Watch the video. It is important in the context of this
page.
Many people wonder about the
assassination of JFK. There are so many conspiracy
theories and much
conjecture surrounding his death.
If you don't get caught up in 'who
done it' and concentrate on 'how
could it have happened', many
logical things start falling into place. One thing that soon
becomes
clear is
the degrading of security for JFK.
A sniper would be the first thing
any
competent state and federal security/police force would identify as a
threat
to any President, not just
JFK. All high buildings in Dallas that overlooked JFK's
route through Dallas would,
you would have thought, have been
covered and closely scrutinized and observed by people responsible for
the
safety and welfare of the
President of the United States. Especially when you consider Dallas was
identified as
a hostile enviroment for the President at that time.
Lee Harvey Oswald was
the accused assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22,
1963 in
Dallas, Texas. A former Marine who defected to the Soviet Union and
later returned, Oswald was arrested on
suspicion of killing Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit and later
connected to the assassination of President
Kennedy. Oswald denied any responsibility for the murders. Two days
later, before he could be brought to
trial for the crimes, while being transferred under police custody from
the police station to jail, Oswald was
shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live television.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a
malcontent, who, through a degrading of security protecting
JFK, got his chance to kill the President
of the United States. If anyone has any doubts about Oswald, the
killing of Tippit
pretty well seals his complicity in the assassination of JFK. The
evidence of his rifle and other factors gives
a fair degree of certainty that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the the
sixth floor of the book depository
warehouse as the President's motorcade moved through Dealy Plaza in Dallas.
Of
course it's absolutely
reasonable that there are many people who can't believe JFK could be
killed in such a
manner and there has
to be a conspiracy involving other people or interests. That is
the sad
thing about JFK's death, a malcontent
sniper got his chance, not
through a
planned conspiracy involving other people and interests, but through
the
degrading of the President's security.
The
troubling thing about how JFK died, is one can ask the
question, why was his security so degraded
to be unable to protect his life from a sniper on the sixth
floor of the book depository warehouse?
The
other thing which stands out is the death of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Being dragged through areas in
the Dallas police headquarters where people had access
to him on a number of occasions. This was the number one suspect in the murder of
the President of the United States,
the killing of a police officer and the serious wounding of the Governor of
Texas. Jack Ruby shot Oswald
close up. Nobody, apart from police, FBI and federal government security
people should have seen him let alone
him being pulled out into areas where Jack Ruby got his chance
to shoot him. Again, a complete degrading of security. How
some-one like
Jack Ruby could shoot Lee Harvey Oswald is close to unbelievable, but
it happened. It was important for the
country and the family of JFK that Lee Harvey Oswald be held personally
accountable for his actions through
the justice system. Once JFK was killed, everything following
that should have been locked down and
secured. But it wasn't. The events of November 1963 in Dallas
point to chaos and confusion.
There
were many people in Dallas that didn't like JFK's policies and made it clear in newspapers and other printed material on the day he
arrived in Dallas. To some in Dallas, JFK was seen as a traitor. This alone should have upped the security
of the President. In 1963, less than a month before the
president's visit,
United Nations ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been struck with a
placard and spat upon during his own
Dallas appearance. Despite this, the Secret Service wasn't
worried. One Secret Service agent whose job was
to protect the President has said: "And what could I have done about 20,000
windows?".
Oliver Stone's JFK movie and a
host of
conspiracy theories continue to
fuel interest in JFK and his
untimely death. The
vast
array of conspiracy theories
regarding the assassination of JFK. Such theories began
to be generated soon after his death and continue to be proposed
today.
Many of these theories propose a
criminal conspiracy involving parties such as the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the KGB, the
Mafia, FBI director
J. Edgar Hoover, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon,
Israel, Fidel
Castro, Cuban exile groups
opposed to the Castro government and the military and/or government
interests of the United States. The
conspiracy theories are highly improbable.
What the conspiracy theories in
themselves do however, is highlight widespread dislike of JFK's
policies
and the direction he wanted to take the United States.
One can conclude that there was a
degrading of security for JFK in Dallas and the days that
followed.
