by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished.
Photographs, evidence and a?davits have been doctored out of recognition.
Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald have
been completely blacked out. Meanwhile the ???, the police and the Secret
Service have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence to
give. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 674It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the Warren
Commission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before the
publication of the Warren Commission’s report, leaks to the press have made
much of its contents predictable. Because of the high o?ce of its members
and the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission has
been widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce the
Truth. An impartial examination of the composition and conduct of the
Commission suggests quite otherwise.
The Warren Commission has been utterly unrepresentative of the American
people. It consisted of two Democrats, Senator Russell of Georgia and Con-
gressman Boggs of Louisiana, both of whose racist views have brought shame
on the United States; two Republicans, Senator Cooper of Kentucky and Con-
gressman Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the latter of whom is leader of his local
Goldwater movement, a former member of the ??? and is known in Washing-
ton as the spokesman for that institution; Allen Dulles, former director of the
???; and Mr McCloy, who has been referred to as the spokesman for the
business community. Leadership of the ?libuster in the Senate against the
Civil Rights Bill prevented Senator Russell attending a single hearing during
this period. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl War-
ren, who rightly commands respect, was ?nally persuaded, much against his
will, to preside over the Commission, and it was his involvement above all
else that helped lend the Commission an aura of legality and authority. Yet
many of its members were also members of those very groups which have
done so much to distort and suppress the facts about the assassination.
Because of their connection with the Government, not one member would have
been permitted under American law to serve on a jury had Oswald faced trial.
It is small wonder that the Chief Justice himself remarked: ‘You may never
know all of the facts in your life time.’ Here, then, is my ?rst question: Why
were all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the ?? Government.
If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct con?rmed
one’s worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that cross-
examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointed
the President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of the
leaders of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. To
my knowledge he did not attend a single hearing, but satis?ed himself
with representation by observers. In the name of national security, the
Commission’s hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policy
which has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my second
question: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?
Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in France
during the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all
its enquiries in the strictest secrecy?
the foundation 675At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it
would conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do on
November 22, 1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What did
Oswald do in the ?? Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How did
Ruby kill Oswald? (5) What is Ruby’s background? (6) What e?orts were
taken to protect the President on November 22? This raises my fourth ques-
tion: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who
killed President Kennedy?
All the evidence given to the Commission has been classi?ed ‘Top Secret’,
including even a request that hearings be held in public. Despite this the
Commission itself leaked much of the evidence to the press, though only if
the evidence tended to prove Oswald was the lone assassin. Thus Chief Justice
Warren held a press conference after Oswald’s wife Marina, had testi?ed, he
said, that she believed her husband was the assassin. Before Oswald’s brother
Robert, testi?ed, he gained the Commission’s agreement never to comment
on what he said. After he had testi?ed for two days, Allen Dulles remained in
the hearing room and several members of the press entered. The next day the
newspapers were full of stories that ‘a member of the Commission’ had told
the press that Robert Oswald had just testi?ed that he believed that his
brother was an agent of the Soviet Union. Robert Oswald was outraged by
this, and said that he could not remain silent while lies were told about his
testimony. He had never said this and he had never believed it. All that he had
told the Commission was that he believed his brother was in no way involved
in the assassination.
The methods adopted by the Commission have indeed been deplorable,
but it is important to challenge the entire role of the Warren Commission. It
stated that it would not conduct its own investigation, but rely instead on the
existing governmental agencies – the ???, the Secret Service and the Dallas
police. Con?dence in the Warren Commission thus presupposes con?dence
in these three institutions. Why have so many liberals abandoned their own responsibility
to a Commission whose circumstances they refuse to examine?
It is known that the strictest and most elaborate security precautions
ever taken for a President of the United States were ordered for November
22 in Dallas. The city had a reputation for violence and was the home
of some of the most extreme right-wing fanatics in America. Mr and
Mrs Lyndon Johnson had been assailed there in 1960 when he was a can-
didate for the Vice-Presidency. Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked
when he spoke in the city only a month before Kennedy’s visit. On the
morning of November 22, the Dallas Morning News carried a full-page adver-
tisement associating the President with communism. The city was covered
with posters showing the President’s picture and headed ‘Wanted for Trea-
son’. The Dallas list of subversives comprised 23 names, of which Oswald’s
the autobiography of bertrand russell 676was the ?rst. All of them were followed that day, except Oswald. Why did the
authorities follow as potential assassins every single person who had ever spoken out publicly in
favour of desegregation of the public school system in Dallas, and fail to observe Oswald’s entry
into the book depository building while allegedly carrying a ri?e over four feet long?
