WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Rob Caprio]

The first dissenter of the Warren Commission (WC) was ironically someone who served on the Commission ? Senator Richard Russell. He would express thoughts and views that would be corroborated over the years, and they did NOT support the official conclusion.

Senator Russell was the most famous and successful politician from Georgia (later only eclipsed by President Jimmy Carter) in their state history.  He served for 10 years in the Georgia state house, was elected Governor and served as a U.S. Senator for Georgia for 38 years.

He did not want to serve on the WC. He told President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) that he "had no respect for Warren", but he was outfoxed by his old friend LBJ who had already announced it publicly so he had to serve. Russell often told people he was "conscripted on the Commission."

Russell would attend nearly all the executive sessions, but due to his Senate duties he was limited to attending only 6% of the Commission hearings where testimony was taken.  He made up for this by reading the transcripts, with help from an assistant, of the testimonies and other documents submitted to the Commission.

Russell would repeatedly voice suspicions that have been the source of debate for 54 years. He would say that the FBI had rushed to judgment in concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the lone assassin. He further stated that the FBI consequently was not thorough in investigating the assassination and appropriate in following up leads.  Since the WC was reliant on the FBI, CIA, SS and other government agencies due to no investigators on their staff, this is a major concern for anyone looking into their report.

Russell would get confirmation on his suspicions later on as in 1976 the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities (SCIA) would conduct an investigation into this matter and release a report. The focus of the report was, "the performance of intelligence agencies in conducting their investigation of the assassination and their relationships to the Warren Commission."  The report revealed that the Senate Committee "had developed evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission."

The report concluded that "both the CIA and the FBI failed in, or avoided carrying out, certain of their responsibilities in this matter.....The evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient and that facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided the Warren Commission...".

The Senate Committee also found, in regard to the FBI specifically, that "during the Warren Commission investigation top FBI officials were continually concerned with protecting the Bureau's reputation and avoiding any criticism for not fulfilling investigative responsibilities.... The Bureau issued its report on the basis of a narrow investigation focused on Oswald, without conducting a broad investigation of the assassination which would have revealed any conspiracy, foreign or domestic."

In 1979 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would weigh in on this topic as well after fully investigating the matter.  A final report said that the FBI (1) "performed with varying degrees of competency," (2) "failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President," and (3) "was deficient in its sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination."

Russell, while on the Commission, also repeatedly expressed doubts as to whether the CIA could be trusted to provide the Commission with the full, unexpurgated truth. As history as shown he has been vindicated in this matter as the CIA kept from the WC their plots with the mafia against Castro.  In 1976 the SCIA concluded that the CIA failed in, or avoided carrying out, certain of its responsibilities in investigating the assassination. And in 1979 the HSCA concluded that the CIA "was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination."  According to the 1979 report, "the CIA did not always respond to the Commission's broad request for all relevant material," and the responses the CIA did make were often tardy. They also failed to share the information they had on LHO prior to the assassination with the WC.

In a 1964 telephone conversation Russell had with LBJ concerning "[t]hat danged Warren Commission business", which was recorded for posterity, he resoundingly said that the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) was a bunch of malarkey.  In 1966 and 1970 Russell told the news media of his abiding dissatisfaction with the work of the Warren Commission.  Once again, Russell stands vindicated by history.

Many consider Edward Jay Epstein's "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (1966), to be the best single piece of work on the Commission and its internal workings. In his book he concluded that the Warren Commission, "sincerely convinced that the national interest would best be served by the termination of rumors, and predisposed by its make-up and by the pressure of time not to search more deeply, failed to answer some of the essential questions about the tragedy," and that the Warren Report "fails to contend with serious contradictions presented by the evidence."

In 1979 the HSCA concluded that (1) "the Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency," **(2) "the Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President," (3) the Warren Commission "presented its conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive," and **(4) the Warren Report "was not, in some respects, an accurate presentation of the evidence available to the Commission ...particularly on the issue of a possible conspiracy in the assassination."

The HSCA would further vindicate Russell in its final report by attributing the Warren Commission's failure to adequately investigate the possibility of conspiracy too, in part, "the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government [i.e., the FBI and the CIA]."