The same thing happens when soldiers in a unit become disenchanted with
their officer. In combat an officer
can be more vulnerable when those around him lose confidence or are
disenchanted with his/her leadership.
This means there is no conspiracy to kill the officer
or anything is planned to directly hurt the officer, but an
enemy has more of a chance to take the officer
out. In the fight against terrorism, it is often said that a
terrorist has to only get lucky once. Any drop off of
security due to negligence (or purposely done) on the
battle field or anywhere means a terrorist is given a window of
opportunity.
The question, 'Who killed President
Kennedy?', can be answered. There was no direct conspiracy to
kill
him. Instead, those responsible for his ultimate well-being and
security, did what some soldiers do in combat
They didn't care
100%. This attitude and mindset, unspoken and undetectable, is
insidious. It gives a sniper
a
lucky chance. The disenchantment with JFK was widespread as
stated previously. The security situation
in
Dallas in November 1963, was incomplete, which only gives weight to a
commonsense conclusion that JFK
was not
protected as one would expect for a President of the United States and
its Commander In Chief.
Of course this conclusion is not
riveting, like a cold hard conspiracy, but there really is no
other
commonsense explanation. When you watch the video above.
Look at the frustration of the Secret Service
agentRybka. He is not part of a
conspiracy to kill President Kennedy,
he is just reacting to something that
has gone wrong. The explanation for
Rybka's behavior is that there was not room left for him on the car
following the President. Things go wrong when you have a
breakdown in
security. The other thing which stands
out is that when JFK is shot the second time, the First Lady moves to
the back of the car and a Secret Service
agent boards the back of the Presidents car on the left. No-one
is seen anywhere near the President's side of
the car on right hand side at the back at that time.
What happens on the front line when
soldiers engage in heavy combat, do your
really think the soldiers
disenchanted with their officer care what happens to the officer.
Even if another soldier notices what's going on
and tries to help the
officer, the reaction and attitude from those
around him/her would be noncommittal. When
JFK was shot the Secret
Service agents in the following car were slow to react. This was
the same car
that left
no room for the frustrated Secret Service agent you see on the
video. He was left back at the
airport.
People can talk in a conspiracy or be
found out before the plan can be enacted. A deep seated
disenchantment or resentment can be covered, not spoken about, and
never detected, but its consequences
can
sweep through an organisation like a virus and give, like in the case
of JFK, the lucky chance for Lee Harvey
Oswald.
There are many brave people
like President Kennedy that lay cold in their graves, buried by their
loved
ones who believe their loved one was killed by an assassin, a
terrorist, or the enemy. But in reality, some are
laying there because people around them didn't do their job because
they had turned their backs allowing a
window of opportunity for them to be killed. When you
consider that allied nations will, in their interest, not
relay intelligence or information, to another ally, even if that ally
is to be attacked by an enemy, it shouldn't be
a surprise that the greatest threat to ones security or a nations
security are closer to home. Some people will
also feed disinformation and tell outright lies to drag a nation like
the United States into war. Someone once
said, "Keep
your friends close and your enemies closer". The quote should be, "Keep your enemies
close and yourfriends closer."
If someone tells you something that sounds
to good to be true, it's
usually untrue.
Summary: If there had of
been a planned assassination conspiracy involving people apart from Lee
Harvey
Oswald, it would have come to light by now. There is only
one reasonable conclusion one can realistically
come to and that is the security surrounding JFK was not operating at
100% efficiency which gave Lee Harvey
Oswald the window of opportunity to kill JFK. This degraded
security situation can either be seen as a series
of honest mistakes or the degraded
security eventuated because, at some level, some-one turned their back
on
their President. After JFK was shot, Jacqueline Kennedy
shrieked ''My
God, they've killed Jack. They've killed
my husband, Jack,
Jack!''. The First Lady didn't say
'some-one' killed her husband, she said "They've killed
Jack", "They've killed my
Husband." She may have
been closer to the truth than she realised.
This page is a work in progress, so if anyone has anything to add (or
wants to make a comment), please email
Peter Barnes.
