(the murder) with an "unknown" cause. In a murder case there may be
several suspects. In the particular case of the JFK assassination, we might
have the following suspects: (1) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, (2) Lee
Harvey Oswald, as part of a conspiracy, (3) members of the Dallas Police, (4)
the CIA, (5) the FBI, (6) Texas oilmen,
(7) Cubans supporting Castro, (8) anti-Castro Cubans, (9) the Mafia, and (10)
the Russians. This is by no means a complete list, and some might want
combinations, such as the CIA and the FBI. What others might have preferred
would have been the Warren Commission to have investigated each of the listed
entities. The persons chosen by the Warren Commission to do their weighing of evidence
to be a preliminary report were for the most part young lawyers, whose very
training was to be an advocate for a position. And pointedly, no person was
given the role of being an advocate for Oswald (Mark Lane volunteered for this
role, but his volunteering was not accepted by the Commission). It would appear
that only the first two options were considered by the Commission, and hence,
considered by the young lawyers they
hired to sift the collected data. Most of the evidence was in fact collected by
the FBI; any veering away from objectivity would taint whatever data was
collected. The prior beliefs of certain principals could easily taint the data
collection process. Further, if Oswald were considered to be in a conspiracy,
the cleanness of the outcome could be politically problematic. Hence for some
participants, the prior probability of Oswald's having acted alone likely would
have been very near certainty (i.e. a probability of near to 1). Some of the staff members
entertained the second option (i.e., Oswald was the shooter, but also involved
in a conspiracy). For most of the persons involved (the Commission, the
Commission's staff, and the FBI), the expectancy was that the shooter was most
likely Oswald. It would seem that the belief Oswald was the shooter was a given
to most of the persons involved with the investigation. The lack of an advocate
for Oswald left little doubt as to who would be blamed. The goal of the group
seemed to be to find the facts that support "convicting" Oswald, and
in some way, show that all exculpatory information suggesting Oswald wasn't the
shooter was somehow in error. In simple words, the overall goal of the Warren
Commission was to come to the conclusion that Oswald and no other person was
responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, and to come to that
conclusion prior to the Presidential election in November 1964.
The
Handling of "Data" - the Case of Victoria Adams
Victoria
Adams was an employee at the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD), who along with
three other women, were watching the Presidential motorcade from a fourth floor
window on November 22, 1963. Directly after the last shot, she and another
employee, Sandra Styles, went down the stairs to the first floor. They neither
saw nor heard anyone on the stairs. The only person they encountered was a
large black man, also an employee at the TSBD, whom they saw on their way out of
the building. A third employee, Dorothy Ann Garner, immediately situated
herself in a chair by the stairs and the freight elevator, where she would
notice anyone going up or down the stairs or elevator. At no time did she see
Lee Oswald. It was several minutes before anyone passed her on the stairs. They
included Roy Truly, TSBD Building Superintendent, and policemen going up the stairs to investigate.
Collectively, the four women's observations would preclude Oswald being on the
6th floor at the time of the assassination. Among the four women, only Vicky
Adams was interviewed by the Warren Commission, and had that interview made
public. Dorothy Ann Garner stated that she too was interviewed by the Warren
Commission, though no record has yet been found of that interview. Perhaps
after interviewing her, a decision was made NOT to do a deposition. Each of
four the women had been interviewed by the FBI (CE 1381). Vickie Adams' later interview with the Warren Commission
was conducted by David Belin, a member of the Warren Commission staff
investigator team. In Vicki Adams' testimony, a curious sentence was added,
that she had encountered Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady on the first floor. It
strongly appears Belin (or someone else within the Warren Commission staff)
added this statement after Vickie Adams had seen the typescript of her testimony.
Vickie was astonished by the change, which she only became aware of years
later. The change of course, would have allowed Oswald time to come down the
stairs, in that Lovelady did not enter the building until five minutes after
the shooting. It becomes clear that the evidence was being changed by the
Commission staff to save the appearances that Oswald could have been the
shooter. By not interviewing (and producing a record) of any of the other three
women, and changing the testimony of Miss Adams, Belin was introducing a lie. [4]
Had a lawyer such as Mark Lane been able to rebut the information inserted by
Belin, the Warren Commission might well have had a different outcome,
apparently something not desired by the powers that be.
Oswald's
Income
Before
looking at the FBI's and CIA's involvement in the Warren Commission's workings,
it is instructive to look at Oswald's income in the two months preceding the
assassination.
