It’s been very educational for me, to have spent considerable time looking at all three major political assassinations of the 1960’s, and I eventually came to the conclusion that many of my first assumptions (made while starting with the JFK assassination) were unfortunately a bit naive.
For example, one of the things we find in studying each of the major political assassinations is that if you take a good luck at the “first day” evidence (which means the material not “sanitized” in final FBI and police reports) you always encounter “the others”, other individuals reported as being connected to the primary suspect – or things going on around the primary suspect suggesting he was in contact with other individuals and certainly not the “lone nut” that the prosecution and the media will eventually present to the public.
With James Earl Ray, we have the return of a rifle and the purchase of a more expensive one, with no viable explanation other than Ray’s own statement that he received orders to do so from someone else. We have ammunition recovered which cannot be traced to the any known source and which appears to have been “belted” military ammunition, not available at the gun store where he bought the rifle. We have Ray’s restaurant receipt for two people in Atlanta, with Ray being totally mum on whom the second person might have been.
With Sirhan Sirhan, we have virtually undeniable proof of individuals associating with Sirhan prior to the shooting – the story of the mysterious Polka Dot Dress Girl is true beyond a doubt and witnesses describe contacts between Sirhan, her and other young men going on for at least two to three weeks before the attack at the Ambassador. It is also beyond doubt at this point in time that more shots were fired than could be accounted for by the bullets in Sirhan’s pistol.
And in the JFK assassination, the references to unknown parties are even more definitive, beginning with Dallas FBI agent James Hosty’s remark to a Secret Service office about Oswald having been observed meeting with “subversives” and extending to FBI Director Hoover’s informing the newly seated President Johnson about Oswald having been impersonated in Mexico City.
Yet in each and every case, either the local police or the FBI or the CIA eventually managed to either obfuscate or simply suppress “the others”. In some cases their activities involved carefully worded lab reports or in the case of the LAPD, witness manipulation using polygraph interrogations (the tape transcripts of the interrogations in question are enough to make any readers blood boil). In the JFK case we now know that very senior FBI and Agency officers simply lied about issues such as destruction of tapes – and FBI Director himself would later note on a memo that the CIA had itself liked to the FBI about Oswald in Mexico City.
When I first began involved in researching the assassination of President Kennedy, I naively assumed that if one could isolate the “cover-up” it might offer some special insight into the conspiracy – I had no idea I was simply seeing “standard operating procedure.” In other words, “the others” always just seem to fade out of view as the official investigation wraps up, the final reports are written and in some cases the prosecution begins.