In a 1970 television interview Senator Russell said, "I have never believed that Oswald planned that altogether by himself.... have doubts that he planned it all by himself.  I think someone else worked with him."  Obviously most of the people of this country believe the same thing as only a small, die-hard group still believe LHO to be the sole assassin with no help from anyone else.  The final report of the HSCA in 1979 concluded that "there was a high probability that two gunmen were firing at the President" and that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

Senator Russell had much experience with the intelligence community as he was the chair of a Senate subcommittee on CIA oversight.  As Russell biographer Gilbert C. Fite has written, Russell might have "possessed secret information others did not have, [and] he may have had reason to suspect some kind of conspiracy.  Whatever he knew, if anything, he carried to the grave."

As mentioned earlier, Senator Russell adamantly opposed the SBT. Russell expressed his vehement disagreement with the SBT in a proposed dissenting statement dictated on September 16, 1964; he argued against the theory at the final meeting of the Commission on September 18, 1964 (although the doctored transcript of this meeting contains no reference to Russell's arguments), and then criticized the SBT again that very day in a telephone conversation with LBJ; and he emphatically rejected the theory in interviews with the press in 1966 and 1970. 

The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John  B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty.  I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film.  (Two other of the seven members of Commission shared Russell's doubts about the SBT; thus, nearly half the Commission questioned the theory.) These same reasons have been mentioned for 54 plus years in regards to why the SBT is not valid by researchers.

Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.

Overall though, he did far more than the other members as he labored to improve the quality of its investigation, to point out the bureaucratic pitfalls besetting the Commission, and to preserve its integrity. If the rest of the Commission had done the same to get to the truth no matter what, the strange and inexplicable investigative lapses of the FBI and the CIA, the WC's performance would certainly have been vastly improved, and the Warren Report would have been a different, more persuasive document.

Sadly, he was only one man and he could only do so much, but his public comments and remarks pointed us in the right direction many years ago.

[Andrew Mason]

Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.

That is not a "fact".  The demise of the SBT is only a problem for the LN conclusion if there were two shots before about z240.  The shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses (40+) who reported an observation on the shot spacings was 1......2...3 with the last two shots in "rapid succession".  If that was the pattern, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3.  The midpoint is well after z240 regardless of where you put the first shot.

[Rob Caprio]

That is not a "fact".  The demise of the SBT is only a problem for the LN conclusion if there were two shots before about z240.  The shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses (40+) who reported an observation on the shot spacings was 1......2...3 with the last two shots in "rapid succession".  If that was the pattern, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3.  The midpoint is well after z240 regardless of where you put the first shot.

Of course it isn't a fact as it never happened. There was a conspiracy and the fact that two bullets couldn't cause all the wounds to JFK and JBC proves it.

[Andrew Mason]

Of course it isn't a fact as it never happened. There was a conspiracy and the fact that two bullets couldn't cause all the wounds to JFK and JBC proves it.

The "fact" that I was referring to was your statement: " He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved. [/quote]My point was that this is not a "fact, for the reasons given.

[Rob Caprio]

The "fact" that I was referring to was your statement: " He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved. My point was that this is not a "fact, for the reasons given.

Baloney. If a shot missed and one bullet didn't strike both JFK and JBC, how do you account for all the wounds without an additional shooter?

[Andrew Mason]

Baloney. If a shot missed and one bullet didn't strike both JFK and JBC, how do you account for all the wounds without an additional shooter?

According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed.

[Oscar Navarro]

According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed.

There is no evidence that shows what is claimed above. But there is evidence that shot #2 hit both JFK and JBC mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm
and mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm


There's also evidence the first shot was fired at around frame 160 verified by the Zapruder film. There's JBC testimony that he turned around when he heard the first shot, Rosemary Willis that she stopped running when she heard the first shot, BWFrazier that he heard the first shot when the presidential limo had just passed him, Barbara Rowland, Royce Skelton and Geneva Hines "as they (the car) turned the corner", Will Greer when the car "was almost past this building (the TSBD).", Paul Landis after the President's car "car had completed [it's] turn."  Case Closed pages 319-21