The President’s route for his drive through Dallas was widely known and
was printed in the Dallas Morning News on November 22. At the last minute the
Secret Service changed a small part of their plans so that the President left
Main Street and turned into Houston and Elm Streets. This alteration took the
President past the book depository building from which it is alleged that
Oswald shot him. How Oswald is supposed to have known of this change has
never been explained. Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him
past Oswald’s place of work?
After the assassination and Oswald’s arrest, judgement was pronounced
swiftly: Oswald was the assassin, and he had acted alone. No attempt was
made to arrest others, no road blocks were set up round the area, and every
piece of evidence which tended to incriminate Oswald was announced to
the press by the Dallas District Attorney, Mr Wade. In such a way millions of
people were prejudiced against Oswald before there was any opportunity for
him to be brought to trial. The ?rst theory announced by the authorities
was that the President’s car was in Houston Street, approaching the book
depository building, when Oswald opened ?re. When available photographs
and eye-witnesses had shown this to be quite untrue, the theory was aban-
doned and a new one formulated which placed the vehicle in its correct
position.
Meanwhile, however, ?? Wade had announced that three days after
Oswald’s room in Dallas had been searched, a map had been found there on
which the book depository building had been circled and dotted lines drawn
from the building to a vehicle on Houston Street. After the ?rst theory was
proved false, the Associated Press put out the following story on November
27: ‘Dallas authorities announced today that there never was a map. Any
reference to the map was a mistake.’
The second theory correctly placed the President’s car on Elm Street, 50 to
75 yards past the book depository, but had to contend with the di?culty that
the President was shot from the front, in the throat. How did Oswald manage
to shoot the President in the front from behind? The ??? held a series of
background brie?ng sessions for Life magazine, which in its issue of Decem-
ber 6 explained that the President had turned completely round just at the
time he was shot. This, too, was soon shown to be entirely false. It was denied
by several witnesses and ?lms, and the previous issue of Life itself had shown
the President looking forward as he was hit. Theory number two was
abandoned.
In order to retain the basis of all o?cial thinking, that Oswald was the
the foundation 677lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with the
medical evidence altered to ?t it. For the ?rst month no Secret Service agent
had ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedy’s life in
the Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with the
doctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrance
wound in the President’s throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet had
not ranged down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could have
been so mistaken, Dr McClelland advanced two reasons: they had not seen the
autopsy report – and they had not known that Oswald was behind the Presi-
dent! The autopsy report, they had been told by the Secret Service, showed
that Kennedy had been shot from behind. The agents, however, had refused to
show the report to the doctors, who were entirely dependent upon the word
of the Secret Service for this suggestion. The doctors made it clear that they
were not permitted to discuss the case. The third theory, with the medical
evidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case against Oswald. Why has the
medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?
Although Oswald is alleged to have shot the President from behind, there
are many witnesses who are con?dent that the shots came from the front.
Among them are two reporters from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, four from
the Dallas Morning News, and two people who were standing in front of the
book depository building itself, the director of the book depository and the
vice-president of the ?rm. It appears that only two people immediately
entered the building, the director, Mr Roy S. Truly, and a Dallas police o?cer,
Seymour Weitzman. Both thought that the shots had come from in front of
the President’s vehicle. On ?rst running in that direction, Weitzman was
informed by ‘someone’ that he thought the shots had come from the build-
ing, so he rushed back there. Truly entered with him in order to assist with
his knowledge of the building. Mr Jesse Curry, however, the Chief of Police in
Dallas, has stated that he was immediately convinced that the shots came
from the building. If anyone else believes this, he has been reluctant to say so
to date. It is also known that the ?rst bulletin to go out on Dallas police radios
stated that ‘the shots came from a triple overpass in front of the presidential
automobile’. In addition, there is the consideration that after the ?rst shot the
vehicle was brought almost to a halt by the trained Secret Service driver, an
unlikely response if the shots had indeed come from behind. Certainly Mr
Roy Kellerman, who was in charge of the Secret Service operation in Dallas
that day, and travelled in the presidential car, looked to the front as the shots
were ?red. The Secret Service have removed all the evidence from the car, so it
is no longer possible to examine the broken windscreen. What is the evidence to
substantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?