Warren
Commission staff lawyer Richard Mosk and
IRS supervisor Phillip Barson filed a report to the Warren Commission on
Oswald's income and expenses for September 25, 1963, the day he left New
Orleans for Mexico, until the assassination, slightly less than a two month
period. "His [Oswald's] income, including salary and unemployment
insurance, totaled $3665.89, while his expenses, including the cost of the
Mexico trip, totaled $3,497.79. It was a difference of $168, and that money was
apparently accounted for, since Oswald left the $170 in cash for Marina in a
drawer in the bedroom dresser." [5]
That
statement is astonishing. Oswald's only employment was at the TSBD, from
October 16, 1963 until November 22, 1963, five weeks and three days. At a wage
of $1.25 per hour, Oswald would have earned around $280 at the TSBD during his
employment there. As to unemployment insurance, Oswald cashed his last
unemployment check from the State of Texas on October 15, 1963, in the amount
of $6. [6] Clearly, Oswald had other sources of income. A likely source of some
of that income was the CIA financed research project in New Orleans headed by
Dr. Alton Oschner: "...Lee Oswald
secretly worked as a team member on Ochsner's bio-weapon project,... Oswald met
with Oschner personally, and that it was actually Lee Oswald who requested that
Dr. Oschner set up his media coverage to help position him as a pro-Cuban
activist, so that he could get into Cuba more easily and deliver their
bio-weapon to sympathetic doctors, who would use it to kill Castro." [7] The
CIA, through the New Orleans research project would likely have funded not only
his employment through the clandestine project, most likely they funded his
trip to Mexico as well. The FBI likely also paid Oswald money during this
period for some of his activities.
The
FBI and the Warren Commission
Prior
to the first executive session of the Warren Commission, January 27, 1964, the
FBI had issued a 400 page, five volume report on the assassination of President
Kennedy on December 9, 1963. [8] They stated that Oswald was the assassin
without accomplices. Three shots were fired, two hit President Kennedy and a
third shot hit Governor Connally. Initially, the staff of the Warren Commission
used this scenario as the description of the assassination. When it was
discovered that one of the shots missed the limousine entirely, the magic
bullet hypothesis was adopted, wherein a single bullet hit first President
Kennedy, and then struck Governor Connally. Connally insisted that he was hit
by a separate shot. The FBI did not revise their assassination scene to
correspond to the magic bullet scenario. The FBI was assigned the task of
collecting information from potential witnesses, including witnesses regarding
Oswald's background. Presumably, they generally did a more honest job than
David Belin. Which is not to say that the FBI reported in a completely fair manner. A woman,
Alma Cole, wrote a letter to President Johnson on December 11, 1963, regarding
Oswald having been present in Stanley, North Dakota for several weeks in the summer of 1953 and
had spent quite a bit of time with her son. The FBI did several interviews in
Stanley. Many Stanley residents were questioned as to whether the Oswalds
resided there [Of course not; they were transients!] Many of the persons
interviewed would have been adults at the time Oswald was reported to have been
visiting there. Not surprisingly, most responded that they didn't recall anyone
by the name of Oswald living there. Some of the persons interviewed who were
close to Oswald's age did recall Oswald. [9] Still, what the FBI did report was
accurate even if incomplete, although their choice of wording in their
questions was misleading. [10]
The
FBI and Oswald
Lee
Rankin, the general counsel for the Warren Commission, effectively stated,
regarding the rumor that Lee Harvey Oswald was a paid informant for the FBI,
"We have a dirty rumor...and it must be wiped out." [11] It is clear
that investigating this "rumor" was not even a consideration. From
Rankin's view, and perhaps many of the Commission members' views, it was simply
untrue (From a Bayesian point of view, for the Commission and its staff
lawyers, the probability that Oswald was a paid informant was zero, there was
no chance that it could be true, therefore they need not investigate it.) In
simple terms this is the definition of prejudging. Were Oswald a paid informant,
it would be most likely that the number of persons knowing this would be
limited to his FBI handler and perhaps the handler's supervisor. All other
personnel in the FBI could honestly claim that they were unaware of Oswald's
being a paid informant. Yet there were circumstances that might suggest that
Oswald was in fact a paid informant. Oswald's relationship with Guy Banister, a
former FBI agent who had strong feelings against persons that he saw as
"subversive", nevertheless was cordial to Oswald, even as Oswald
stored his "Fairplay for Cuba" pamphlets near Guy Banister's office in New Orleans. When
