Found this at an estate sale. This is a First Edition published by the New York Times. Very interesting reading. ( )

A long technical report that by the end of the 800 pages hasn't said anything. An obfuscation or coverup. ( )

WHERE'S THE REST OF IT?

I'd like to say I read it all, but it's listed as containing 888 pages, yet my book only contains 366 pages, comprising 208 pages of text, plus another 158 pages of Appendices. Where are the other 522 pages? They've been classified and sealed from the public.

So the official record available to the public only represents about 40% of the investigating committee's findings.

I will admit that I couldn't really read the 366 pages available to me, as so much of it is in the dry formal prose you'd expect from an offical report. Moreover, large tracts of it dwell on aspects of the investigation which do not seem very interesting to me... police procedures about how Oswald was interrogated, what his finances were, a bit about his politics and the fact that he had lived at one point in the Soviet Union, etc.

I will be up front about my intentions reading this. I happen to believe E Howard Hunt's confession to the JFK assassination, in which he alleges he was part of a CIA hit team. I want to know if there is anything in the Warren Report which convincingly disproves this.

The areas of interest in the main body of the report, which I gave special attention to included:

Chapter VI: INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE CONSPIRACIES (pp.99-160)

This section includes testimony that in 1962, Oswald had told a steongrapher, Pauline Bates, that he was an agent now in the employ of the U.S. government. There is no substantial investigation into this possibility, other than to note that Director John A. McCone and Deputy Director Richard Helms of the Central Intelligence Agency testified to the Commission that Oswald had no ties to the CIA, as either an agent, employee, or informant.

So that's the entire investigation of CIA involvement: the CIA Director saying "We didn't do it", and the Warren Commission uncritically accepting this as a proven and indisputable fact. ABSURD.

This section wraps up as follows:

"Thus, close scrutiny of the records of the Federal agencies involved and the testimony of the responsible officials of the U.S. Government establish that there was absolutely no type of informant or undercover relationship betweeen an agency of the U.S. Government and Lee Harvey Oswald at any time."

"Close scrutiny"?!

Appendix XII: SPECULATIONS AND RUMORS (pp.270-286)

This section is dedicated to debunking safe, strawman "rumors" -none of which deal directly with the possibility of CIA ties to the assassination.

The opening sentences set the tone, which is patronizing:

"Myths have traditionally surrounded the dramatic assassinations of history. The rumors and theories about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln that are still being publicized were for the most part first bruited within months of his death. Wherever there is any element of mystery in such dramatic events misconceptions often result from sensational speculations."

I won't list all the "sensational speculations", but most of them are remote from the question of CIA involvement. A few examples:

Speculation- The chicken lunch found partially eaten on the 6th floor of the book depository was eaten by Oswald or one of his accomplices.
Refutation- [whatever, who cares?]

Speculation- Oswald might have brought curtain rods to work with him, which could have been mistaken for a gun.
Refutation- [whatever, who cares?]

Speculation- Oswald did not have the skill to handle the rifle in question.
Refutation- [He was a Marine sniper. Who seriously raised this as a question?]

Only one speculation raised a question of CIA involvement:
Speculation- Oswald was an informant of either the FBI or the CIA. The "refutation" was merely a notation that the current CIA Director denied any such ties. That isn't disprooving; it's just denying.

Appendix IX: THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT (pp.225-229)

This section contains a report of the autopsy performed on Kennedy on 22 November 1963.

A few odd things about the autopsy:

1) It was performed at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, MD, by general pathologists on the staff, who had no special training in forensics; even though the famous Armed Forces Institute of Pathology- perhaps the most august assembly of forensic scientists in the world- was only 7 miles away.

Normally, any autopsy performed under the suspicion of a probable murder is done by a Forensic Pathologist, who must complete a minimum of one year specialized Forensics training, after successful completion of an Anatomic Pathology residency. [Link here]

That's the standard expectation for any murder investigation anywhere in the U.S. Kennedy's autopsy was performed by Drs. J.J. Hume, Thornton Boswell, and Piere Finck; and none of them had the requisite Forensics training. Isn't it a bit outrageous that the training requirement would be lowered in the investigation the most historically significant murder since Abraham Lincoln's?

There is no mention made of this whatsoever.

2) In the autopsy description, the brain is said to weigh 1500 grams. (p.228) Later in the description, it says "There is considerable loss of cortical substance above the base of the laceration, particularly in the parietal lobe."

An average adult male brain should weigh about 1300 to 1400 grams, but 1500 grams is not outside the normal range. [Link here] But that's for a normal brain. This one is described as having substantial loss of substance, yet it is still on the heavier side of normal?

