Warren Commission Staffer on November 22
John McAdams
November 25, 2009
TREPIDATIONS ABOUT NOVEMBER 22
By Richard Mosk
Whew! We passed by another November 22. Why do I become apprehensive
around that date? No, it is not because it is my son's birthday (I
have ceased questioning what I view as my wife's extravagances in gift
giving). It is because as a member of the staff of the Warren
Commission that investigated the Nov. 22, 1963 assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, every anniversary of that fateful day I
expect a blistering attack on the Warren Commission's findings by some
conspiracy theorist.
There have been hundreds - maybe thousands - of books and articles
proposing a variety of conspiracies and picking apart the evidence
assembled and published by the Warren Commission. Generally, the
bigger sellers are timed to coincide with November 22, although
generally in five or 10 year increments.
For those too young to remember, I will review the post assassination
events. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination and was
murdered two days later by a strip club owner Jack Ruby while being
transported by the Dallas police. In the wake of rumors that the
assassination was the result of right wing, left wing, Government,
Soviet, and Cuban conspiracies, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked
Chief Justice Earl Warren to head up a commission to find the facts.
The Warren Commission concluded that three bullets were fired from Lee
Harvey Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons; two out
of the three bullets struck President Kennedy from the rear; one of
those bullets passed through Kennedy and struck Texas Governor John
Connally, who was riding in the front seat of the car in which Kennedy
was riding; and there was no credible evidence that anyone else was
involved in the assassination.
The conclusions that Oswald assassinated the President have been
supported by at least 19 doctors who have examined the Kennedy autopsy
photographs and x-rays, neutron activation analysis, and other
physical evidence. Years later, a House of Representatives
Assassination Committee confirmed the Warren Commission findings, but
then concluded from a police dictatape that there were four shots, and
therefore there must have been a conspiracy because Oswald only fired
three shots. Later, a special committee of acoustic experts assembled
at the request of the Justice Department concluded that the House
Committee was wrong because the tape in question does not evidence any
shots and that the impulses heard occurred when President Kennedy was
well on his way to the hospital.
The Warren Commission Report was generally well received when it was
published in 1964. The Chief Justice treated the Commission Report as
he did judicial opinions. That is, the document would speak for
itself; there was no reason for the Commission to write or comment
about the conclusions any further. The Chief Justice and the rest of
us never could have imagined what occurred thereafter. Suddenly a slew
of books were published attacking the Warren Commission conclusions
and suggesting a right wing conspiracy caused the death of Kennedy and
an ensuing cover up. The Commission went into a rope-a-dope position -
being battered by factually and logically inaccurate charges without
offering any rebuttal. This has gone on for decades. So it is no
wonder that public opinion turned in favor of conspiracy theories.
Interestingly, it turns out, at least according to information
produced by a defector from the Soviet KGB, Vasili Mitrokhin, that the
KGB cleverly and diabolically sponsored a disinformation campaign to
blame the assassination on a supposed American right wing conspiracy.
The KGB allegedly financed a publishing company purportedly run by
someone with a relationship with the Soviets. The publisher published
books setting forth right wing and CIA conspiracies to assassinate
President Kennedy. The Soviets also provided support to other writers
and speakers who successfully proposed the theory of an alleged
conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination at the highest levels of our
government. The KGB even forged a letter from Oswald to former CIA
officer and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt. (See Andrew and
Mitrokhin, The Sward and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives and the
Secret History of the KGB (1999) 224-230.) I cannot be certain of the
accuracy of these allegations, but the thought that a foreign
intelligence agency can manipulate our confidence in our public
institutions is chilling.
Of course, most skeptics of the Warren Commission conclusions had no
direct or indirect backing of the Soviets. But the KGB program was
wildly successful in kick-starting what became an avalanche of books
and articles. Leading newspapers facilitated this phenomenon. Private
assassination study bureaus emerged. Intellectuals and academicians
entertained and regurgitated the wildest suspicions about conspiracies
involving Texas oilmen, the Dallas police, the FBI, the CIA, and
President Johnson.