Delphine Roberts, Banister's secretary, inquired about Oswald handing out
pro-Castro literature, Banister replied, "Don't worry about him... He's
with us. He's associated with this office." [12] On August 9, 1963, Oswald
was arrested along with three Cubans who confronted Oswald for passing out the
leaflets in favor of Castro and Cuba. The next day, from jail, Oswald called
the New Orleans FBI office. Special Agent (SA) John Quigley took the call, and
then went to the police station. The FBI would almost never have gone to a jail
to interview someone who was there for disturbing the peace. When Quigley left
the jail, he went back to the office and asked FBI employee William Walter to
see if the FBI had a file on Oswald. A file was located, which had an
"informant" classification. [13] William Walter was the employee
present when the New Orleans office of the FBI received a telegram, Sunday
morning, November 17, 1963 from Dallas (and presumably from Oswald), regarding
a planned assassination attempt against President Kennedy in Dallas, either on
November 21 or 22. [14]
We
also know that the FBI was questioning a man, Junior Moore, in Mobile Alabama
on November 21, 1963 regarding whether he was aware of a person named Lee
Harvey Oswald in Mobile; Oswald had spoken at Spring Hill College in Mobile in
July of that year. [15] The FBI might have been searching in Mobile because of
Mobile's proximity to New Orleans, and the telegram sent to the FBI in New
Orleans the previous Sunday.
The
CIA and the Warren Commission
The
CIA had one of its former Directors on the Commission, Allen W. Dulles. When
asked at the first official session how the CIA handled its informants, Dulles,
explained that if Oswald would have been an informant to the CIA, he would
expect the CIA to deny it, and he would expect
the FBI to deny it were Oswald an informant to the FBI. In fact, an agent of
the CIA might choose to lie under oath in circumstances that were deemed
necessary. [16] The Commission then understood that the US clandestine agencies
were not likely to produce information that they chose not to produce. These
"alleys" would simply be blind alleys to the Commission. Basically,
the CIA was given a "pass" regarding the Commission's investigation.
This would be but another example that the government has a very difficult time
trying to honestly investigate itself. It would fall to independent researchers
to try to fill this void. John Newman is one such independent researcher who has written a seminal book on
Oswald and the CIA. Newman laments the amount of government misconduct in lying
to governmental investigative bodies and in effect, the obstruction of justice,
in particular by the CIA. [17]
The
Staff of the Warren Commission
Phillip
Shenon has written a very interesting book about the Warren Commission. [18] He
begins with his belief in their conclusions, and then writes a book that
exposes a large number of the foibles of the Commission and its staff. As
indicated earlier is this writing, such behavior is essentially the essence of a true
believer; [19] they are unswayed by any evidence that they are wrong. In Bayesian terms, there is a probability of
1 (i.e., certainty) that Oswald was the
shooter, and a high probability there was no conspiracy, from a true believer's
viewpoint. Today, belief in the single bullet theory seems concentrated in the
mainstream press (often controlled by right-wing owners). In this regard, Upton
Sinclair's comment in the book he wrote about his losing the 1934 California gubernatorial election seems
appropriate: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when
his salary depends on him not understanding." [20]
The
staff were mainly young lawyers, some newly graduated from law school and
others not too advanced in their careers. Their individual mindsets might
sometimes be at cross purposes with the Commissioners. One of the young, but
somewhat experienced staff members (he worked as a prosecutor and had
significant contact with the FBI) was Burt Griffin, 31, who came to the
Commission with the expectancy that a conspiracy would be found. Eventually,
Griffin's estimation of the FBI was that if a conspiracy had even a smattering
of sophistication, it would elude the FBI. He felt that several of the younger
staff members were "downright excited" to the possibility that the
Commission would find a conspiracy. Griffin's assignment was writing a
biography of Jack Ruby. [21]
J.
Lee Rankin was the general counsel and was the liaison to both the Commission,
and initially, to the FBI. Because of past workings with the FBI, Rankin
thought a cordial relationship could be established with Director Hoover.
Hoover dispelled him of this foolish notion early in their first meeting. To
Hoover, the FBI had already done the study of the assassination; all the
Commission had to do was to accept his December 9, 1963 final report. This view
set Hoover at loggerheads with the Commission and particularly with Rankin.