"Some people may
think I am pointing the finger directly at a Secret Service agent or
agents assigned to
protect JFK
on the day he was assassinated. No, what I believe
happened, is some-one, most likely up
the chain of command in the
President's administration turned his/her back on things that needed
fixing.
Too many things went wrong in Dallas to
lay the blame on those on the ground. The investigation should
have concentrated on those directly responsible (at the top) for the
President's security and focused on
their personal attitude towards the President. A malcontent, nutter,
or terrorist, only has to get lucky once,
and you can bet your boots on one thing, and that is every President
since Kennedy would have made sure
that the people ultimately responsible for his security were 100% for
him."
Peter
Barnes
Robert Kennedy's assassination
On 5th June 1968, 12.15am,
Senator Robert F. Kennedy was making his way from the ballroom at the
Ambassador
Hotel, Los Angeles, to give a press conference, after winning the
California Primary. The prearranged route went
through a food service pantry. While making his way through this area,
a Palestinian Arab, Sirhan Sirhan, stepped
forward and fired a .22 revolver at the Senator. Although Sirhan was
quickly subdued, Kennedy and five others were
wounded, although only Kennedy was fatally wounded. Even though
presidential candidates weren't protected back
then as they are today, it's amazing that Robert Kennedy wasn't given
secret service protection, being the brother
of JFK. One would have thought that the security services of the
US government would have known there was a
great chance a nutter would try to assassinate the brother of
JFK. RJK's death should
make anyone who has even
the slightest understanding of the word 'commonsense', ponder and
think.
When President John F. Kennedy
was gunned down in Dallas in November 1963, Robert, then the US
attorney
general, was having lunch at his home in northern Virginia when word of the shooting reached
him. J. Edgar Hoover,
director of the FBI, telephoned and said: “I have news for you. The
president’s been shot.” Twenty minutes later,
Hoover phoned again to deliver the final blow: "The president’s dead",
he said and promptly hung up. Hoover obviously
didn't like both Kennedy's. You don't have to have a conspiracy
to murder, you just turn your back
and let
someone else do it for you.
JFK and RFK were sitting ducks. The most compelling and
insightful thing about JFK's death, is not about murder
and conspiracies. Take a look at JFK and the First Lady in the
motorcade before the assassination, they are both
totally relaxed and unworried. They think everything has been
done to protect them. They were wrong. What
happened in Dallas is far more insidious and worrying than a contrived
plot to murder. The system that the President
and the Commander In Chief of the United States of America relied on to
keep him and the First Lady safe,
completely broke down in Dallas. That system then didn't do
anything to keep a nutter from killing his brother.
RFK's assassination is baffling
if certain reports are to be believed. Powder burns on Kennedy reveal that the
shot
that killed him was fired from 0 to 1-1/2 inches away, and yet,
witnesses claim that Sirhan's gun could not possibly
have done this, for not one person places Sirhan's gun that close, and
according to the general consensus Sirhan's
gun never got to point blank range of Kennedy. Obviously Sirhan shot at
Kennedy, but the coroner who did the autopsy
on RFK has said, "Until more
is
precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility.
Thus, I
have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy." How
all
this was answered was because of the chaos
when the gunfire started, people around Kennedy were not in the
position to
accurately know what happened. So, in
effect, Sirhan could have shot Kennedy close-up. The only problem with
this is
powder burns on Kennedy and his
clothing reveal that all three of his wounds were from a gun fired from
0 to
1-1/2 inches away. And yet, after firing the
first two shots Sirhan was grabbed and contained, but still squeezing
the
trigger. Eyewitnesses also said that at no
time during the attack did RFK turn his back during the firing and yet
the entry
wounds to RFK came from behind.