The motion picture "JFK" was the most successful propagator of
conspiracy theories. The movie theorized a CIA conspiracy, with the
hero being the later discredited New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison. Garrison prosecuted a thoroughly innocent New Orleans
businessman for the assassination without any evidence. That defendant
was promptly acquitted by a jury. Television networks promoted the
"JFK" motion picture, and the distributor even financed the
distribution of "JFK Study Guides," to school teachers with the
purpose of promoting to school children the film and the conspiracy
theory of the film.
As a result of this unanswered barrage of conspiracy theory books and
films, polls showed that a high percentage of the public did not
believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission. It was not until the
last few years that respected writers, Gerald Posner, Max Holland, and
Vince Bugliosi have debunked the conspiracy theories. Bugliosi's
massive book examined all the evidence and theories, leaving no stone
unturned and concluded that the Warren Commission was correct. His
work is irrefutable. Yet, books still come out questioning the
Commission Report. One recently suggested, incorrectly, that Robert
Kennedy wanted to become President to solve the Kennedy assassination.
(Ted Kennedy, in his memoir, expressed his confidence in the Warren
Commission Report.)
I have long wondered how it is that Americans can so easily be
manipulated by this outbreak of demonology. (See Mosk, Conspiracy
Theories and the JFK Assassination (1992), 15 Los Angeles Lawyer 34).
Is there, as Richard Hofstedter wrote, a "paranoid style of American
politics?" Perhaps the idea of a lone assassin is not sufficient to
explain such a nationally traumatic event; the people may need a cause
sufficient to match the effect. The conspiracy theories allowed for
the venting of political prejudices. Left wing individuals happily
targeted the Texas oil industry, the radical right, the FBI and the
CIA. The right wing was fixated on Castro and the Soviet Union.
Everybody could feel good when organized crime became the suspect.
False conspiracy theories have caused great harm in the past - witch
trials, red scares, McCarthyism, Japanese Relocation, and other
persecutions. Indeed, in this situation, an innocent man was falsely
accused and damage was done to the reputations of our leaders, such as
our great Chief Justice, Earl Warren. As I have written in the past,
if we believe that there is some powerful force that kills our leaders
and controls government, why should we bother to exercise our
democratic rights? If publishers and the media can induce the public
to believe in false history, what will they get us to believe next
time? Can the public be made to accept death panel, weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, Iraqi complicity in 9/11, and similar theories?
Of course, just as paranoids have enemies, we cannot always rule out
the existence of conspiracies to explain events.
Regardless of the fallibility of our institutions, both private and
governmental, at least I was spared the discomfort of another JFK
assassination conspiracy theory this year. But wait until 2013.
Richard M. Mosk is an associate justice on the California Court of
Appeal.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Pure guesswork and CIA disinformation.
> Of course, most skeptics of the Warren Commission conclusions had no
> direct or indirect backing of the Soviets. But the KGB program was
> wildly successful in kick-starting what became an avalanche of books
> and articles. Leading newspapers facilitated this phenomenon. Private
Cute wording to accuse SOME of the critics of being KBG agents. Straight
from the CIA master of disinformation, Ned Dolan.
> assassination study bureaus emerged. Intellectuals and academicians
> entertained and regurgitated the wildest suspicions about conspiracies
> involving Texas oilmen, the Dallas police, the FBI, the CIA, and
> President Johnson.
>
Hey, he forgot to mention Farewell America which was written by the KGB
wing of the SDECE. Slipping.
> The motion picture "JFK" was the most successful propagator of
> conspiracy theories. The movie theorized a CIA conspiracy, with the
> hero being the later discredited New Orleans District Attorney Jim
> Garrison. Garrison prosecuted a thoroughly innocent New Orleans
> businessman for the assassination without any evidence. That defendant
> was promptly acquitted by a jury. Television networks promoted the
> "JFK" motion picture, and the distributor even financed the
> distribution of "JFK Study Guides," to school teachers with the
> purpose of promoting to school children the film and the conspiracy
> theory of the film.