Photographs taken at the scene of the crime could be most helpful. One
young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were
the autobiography of bertrand russell 678?red took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting,
and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book deposi-
tory building. Two ??? agents immediately took the ?lm from her and have
refused to this day to permit her to see the photographs which she took. Why
has the ??? refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?
In this connection it is noteworthy also that it is impossible to obtain the
originals of photographs of the various alleged murder weapons. When Time
magazine published a photograph of Oswald’s arrest – the only one ever seen –
the entire background was blacked out for reasons which have never been
explained. It is di?cult to recall an occasion for so much falsi?cation of
photographs as has happened in the Oswald case.
The a?davit by police o?cer Weitzman, who entered the book depository
building, stated that he found the alleged murder ri?e on the sixth ?oor.
(It was at ?rst announced that the ri?e had been found on the ?fth ?oor, but
this was soon altered.) It was a German 7.65mm. Mauser. Later the following
day, the ??? issued its ?rst proclamation. Oswald had purchased in March
1963 an Italian 6.5mm. carbine. ?? Wade immediately altered the nationality
and size of his weapon to conform to the ??? statement.
Several photographs have been published of the alleged murder weapon.
On February 21, Life magazine carried on its cover a picture of ‘Lee Oswald
with the weapon he used to kill President Kennedy and O?cer Tippett’. On
page 80, Life explained that the photograph was taken during March or April
of 1963. According to the ???, Oswald purchased his pistol in September 1963.
The New York Times carried a picture of the alleged murder weapon being taken
by police into the Dallas police station. The ri?e is quite di?erent. Experts
have stated that it would be impossible to pull the trigger on the ri?e in Life’s
picture. The New York Times also carried the same photograph as Life, but left
out the telescopic sights. On March 2, Newsweek used the same photograph but
painted in an entirely new ri?e. Then on April 13, the Latin American edition
of Life carried the same picture on its cover as the ?? edition had on February
21, but in the same issue on page 18 it had the same picture with the ri?e
altered. How is it that millions of people have been misled by complete forgeries in the press?
Another falsehood concerning the shooting was a story circulated by the
Associated Press on November 23 from Los Angeles. This reported Oswald’s
former superior o?cer in the Marine Corps as saying that Oswald was a crack
shot and a hot-head. The story was published everywhere. Three hours later
?? sent out a correction deleting the entire story from Los Angeles. The
o?cer had checked his records and it had turned out that he was talking
about another man. He had never known Oswald. To my knowledge this
correction has yet to be published by a single major publication.
The Dallas police took a para?n test of Oswald’s face and hands to try to
establish that he had ?red a weapon on November 22. The Chief of the Dallas
the foundation 679Police, Jesse Curry, announced on November 23 that the results of the test
‘proves Oswald is the assassin’. The Director of the ??? in the Dallas–Fort
Worth area in charge of the investigation stated: ‘I have seen the para?n test.
The para?n test proves that Oswald had nitrates and gun-powder on his
hands and face. It proves he ?red a ri?e on November 22.’ Not only does this
unreliable test not prove any such thing, it was later discovered that the test
on Oswald’s face was in fact negative, suggesting that it was unlikely he ?red
a ri?e that day. Why was the result of the para?n test altered before being announced by the
authorities?
Oswald, it will be recalled was originally arrested and charged with the
murder of Patrolman Tippett. Tippett was killed at 1.06 p.m. on November
22 by a man who ?rst engaged him in conversation, then caused him to get
out of the stationary police car in which he was sitting and shot him with a
pistol. Miss Helen L. Markham, who states that she is the sole eye-witness to
this crime, gave the Dallas police a description of the assailant. After signing
her a?davit, she was instructed by the ???, the Secret Service and many police
o?cers that she was not permitted to discuss the case with anyone. The
a?davit’s only description of the killer was that he was a ‘young white man’.
Miss Markham later revealed that the killer had run right up to her and past
her, brandishing the pistol, and she repeated the description of the murderer
which she had given to the police. He was, she said, ‘short, heavy and had
bushy hair’. (The police description of Oswald was that he was of average
height, or a little taller, was slim and had receding fair hair.) Miss Markham’s
a?davit is the entire case against Oswald for the murder of Patrolman Tippett,
yet District Attorney Wade asserted: ‘We have more evidence to prove Oswald
killed Tippett than we have to show he killed the President.’ The case against
Oswald for the murder of Tippett, he continued, was an absolutely strong
case. Why was the only description of Tippett’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from the
a?davit of the sole eye-witness?