My point here is merely that there is a little bit of question about the accuracy of some of the observations made at autopsy by these probably well-meaning, but definitely insufficiently-trained prosectors.

The entire reason for believing that Oswald was the shooter, and that he acted alone, is the final autopsy report's conclusion that JFK was killed by bullets "fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

Given that a slight change of a victim's position at the time of shooting can give the impression of a very different angle of origin; and given the insufficient training of the prosecting pathologists to perform a forensic investigation; and given the dubious brain weight, which calls other observations into question- it seems that the autopsy conclusions about the origin of the shooter should be taken with a very large dose of skepticism.

A Word About the Authorship, and Credibility

This report was written by a commission especially formed at the request of President Johnson to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination of JFK. The committee was comprised of:

-Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States (chairman) (1891–1974)
-Richard Russell, Jr. (D-Georgia), U.S. Senator, (1897–1971)
-John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky), U.S. Senator (1901–1991)
-Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), U.S. Representative, House Majority Leader (1914–1973)
-Gerald Ford (R-Michigan), U.S. Representative (later 38th President of the United States), House Minority Leader (1913-2006)
-Allen Welsh Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1893–1969)
-John J. McCloy, former President of the World Bank (1895–1989)

In addition, there was a staff of assistants to the commission- most of whom were lawyers.

How is it that a former Director of the CIA (Allen Dulles) was permitted to sit on a Commission investigating whether his former agency (and possibly he himself) was involved with the assassination? This is a ridiculous conflict of interest.

Furthermore, what qualifies any of these guys to investigate a murder? Quite a lot of the conclusions of the Commission (e.g. that the angle of the gunshots prove that Oswald was the shooter, and that he acted alone) require expertise in forensic science which NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of the Commission had, and which the investigating pathologists also lacked! You would think there would have been at least be a single tolken scientist on the Committee, wouldn't you?

I would also point out that most murder investigations look into who benefitted from the murder. A fairly obvious beneficiary of the JFK assassination was his Vice President, Lydon B. Johnson -who aquired the Presidency after JFK's death. I'm not saying that I think LBJ engineered the assassination, but I do think, in general principle, that a Commission formed by, and answerable to- the prime beneficiary of a murder probably has some structural credibility problems from the get-go.

SUMMARY

1. John F. Kennedy's autopsy was performed by people less expert in forensic science than you would expect to find in a routine death investigation by local police anywhere in the USA.

2. The conclusion that Oswald was the shooter, and in fact the only shooter- is based on the judgment of the non fellowship-trained, non-experts who performed the autopsy.

3. Other aspects of the autopsy (e.g. the weight of Kennedy's brain) call the accuracy of the autopsy report into question.

4. The Warren Commission concludes that there was no CIA involvement with the assassination, based solely on the testimony of the CIA Director saying there was no involvement. The matter was not investigated further.

5. Nobody on the Warren Commission has a background in the sciences.

6. The Warren Commission was flawed from its inception, in that it was formed at the request of President Johnson, who directly benefitted from the murder. It should have been an independent committee answerable only to Congress.

7. Although the Commission inquired about the possibility of CIA involvement, member Allen Dulles was a former Director of the CIA. It was inexcusable that he sat on a commission entrusted with investigating the possibility of his former agency's involvement.

Afterword

In March 2007, former CIA agent E.Howard Hunt confessed to being part of a hit team which "took out" Kennedy. [Link] There is absolutely nothing in the Warren Commission to contradict this testimony. If anything, the conflicts of interest within the Commission's membership, in conjuction with the woefully inadequate investigation of this question- increase suspicion of CIA involvement.

==================EDIT==================

Sure enough, it's true: Warren Commission member Hale Boggs was a dissenting opinion on the Commission, who was unconvinced that Oswald was the [only] shooter. Boggs died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1972, in which no bodies were actually found, but which conspiracy refuters are sure to call a coincidence, because... you know, everything is just a coincidence, if you wish hard enough, isn't it?

Do your own homework, but here are some links which may be of interest:

http://haleboggs.tripod.com/
http://spikethenews.blogspot.com/2013/02/congressman-hale-boggs-lone-dissenting....
http://www.internetpirate.com/airplane.htm
http://9-11themotherofallblackoperations.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-nick-begich-tal... ( )

After all these years, I picked this book up on the sale rack out of curiosity and read it cover to cover. I found myself fascinated by the details of the investigation. ( )

This can be a tedious and boring read but if you are interested in the assassination of President Kennedy, then you should definitely read this report on it. I found it interesting and informative. ( )