"The JFK Murder - Criminal Conspiracy or Willful Misconduct?"
by Vincent M. Palamara
For nearly thirty years now, many authors and researchers have toiled with
the question of who killed President John F. Kennedy. There are three basic
reasons why this question still remains unsatisfactorily resolved for most:
1. Oswald's guilt cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. While conspiracy can not be demonstrated to a reasonable legal cert-
ainty, there are too many facts, factoids, and theoretical suppositions
to "sweep under the rug" of history.
3. The problem of consensual agreement.
Point number one needs no pontification; the reader can peruse several books
in his/her own neighborhood library to see this clearly. Point number
two may shock some researchers - this author feels strongly that no one
has yet made a viable criminal case of conspiracy suitable for the legal
arena (Mark Lane's court case not withstanding). This is not to say that
great inroads have not been made in our overall knowledge of the case,
and in our understanding of the matrix of underlying reactionary forces
underpinning many aspects of the case (i.e. Hoover's FBI, the CIA/mafia plots
to kill Castro, Oswald's bizarre life). Current "history" and telephone
surveys aside, conspiracy is not an historical fact in the eyes of the
legal community to which the ultimate verdict must rest if we are to have
justice in this case. However, because the average citizen believes
there was indeed a conspiracy, and the U. S. government dissents, many
researchers have become bogged down in the minutia of Dealey Plaza proving
and reproving their own individual claims in a morbid "rubiks cube"-like
pursuit of the "truth", spinning their wheels in the hopes of...well...
exactly what is the intent? News polls, literary royalties, and box office
returns for "JFK" demonstrate that the people are on their side - they don't
need any more convincing! Does the research community need any more proof of
its own conclusions? Alas, herein lies the dilemma - the U. S. government
will only turn away at the notion of conspircy (unless "new evidence" comes
forward - what, like Roscoe White and Tom Wilson's as-yet-unproven-and-probably-
unprovable photo "discoveries"?)
It is to this official roadblock that the research community toils in a
cottage industry of conspiracy conventions, books, and articles, knowing
in their heart of hearts that a legal case for conspiracy cannot (at the
present time) be made.
Point number three is the self-induced roadblock that the critical community
imposes upon themselves -- a lack of consensual agreement. The mafia killed
JFK...the CIA murdered Kennedy...the Russians did it...Hoover..."you're right,
I'm wrong"... The research community is an adept group of professional,
serious, and respectable men and women who all possess a high proficiency at
brilliant (and sometimes, not-so-brilliant) counter-arguments for virtually
any and all subjects and theories even remotely related to the JFK
murder. This point/ counterpoint tendency is a cancer in the community -
as Reverend Jesse Jackson said, this is the "paralysis of analysis."
Think about all of this - the general public, while feeling and/or believing
in a conspiracy, lives in a country that does not acknowledge conspiracy as
a legal, historical fact (irony number one) and the publics reactions is...
indifference. Why? Because of the research community (irony number two)!
With so many jumbled facts, factoids, suppositions, and theories, and so many
different books, articles, and television programs announcing the "final solution"
to the "crime of the century", is it any wonder what the ultimate result of this
lack of consensual agreement is?
A typical average citizen: "I believe there was a conspiracy, but the government
says that Oswald did it. These researchers tell us it could be anybody from the
mafia to a demented limousine driver, so...how about that Dallas Cowboys game?"
(irony number three)
So, where does this leave the research community (who I have no doubt offended --
hey, nothing personal -- I'm a member)? Now that thirty years have passed, and
two government investigations have left us unsatisfied, it is time for a new approach
-- While a legal case for criminal conspiracy is (presently) unattainable, a strong
case for willful misconduct can be made!
Let the government have their Oswald-did-it fairy tale, let's get to work (I certainly
have). Forget Hoover's FBI (with J. Edgar long dead and a monstrous bureaucracy),
forget the CIA (if you don't believe their lies, would you dare believe their truths),
forget the Mafia (Oswald's uncle and some hearsay notwithstanding)...the Secret
Service were ultimately responsible for JFK (in life and in death). Look at the
following list for confirmation of the need to approach this case from a fresh
angle -- the notion of a case for criminal negligence (a.k.a. willful misconduct):
1. The planning of JFK's trip to Dallas was a Secret Service task. More to
the point, contrary to "official" history, the Secret Service was responsible
for both the publication and the hazardous change of the motorcade route
(11/18 - 11/19/63).
2. The bubbletop's removal was a Secret Service decision.
3. The removal of agents from JFK's limousine was a Secret Service decision.
4. The Secret Service knew about several mortal threats to JFK's life made
merely days before Dallas (Hoover did relay some threats after all).
5. The Secret Service altered the Dallas Police Department's motorcycle
deployment plans specifically for 11/22/63.
6. The Secret Service altered the Dallas Police Department's plan to have
a squad car in close proximity to the JFK limousine.
7. The SAIC of the Secret Service follow-up car ordered the men not to move
during the shooting, even recalling one of his agents who began to disobey him.
8. The Secret Service covered-up the drinking incident of 11/21 - 11/22/63.
9. The Secret Service stole the body of JFK away from both the Dallas doctors and
the U. S. Army in Washington on 11/22/63.
10. The Secret Service altered the JFK limousine.
11. The Secret Service altered the testimony of the Dallas doctor's statements about
the frontal entrance wounds.
12. A few Secret Service agents were suspiciously absent from the Texas tour.
13. The Secret Service is responsible for the premature approval of the Trade
Mart as JFK's destination on 11/22/63.
14. The Secret Service, despite at least three known checks, could find not one
threat to JFK in Texas, an impossibility.
15. The Secret Service had primary knowledge of JFK's personal and private life.
16. The Secret Service is responsible for the alteration of the motorcade in regards
to the original, numerical order of vehicles.
17. Secret Service agents of mysterious repute were identified in Dealey Plaza on
11/22/63 apart from those officially known to exist.
18. The slow turn onto Elm Street - and the 90o and 130o turns - were violations
of strict Secret Service regulations.
19. The Secret Service was responsible for LBJ taking over Air Force One after
the murder of JFK.
20. Chief Rowley of the Secret Service admitted to unnamed studies conducted in the
month of November in the year 1963.
21. The Secret Service agent who officially had possession of the "magic bullet"
(CE 399) does not now remember having possession of it.
This is only a partial listing. While the author intends to outline all the documentation
for these (and many more) points in his book "The Third Alternative - Survivor's Guilt -
The Secret Service and the JFK Murder," it is best for the research community to take
heed - stop looking for ghosts that may (or may not) be on the grassy knoll - a legal
case can be made for criminal negligence and willful misconduct in the case of the
Secret Service and their respective role in the tragedy of 11/22/63 and the assas-
sination of President John F. Kennedy. You can look skeptically at this article as a
shameless plug for my forthcoming book - that is your prerogative. But take a long
hard look at the thirty year enigma that has been played out in Dealey Plaza; it's your
turn to decide if you want to still play the game or do what I have decided to do - forfeit
my turn for others.