Rankin began to understand that the FBI
was to be the Commission's main investigative arm, an investigative arm that
would not likely produce evidence to the Commission in disagreement with the
FBI's already finished report. Rankin would be the final editor of the
Commission's report at the staff level. The Commission, of course, was the
final arbiter. The major writer of the staff report was David Slawson. Slawson,
who graduated from Harvard Law School, chose to begin his law career in Denver
as a protégé of Byron
"Whizzer" White, a well known All-American football star at the
University of Colorado, two time All-Pro halfback in the NFL, and later, a
Supreme Court justice appointed by President Kennedy. Slawson remained at the
Denver law firm, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, after White's departure to the
Supreme Court. Slawson would be on the team investigating a foreign conspiracy.
Slawson determined that two persons whom
it would be important to interview in this regard were Sylvia Duran, who in
1963 was a secretary in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, and Sylvia Odio, a
former Cuban living in Dallas. Earl Warren refused to allow an interview with
Duran (supposedly because "We don't talk to Communists. You cannot trust a
dedicated Communist to tell the truth, so what's the point?"). [22] As to interviewing Sylvia Odio, that task would
fall to Wesley James Liebeler, who managed to create a fiasco out of it.
Slawson would find many impediments in attempting to find a foreign conspiracy.
Slawson found out long after the Warren Commission had ended, that James
Angleton of the CIA filtered the reports that went from the CIA to the Warren
Commission. Further, Angleton swept down to Mexico City and removed all of Win
Scott's (Mexico City CIA station chief) files and memoirs upon Scott's death in
1971. The files revealed just how much information was withheld from the Warren
Commission. [23] Other later revelations were like bombshells- the CIA Mafia
Castro plots, the revelation that Hoover suspected an Oswald impersonator, and
that a file was kept by the FBI on Oswald, beginning in 1959. Slawson was
calling for a new investigation of the JFK assassination. When Slawson's views
were reported in the New York Times, he was called by James Angleton, then
recently fired from the CIA. Angleton made it clear that he was monitoring
negative information about the CIA in the media. [24]
Wesley
James Liebeler was easily the most "different" of the staff members.
A native North Dakotan, Liebeler was a graduate of the University of Chicago
Law School. Unlike his liberal colleagues, Liebeler was strongly politically
conservative (announcing his support for Barry Goldwater), but socially,
considerably more to the libertine. Though married, he announced that he would
be chasing skirts in D.C. and afterword, would brag about his
"successes". He didn't mind violating rules. He would take classified
reports with him on weekends, flying to his home in Maine. He would read them
on the plane in full view of other passengers, one of whom reported him. Liebeler
was given the assignment of interviewing Sylvia Odio in Dallas. Liebeler
interviewed Odio in the offices of the United States Attorney. When her
testimony was completed, Liebeler asked Odio out to dinner. They ate at the Sheraton
hotel in downtown Dallas, where Liebeler was staying. A third person joined
them, supposedly a lawyer for Marina Oswald. Liebeler told the other man,
"If we do find that this is a conspiracy, you know that we are under
orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up." [25] Liebeler
invited Odio to his hotel room, supposedly to view some assassination pictures.
There, he attempted to seduce her. Liebeler wrote a report on Oswald's
motivation in the assassination as his part of the writing of the Warren
Report. The Commission completely rejected his writing effort.
Arlen
Specter and the Single Bullet Theory
Specter
was allowed to chose the area that he would investigate. He chose to focus on
the last hours of President Kennedy's life, and the murder itself. Specter was
to be the junior partner of Francis Adams, the former Commissioner of Police in
New York City, who later became a very successful lawyer with his own firm in
New York City. When the two men met, they agreed that the investigation should
be quite quick, given that Oswald was so obviously guilty. As time dragged on,
Adams absented himself from the Commission, leaving Specter on his own in the
investigation. Specter got his idea for the single bullet theory partly out of
necessity. One of the shots missed the limousine entirely, hitting the curb in
front of the limousine, and cement from the curb injured James T. Tague. [26] Something
on the order of the single bullet theory would be necessary, though such a
scenario was, according to some accounts, already being considered by Specter.