The crime scene
above where people are positioned is interesting when you consider
the autopsy report outlines
that it was physically impossible for Sirhan to have fired the fatal
shot to the back of Kennedy’s head, or any other shot
that struck the Senator.The autopsy shows that Kennedy was
shot from behind from below, while all witnesses say
that Sirhan Sirhan shot at Robert Kennedy in a face to face position
from 2 to 5 feet away with his arm outstretched
horizontally toward the Senator. The trajectories of bullets that
struck Kennedy were at sharp upward angles of 60° to
80° (nearly vertical), and the mortal wound fired into his brain
was from just a couple inches behind him. Don Schulman, a runnerfor
KNXT-TV in Los Angeles, said that he saw the private security
guard (Thane
Eugene
Cesar) behind Kennedy pull his gun and fire three shots during the
chaos. Cesar denied firing, but it has been
reported he admitted to pulling his gun. Cesar was allowed to
leave the pantry for ten minutes before returning to
collect his tie, which had fallen on the floor. Cesar says he was
carrying a .38 that night, but he also owned a .22.
And it is this smaller caliber weapon which LAPD says was used in the
crime.
In later law-enforcement interviews,
when Schulman was under pressure to be 'absolutely positive' about what
he saw, Schulman stated that he didn't see the private security guard
shoot Kennedy, as his first statement seemed
to imply. He did assert that he saw the guard fire three times and
Kennedy hit three times, but admitted he couldn't
necessarily connect the two events. Schulman
was pilloried by the judiciary and the press for years but has always
stuck by his story. Interesting, when Schulman reported his story
on the radio and insisted that Kennedy was shot
three times, even though the early media reports and crime scene
witnesses generally asserted that the Robert
Kennedy was hit only twice, Schulman stuck to his story. The autopsy
proved him right. Whether Schulman was
accurate or not about Cesar, it appears that shortly after the
assassination of RJK, no other gun was checked or
tested. If it is true, and that the LAPD did not check or test
the two guns owned by Cesar, this
would be extraordinary.
Image you are a private security guard
carrying a gun and someone approaches you with a gun drawn, what are
you going to do. The instinctive reaction would be to go for your
gun. Cesar was not a secret service person
programed to save someone by leaping between Kennedy or Sirhan.
He would've gone into self preservation mode
and gone straight for his weapon. He wouldn't even have to think
about it, it would be an instant reaction. When you
think that people saw Sirhan before he started shooting and tried to
grab him this all happened right in front of Cesar.
As Sirhan advanced closer and closer and started firing (he got of two
shots before being grabbed), what do you think
Cesar was doing? The police discounted many eyewitnesses because
they said people would have been confused
about what happened because the situation was chaotic.
Eyewitnesses said Kennedy was facing Sirhan, but Cesar
said Kennedy wasn't facing Sirhan. Cesar was a 26 year old with a
gun. What would a 26 year old with a gun do as
an obvious killer advanced to kill him? Forget Kennedy for a
minute, and put yourself in Cesar's shoes (and remember
five other people got shot).
The reason why Cesar is focused on
by many is that Kennedy was shot from behind and he fell away from
Sirhan,
laying in a position that doesn't fit with having his back to Sirhan
when he was shot. Some suggest Kennedy was
pushed forward into the gun but that would have him falling
differently. Once Kennedy was shot in the head he would
have started to fall. Robert Kennedy's assassination does leave
you feeling there's something missing. Something
you just can't put your finger on.
Bodyguard Rafer Johnson, a gold
medalist in the Olympic track and field decathlon, said that he grabbed
the gun
from Sirhan's hand after the shooting, took it home and wrote down the
serial number H-53725. Can you imagine
taking the assassin's weapon home - it's bizarre. Strangely, the official reports
show that the gun used for firing
tests was H-18602. The difference in the guns used in the crime and the
firing tests is alarming. No wonder people
are confused about RFK's death.
The following is an excerpt (Rafer Johnson) from The
GuardianSaturday January 13, 2007 "When
the shooting happened, I was walking about eight feet behind the
senator as he came off stage and
into the kitchen. I
heard what I thought were balloons popping and I looked up and saw a
man pointing a
gun at Senator Kennedy, with smoke coming out of the
barrel. I
rushed at him and put my hand on the gun.
A lot of
people were grabbing at him, with four or five pairs of hands all
pulling at the gun. We wrestled
with him until I asked the others to
let go and I took the gun away from him and put it in my pocket. I
got
home that night having followed Bobby to the hospital and fearful
that he wasn't going to make it. I took off
my jacket and there it was
in my pocket: the gun. They sent a police officer round and took a
statement
and I handed it over."