Oswald’s description was broadcast by the Dallas police only 12 minutes
after the President was shot. This raises one of the most extraordinary ques-
tions ever posed in a murder case: Why was Oswald’s description in connection with the
murder of Patrolman Tippett broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12.43 p.m. on November 22,
when Tippett was not shot until 1.06 p.m.?
According to Mr Bob Considine, writing in the New York Journal American,
there had been another person who had heard the shots that were ?red at
Tippett. Warren Reynolds had heard shooting in the street from a nearby
room and had rushed to the window to see the murderer run o?. Reynolds
himself was later shot through the head by a ri?eman. A man was arrested for
this crime but produced an alibi. His girl-friend, Betty Mooney McDonald,
told the police she had been with him at the time Reynolds was shot. The
Dallas police immediately dropped the charges against him, even before
the autobiography of bertrand russell 680Reynolds had time to recover consciousness and attempt to identify his
assailant. The man at once disappeared, and two days later the Dallas police
arrested Betty Mooney McDonald on a minor charge and it was announced
that she had hanged herself in the police cell. She had been a striptease artist
in Jack Ruby’s nightclub, according to Mr Considine.
Another witness to receive extraordinary treatment in the Oswald case was
his wife, Marina. She was taken to the jail while her husband was still alive
and shown a ri?e by Chief of Police Jesse Curry. Asked if it was Oswald’s, she
replied that she believed Oswald had a ri?e but that it didn’t look like that.
She and her mother-in-law were in great danger following the assassination
because of the threat of public revenge on them. At this time they were
unable to obtain a single police o?cer to protect them. Immediately Oswald
was killed, however, the Secret Service illegally held both women against their
will. After three days they were separated and Marina has never again been
accessible to the public. Held in custody for nine weeks and questioned
almost daily by the ??? and Secret Service, she ?nally testi?ed to the Warren
Commission and, according to Earl Warren, said that she believed her hus-
band was the assassin. The Chief Justice added that the next day they intended
to show Mrs Oswald the murder weapon and the Commission was fairly
con?dent that she would identify it as her husband’s. The following day
Earl Warren announced that this had indeed happened. Mrs Oswald is still
in the custody of the Secret Service. To isolate a witness for nine weeks and
to subject her to repeated questioning by the Secret Service in this manner
is reminiscent of police behaviour in other countries, where it is called brain-
washing. How was it possible for Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s evidence would
be exactly the reverse of what she had previously believed?
After Ruby had killed Oswald, ?? Wade made a statement about Oswald’s
movements following the assassination. He explained that Oswald had taken
a bus, but he described the point at which Oswald had entered the vehicle as
seven blocks away from the point located by the bus driver in his a?davit.
Oswald, Wade continued, then took a taxi driven by a Darryll Click, who had
signed an a?davit. An enquiry at the City Transportation Company revealed
that no such taxi driver had ever existed in Dallas. Presented with this evidence,
Wade altered the driver’s name to William Wahley. Wade has been ?? in
Dallas for 14 years and before that was an ??? agent. How does a District Attorney of
Wade’s great experience account for all the extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony which
he has announced during the Oswald case?
These are only a few of the questions raised by the o?cial versions of the
assassination and by the way in which the entire case against Oswald has been
conducted. Sixteen questions are no substitute for a full examination of all
the factors in this case, but I hope that they indicate the importance of such an
investigation. I am indebted to Mr Mark Lane, the New York criminal Lawyer
the foundation 681who was appointed Counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the
information in this article. Mr Lane’s enquiries, which are continuing,
deserve widespread support. A Citizens’ Committee of Inquiry has been
established in New York3
for such a purpose, and comparable committees are
being set up in Europe.
In Britain I invited people eminent in the intellectual life of the country to
join a ‘Who killed Kennedy Committee’, which at the moment of writing
consists of the following people: Mr John Arden, playwright; Mrs Carolyn
Wedgwood Benn, from Cincinnati, wife of Anthony Wedgwood Benn, ??;
Lord Boyd-Orr, former director-general of the ?? Food and Agricultural
Organisation and a Nobel Peace Prize winner; Mr John Calder, publisher;
Professor William Empsom, Professor of English Literature at She?eld Uni-
versity; Mr Michael Foot, Member of Parliament; Mr Kingsley Martin, former
editor of the New Statesman; Sir Compton Mackenzie, writer; Mr J. B. Priestley,
playwright and author; Sir Herbert Read, art critic; Mr Tony Richardson,
?lm director; Dr Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark; Professor Hugh
Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University;
Mr Kenneth Tynan, Literary Manager of the National Theatre; and myself.