Important
parts of the evidentiary base were, however, not made available to the Warren
Commission staff. Warren was opposed to having the autopsy photographs made
available to the Warren Commission, apparently so that the photographs of the
autopsy would not be made public; the photographs were apparently in the
possession of Bobby Kennedy. The autopsy photographs were also not available to
Commander James Humes M.D. for his review before his testimony to the Warren
Commission. Instead, a navy sketch artist, who also did not have access to the
autopsy photographs but only Humes' faulty memory of the wounds and his verbal
description of them, sketched the wounds. Also to be taken into account was the
decision to have Humes, almost totally lacking in autopsy experience with
gunshot homicides, as the lead pathologist in the autopsy; you'd think the
President of the United States would have deserved better. Perhaps Humes
inexperience made him more malleable to the military brass in attendance at the
autopsy. Wouldn't it have been better to have had a non-military pathologist
who had considerable experience with gunshot homicide autopsies who could have
ignored the brass in the audience, and cleared them out if they continued to
put themselves into the proceedings? Surely, a more experienced pathologist
would not have burned his notes written at the autopsy. An experienced
pathologist would have insisted on probing the trajectory of the bullets in the
president's body. And the missing of the wound in the president's throat could
have been avoided by talking to Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.
Perhaps one of the first mistakes made with the autopsy was to hold it in a
military hospital with military physicians doing the autopsy.
True
Believers and the Warren Apologists
The
book by Shenon is in some ways remarkable. He begins with a strong orientation
to Oswald's guilt as a lone assassin and also guilty of Officer Tippet's
murder. He then proceeds to show the foibles of the FBI, the CIA, but
particularly of the Warren Commission and its staff. And yet he maintains his
belief in Oswald's guilt despite all of the failures of the staff and the
commissioners, in the manner of a true believer. As a research effort, the
Warren Commission was an utter failure. The process was strictly advocacy
research, but without an advocate for the other side. An advocacy approach
without representation of the other side can have only one outcome, an
unfairness so egregious that truth is the first casualty.
Notes:
1.
Wiesberg, H. & Lesar, J. (1974). Whitewash
II: JFK Assassination Transcript. Frederick, MD: Authors. The Commission
decided to stop having transcripts made of meetings as of June 23. After that, only summaries were
provided. See Shenon [5], pp. 425-426.
2.Willens,
H.P. in Weisberg & Lesar, p. 25.
3.
Phillips, L.D. (1974). Bayesian Analysis
for Social Scientists. New York: Thomas Crowell.
4. Ernest, B. (2013). The Girl on the Stairs. Gretna, LA: Pelican.
5.
Shenon, P. (2013). A Cruel and Shocking
Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination.
New York: Henry Holt & Co., p. 452. Income at the level that Oswald was
receiving during those two months could have supported a much higher lifestyle
for him and his family. [Indeed Oswald was paid well over three times as much
as this writer during that same time period, while teaching mathematics
and statistics at a junior college.] Perhaps
Oswald was expected to appear to be almost penniless by his handlers.
6.
Armstrong, J. (2003). Harvey & Lee:
How the CIA Framed Oswald. Arlington, TX: Quasar, p. 725.
7.
Haslam, E. (2007). Dr. Mary's Monkey: How
the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and
cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK
Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics. Walterville, OR: Trine-Day,
p.
337.
8.
Shenon, p. 80.
9.Williams,
J.D. & Severson, G. (2000). Oswald in North Dakota? Part I. The Fourth Decade: A Journal of Research on the John F. Kennedy
Assassination. 7,2, 21-26.
10.
Shenon, pp. 77-79.
11.
Wiesberg & Lesar, p. 26.
12.
Marrs, J. (1989). Crossfire: The Plot
that Killed Kennedy. New York: Carroll & Graf, pp. 235-237.
13. Armstrong, p. 566.
14. Williams, J.D. (2004). Was the FBI
Searching for Oswald the Day Before the Assassination?
Dealey
Plaza Echo, 8, 2, 46-52.
15. Ibid.
16.
Wiesberg & Lesar, p. 52.
17.
Newman, J. (1995). Oswald and the CIA.
New York: Carroll & Graf.
18.
Shenon.
19.
Hoffer, E. (1951). The True Believer:
Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York:
Harper & Row
20. Sinclair, U. (1934, 1994). I, Candidate for Governor, and How I Got
Licked. Berkeley: U of California Press.
21. Shenon, p. 124.
22. Ibid., p. 311.
23. Ibid., p. 546.
24. Ibid., pp. 537-538.
25. Ibid., p. 417.
26.
Tague, J.T. (2003). Truth Withheld: Why
We will never Know the Truth about the
JFK Assassination. Dallas:
Excel Digital Press. An unnamed member of the staff lawyers for the Warren
Commission.Published inThe Dealey Plaza Echo (2016) 19,1, 14-19.
No comments:
Post a Comment