The following is an
excerpt (Roosevelt
'Rosey' Grier) from Christian
News TodayFeb 2008
“Bobby
had just made a speech and we were getting ready to go some place else
but, somehow or another,
Bobby jumped off the back of the stage and everyone was out of position
and by the time we caught up with
him when shots rang out. We were running to see we could
stop all the violence that was going on and then
we saw Sirhan with the gun so I went and pulled him up on the stage and
then up on a table. George Plimpton
had been struggling with the gun hand and I just wrenched it out of
Sirhan's hand and put it in my pocket.
Later on Rafer Johnson asked me if I had it and I gave it to him.”
Who
took the gun out of Sirhan's hand?
One can in some ways imagine the
confusion that surrounded the assassination and say that
eyewitnesses got
it wrong and so on, but there are other things that are very strange
and
go unanswered about the assassination of
RFK. The
Guardian Newspaper is worth reading.
There is absolutely no doubt that if
Robert Kennedy had become
President of the United States, he would have
done everything in his power to seek out those ultimately responsible
for
his brothers death in 1963. Those that
turned their back on President John F Kennedy, allowing Oswald his
lucky chance,
would have been well aware
of this.
It's interesting that the LAPD
didn't want another 'Dallas', meaning they didn't want Sirhan killed
like Oswald was
killed. But the LAPD did get another 'Dallas', with Robert
Kennedy being assassinated. It was not going to be 'if'
someone was going to try and kill Robert Kennedy, it was 'when'.
Even Jackie Kennedy believed someone would
try and kill Robert Kennedy. You would have thought that police
departments in the United States would have been
aware of the risk to Robert Kennedy and said to themselves, it's not
going to happen in our area of responsibility.
Uniformed and plain clothes police from the LAPD should have been at
the Ambassador
Hotel in Los Angeles that
night, not only to make sure Kennedy's back was covered, but also to
protect their own credibility. In a hundred
years time people will be still discussing the assassination of JFK and
RFK. What a shocking indictment for the
police of two major cities. Oh, people are going to say but there
wasn't any program in place like there is today to
protect presidential candidates. That's even more of a reason why
the LAPD should have been there. Can you
imagine the praise the LAPD would have received if Sirhan was stopped
from killing Kennedy. No, Kennedy had
what you could coldly call a 'rent a cop' beside him. If the LAPD
had positioned uniformed and plain clothes police
in the Ambassador Hotel, not only watching Kennedy, but looking out for
a nutter like Sirhan who was suspiciously
floating around the hotel, in all likelihood, Kennedy would have got
through that night.
When Martin Luther King was
assassinated in April 1968, you would have thought police
departments like the
LAPD would have considered Robert Kennedy was at risk. Robert Kennedy's
death is more of a tragedy than his
brothers because the warning signs where there and yet nothing was done
about it. That is the legacy of the LAPD.
You didn't have to be security expert to realise that Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani politician
who was assassinated
in 2007 was at great risk of being assassinated. All the signs where
there that it was not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. Robert Kennedy
knew someone would try and kill him. He thought he would be killed
before is brother was. He
was a brave man let down by a weak system. Yes, he was a brave
man, and shame on all those that allowed
him to be killed in such a way. No wonder there are conspiracy
theories, with people to this very day trying to
come to grips with his death and make sense of it. Like his
bother before him, Robert Kennedy's security was
degraded and opened the window of opportunity for someone to kill him, and that'sunforgivable.
*The author of this page does not believe Lee
Harvey Oswald orSirhan
Sirhan are
innocent. Whether or not
other people were involved in the assassinations of JFK and RFK, Lee
Harvey Oswald andSirhan
Sirhan took their opportunity to
kill. Anyone who thinks Oswald or Sirhan are innocent should
consider that Oswald also shot dead Dallas police
officer J. D. Tippit and resisted arrest. Sirhan also shot and
wounded five other people as others
tried frantically to disarm him.
RFK part added 29/03/08 (Written by Peter
Barnes)
This
page is a work in progress, so if anyone has anything to add (or
wants to make a comment), please email
Peter Barnes.