We view the problem with the utmost seriousness. ?? Embassies have long
ago reported to Washington world-wide disbelief in the o?cial charges
against Oswald, but this has never been re?ected by the American press. No
?? television programme or mass circulation newspaper has challenged the
permanent basis of all the allegations – that Oswald was the assassin, and that
he acted alone. It is a task which is left to the American people.
??? ?????? ?????’? ??????? ??????
A speech delivered at the London School of Economics on 15th February,
1965, by Bertrand Russell
Before his speech, which begins below, Lord Russell made this emergency
statement on the situation in Vietnam:
‘The world is on the brink of war as it was at the time of the Cuban Crisis.
American attacks on North Vietnam are desperate acts of piratical madness.
The people of South Vietnam want neutrality and independence for their
country. America, in the course of a war of pure domination in the South,
attacked a sovereign state in the North because the ?? has been defeated by
the resistance of the entire population in South Vietnam.
We must demand the recall of the Geneva Conference for immediate nego-
tiations. I urge world protest at every ?? Embassy. And in Britain the craven
and odious support for American madness by the Labour Government must
be attacked by meetings, marches, demonstrations and all other forms of
protest.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 682If this aggressive war is not ended now, the world will face total war. The
issue must be resolved without a nuclear war. This is only possible by world
outcry now against the United States. The American proposition that an
independent Vietnam free of ?? control is worse than a nuclear war is
madness. If America is allowed to have its cruel way, the world will be the
slave of the United States.
Once more America summons mankind to the brink of world war.
Once more America is willing to run the risk of destroying the human race
rather than bow to the general will.
Either America is stopped now or there will be crisis after crisis until, in
utter weariness, the world decides for suicide.’
My purpose in what I am about to say is to examine the relations between
the foreign policy of the Labour Party before the General Election and the
policy of the Labour Government in regard to international politics. I should
like to recall to you, ?rst, the preamble to that section – almost the last – in
the Labour Manifesto of last September, entitled ‘New Prospects for Peace’.
I take it from The Times of September 12th.
It begins with a very brief history of East–West relations since 1945 and
says that even in ‘the grimmest periods . . . Labour always regarded the Cold
War strategies as second best . . . and remained faithful to its long-term belief
in the establishment of East–West co-operation as the basis for a strengthened
United Nations developing towards World Government.’
It castigates the Tory Government for their old-fashioned policies, espe-
cially the Tory failure to relax tensions and to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons. ‘The Labour Government will do all that is possible to rectify these
policies.’
The Manifesto then considers the means to be taken to ‘relax tensions’.
‘First and foremost’, it says, ‘will come our initiative in the ?eld of disarma-
ment. We are convinced that the time is opportune for a new breakthrough
in the disarmament negotiations, releasing scarce resources and manpower
desperately needed to raise living standards throughout the world.’
‘We shall appoint a Minister in the Foreign O?ce with special responsibil-
ity for disarmament to take a new initiative in the Disarmament Committee
in association with our friends and allies.’
‘We have’, it says, ‘put forward constructive proposals:
(1) To stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
(2) To establish nuclear-free zones in Africa, Latin America and Central
Europe.
(3) To achieve controlled reductions in manpower and arms.
the foundation 683(4) To stop the private sale of arms.
(5) To establish an International Disarmament Agency to supervise a dis-
armament treaty.’
The Labour Government has, to be sure, appointed a Minister in the
Foreign O?ce with special responsibility for disarmament and even an arms
control and disarmament research unit headed by a reader in international
relations at the ???. It has, indeed, appointed so many new Ministers and
departments for various phases of disarmament and defence and o?ence that
one is hard put to it to know to whom to apply for what.
As to the ?ve proposals. Nothing, so far as the Press has told us, has been
done about implementing any of them. Far from taking measures to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons, the Labour Government has done quite
the opposite. Nor has it taken measures to achieve controlled reductions in
manpower and arms – it has turned down any suggestion of reducing the
British Army in Germany. Little seems to have come out of the propositions
of Mr Rapacki concerning a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. Chinese
proposals – pleas, even – for a nuclear-free zone in Asia and/or the
Paci?c have been passed over in apparent scorn. I know of no measures taken
to stop the private sale of arms or to establish an International Disarmament
Agency.
