When the House of Representatives finally voted to authorize a new investigation into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. (but not, for some reason, Robert F. Kennedy), I was very excited. Surely, I thought, my liberal heroes in the Democratic party would be certain to leave no stone unturned in their search for the truth about these pivotal events in our recent history.
Early on, amid steady media references to the cost of the investigation (like these reporters are ever worried over the enormous size and cost of government), a rather incomprehensible feud developed between Rep. Henry Gonzalez, who'd been one of the loudest supporters of a new investigation in the House, and Richard Sprague, the noted prosecutor who'd been tabbed as chief counsel for the House Assassinations Committee (HSCA). Those of us who'd witnessed the similarly inexplicable infighting between intrepid critics like Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and the split over the Jim Garrision investigation, were all too familiar with this kind of power struggle and battle of egos, stoked perhaps by an unseen hand that stood to gain tremendously in the process. Anyone who participates on JFK assassination internet forums to this day, knows how common nasty, personalized arguments are between individuals who agree that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. These deep rifts seemingly ensure that no peace can ever be reached between many of the most high profile members of the critical community.
When G. Robert Blakey replaced Sprague as HSCA chief counsel, the fix was in. Under Blakey's stewardship, the committee signed an odious secrecy agreement with the CIA, which Sprague had rightly refused to do. They also supported every untenable conclusion of the Warren Commission, even the long discredited single bullet theory. I watched the few televised hearings with stunned disbelief. There was such a clear agenda; every single member of the Committee, including all my beloved Democrats, revealed their support for the impossible official fairy tale with a transparency that was obvious to those of us who knew the subject matter. Even with their belated "probable conspiracy" finding, due to the last minute inclusion of the acoustics tape evidence, the whole congressional "investigation" was terribly disillusioning.
In the aftermath of the HSCA fiasco, I still kept connected to the research community through a subscription to Penn Jones' excellent monthly newsletter The Continuing Inquiry. They were even nice enough to publish an article I wrote, in January 1983, entitled "Who Really Killed JFK?" In the article, I argued for a larger conspiracy, involving very powerful forces, and expressed skepticism over the popular view that right-wing extremist groups like the John Birch Society or the Minutemen, in conjunction with anti-Castro groups and "renegade"elements of the CIA, had been behind the assassination. Although Penn could often go overboard with scattershot predictions that rarely came true, and didn't painstakingly research every tip he got before publishing it, he was responsible for unearthing a lot of tremendously important information over the years. Jack White and Gary Shaw edited TCI, and Gary Mack (back when he was a true believer in conspiracy) wrote a lot of pieces as well. It's interesting to think about where these three are, some twenty five years later: Jack is the scourge of official skeptics everywhere, with a strong presence on internet forums; Shaw has opted to withdraw from the critical community, which is a huge loss for everyone; Mack has a highly visible position with the Sixth Floor Museum, and appears regularly on t.v. documentaries that promote the lone assassin nonsense. Even Penn Jones himself retired from research in the final years of his life, fatigued with years of effort that had made little inroads against the monstrous official lie. I can certainly understand how Jones felt, and how Gary Shaw feels now; when I read some of the more childish threads on an assassination forum, or watch yet another dishonest t.v. production, I often question why I still care about this issue. After the especially distorted ABC 40th anniversary special, hosted by Peter Jennings, even my sister told me I'd been wrong about there being a conspiracy. Years of my lectures on the subject were blasted out of her mind with one fell swoop by the soothing voice of a trusted talking head; mass media is more powerful than blood, I suppose.
I read David Lifton's Best Evidence with great interest in the early 1980s. I thought his body- alteration theory was compelling, but ultimately not something that would convince the public at large, let alone "respectable" historians and establishment reporters. Of course, with the way the mainstream press has ignored real information while swallowing the official lies about this case without the least bit of curiosity, it is doubtful that anything would convince them. I found his reliance on ex-Warren Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler disquieting, as his performance with the Commission had hardly been honorable and trustworthy. I believe Lifton produced some invaluable research, and think there's definitely something there, but ultimately I have to reject his particular interpretation of that research, much as I deeply respect John Armstrong's pioneering "Harvey and Lee" work, but dismiss the theory he formulates out of it all.
When the 20th anniversary of the JFK assassination arrived, television aired many programs devoted to the subject, but as always they adhered to the lone assassin myth. A few years later, in 1986, the Showtime network aired the program "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald," using real witnesses like Ruth Paine, Harold Norman and Buell Wesley Frazier. The show was a real farce, with the verdict a preordained certainty. Defense attorney Garry Spence (who would go on to talking head fame over the next decade or so) did an absymal job of "defending" Oswald. His knowledge of the case was so limited that he referred to Officer J.D. Tippit as "Tibbits." By the end of the decade, Marina Oswald, whose inconsistent and maddening testimony had helped to convict her husband in the public eye, was publicly proclaiming a belief in conspiracy. So was journalist Jack Anderson, who had helped to smear the original band of critics.
To be continued....
No comments:
Post a Comment