In my earliest years of JFK inquiry I was totally focused on events in Dallas, with the evidence from the TSBD, the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting – the boxes, the rifle, the shells, the limo, all that sort of thing – and of course the Plaza witnesses. I prowled CompuServe, ordered all the back issues of the Assassination Chronicles, the Third and Fourth Decade, subscribed to PROBE. I even spent one Christmas holiday cutting apart the Groden and Trask photo collection books to piece my own sequential photo record of the motorcade. And of course, as mentioned in SWHT, I traveled to Texas and spent extended time with Anna Marie Kuhns Walko’s files and copy machine.
Now if Gerry McKnight had put out “Breach of Trust” earlier, I could have saved myself five or six years at all that but eventually it became clear even to me that the official investigation and the evidence entered into the record could lead you in circles forever. A decade or so later, work from the ARRB would make that even more clear – I mean if you question the autopsy Doctors, using official photos and X-rays, and after hours they still cannot show you the fatal wound that killed the President (and they jokingly say, gosh you – ARRB staff – have a real problem, hope you work it out) you have to wake up a bit. After all, the autopsy was performed while Oswald was still very much alive, and it was a legal autopsy – yet no wounds are marked on the photos or X-rays. Would the Jury have accepted the Doctors statements in a court of law, would it have appreciated Humes sense of humor, or would a good legal defense not have torn the autopsy to shreds. And if the autopsy goes, so goes a great deal of the case – plus I suspect a jury would really begin to question a lot of other things more closely.
So, after what seemed like a great while (and was the better part of a decade), I decided that the clean, structured approach of continuing to be involved with the official story and records was simply a matter of “entanglement”, there was plenty of evidence but it had largely been assembled to support the case against Oswald, the case showing him as a lone participant. Staying stuck in the Plaza, the TSBD, at Parkland or Bethesda was not going to bring me any sense of closure. So, if the doors on the house are locked, what do you do – well you start looking for open windows. It’s nice to go in the straight forward way, but if you can’t, you can’t.
If the observations and evidence from November 22, 1963 won’t take you to closure (although they most probably would have with a full and open ended criminal investigation starting that day) what are you going to do? It seemed like the only hope was to see if you could find a window into the actual conspiracy, someone who had known at least something about it and who talked to somebody. OK, fine, well it turned out a lot of folks had been talking and new ones seemed to appear yearly – people had talked to Garrison, people had talked to the media, people had even (Heaven forbid) talked to authors and shown up in books. And that started my people files, a huge amount of NARA document searching and the quest to wade through all those names.
Now anyone still reading is asking themselves, why is he boring us with all his wasted time. The answer is that folks have been asking me why I have two books out and what the difference is in the two. Cutting to the chase, “Someone Would Have Talked” contains my “bottoms up” effort to find and evaluate credible windows into the conspiracy (if you don’t see one of your favorite names in the book, say Fred Chrisman or James Files, it doesn’t mean they were not studied – enough said). It’s a bottoms up study of people, how they connect and what they can tell us about the attack in Dallas. It was published first as pretty much a huge spiral bound research document and grew into a real book over the years, especially when I got to the point of dealing with both the attack itself and the implications which led to the suppression of a full investigation.
But if SWHT was “bottoms up”, that still left the question of origin, how did the conspiracy start, who initiated it and how did it evolve down to the shooting in Dallas. After studiously avoiding that question for two or three years, even I had to admit there had been no closure. So, deciding that I had not gone nearly far enough out on the limb, I decided to start at the top and do a “tops down” study – if the actual tactical people identified in SWHT were involved, how did it happen? The result is in NEXUS. And that’s why there are two books and why I’m off into other subjects.
Which is perhaps more than anyone wanted to know, but if you were curious, now you do.