>
> As a result of this unanswered barrage of conspiracy theory books and
> films, polls showed that a high percentage of the public did not
> believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission. It was not until the
> last few years that respected writers, Gerald Posner, Max Holland, and
> Vince Bugliosi have debunked the conspiracy theories. Bugliosi's
> massive book examined all the evidence and theories, leaving no stone
> unturned and concluded that the Warren Commission was correct. His
> work is irrefutable. Yet, books still come out questioning the
> Commission Report. One recently suggested, incorrectly, that Robert
> Kennedy wanted to become President to solve the Kennedy assassination.
> (Ted Kennedy, in his memoir, expressed his confidence in the Warren
> Commission Report.)
>
Solving the JFK assassination was not the only reason RFK wanted to
become President. He wanted to end the US involvement in the Vietnam
War. And so HE was also assassinated.
> I have long wondered how it is that Americans can so easily be
> manipulated by this outbreak of demonology. (See Mosk, Conspiracy
> Theories and the JFK Assassination (1992), 15 Los Angeles Lawyer 34).
> Is there, as Richard Hofstedter wrote, a "paranoid style of American
> politics?" Perhaps the idea of a lone assassin is not sufficient to
> explain such a nationally traumatic event; the people may need a cause
> sufficient to match the effect. The conspiracy theories allowed for
> the venting of political prejudices. Left wing individuals happily
> targeted the Texas oil industry, the radical right, the FBI and the
> CIA. The right wing was fixated on Castro and the Soviet Union.
> Everybody could feel good when organized crime became the suspect.
>
CIA propaganda.
> False conspiracy theories have caused great harm in the past - witch
> trials, red scares, McCarthyism, Japanese Relocation, and other
So he's saying the Internment camps never happened or that people
unfairly blame the US government? There is a vast difference between the
authorities perpetrating crimes against the people and the people
believing the government engages in crimes against the people.
> persecutions. Indeed, in this situation, an innocent man was falsely
> accused and damage was done to the reputations of our leaders, such as
> our great Chief Justice, Earl Warren. As I have written in the past,
> if we believe that there is some powerful force that kills our leaders
> and controls government, why should we bother to exercise our
> democratic rights? If publishers and the media can induce the public
> to believe in false history, what will they get us to believe next
> time? Can the public be made to accept death panel, weapons of mass
> destruction in Iraq, Iraqi complicity in 9/11, and similar theories?
> Of course, just as paranoids have enemies, we cannot always rule out
> the existence of conspiracies to explain events.
>
> Regardless of the fallibility of our institutions, both private and
> governmental, at least I was spared the discomfort of another JFK
> assassination conspiracy theory this year. But wait until 2013.
>
> Richard M. Mosk is an associate justice on the California Court of
> Appeal.
>
Well rewarded for his service in the cover-up. Maybe next to be
appointed a Supreme Court justice after the cover-up overthrows Obama.
jas
Yes, wait until the "Reclaiming History" mini-series is released. This
event alone will undoubtedly rekindle and fan the fires of debate, as well
as a few new ill-fated conspiracy theories, mainly because of the
ubiquitous nature of the visual medium playing out on TVs worldwide. This
in contrast to, God-forbid, the printed-word medium where one has to
actually sit down and take much time to read and study.
Out of all this future riffraff, and to make it interesting, maybe another
theory will stick to the wall and open up some really heavy debating, much
like the HSCA's acoustic findings did, until they were debunked.
David Von Pein
Excellent article by Richard M. Mosk. Thank you for posting it, Mr.
McAdams.
>>> "The Commission went into a rope-a-dope position--being battered by factually and logically inaccurate charges without offering any rebuttal. This has gone on for decades. So it is no wonder that public opinion turned in favor of conspiracy theories." <<<
Mr. Mosk's above statement isn't quite 100% correct. In past years, a
few of the Warren Commissioners and counsel members would occasionally
get in the ring with a conspiracy kook in order to defend the
perfectly-accurate Warren Report -- such as Gerald Ford, Arlen
Specter, Albert Jenner, and David Belin. Not many other WC members,
however, have engaged in any battles with the conspiracy theorists
(other than in book form).
www.You-Are-The-Jury.blogspot.com
Shortly after Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgment" came out, Albert
Jenner and lawyer Louis Nizer (who helped write some of the Warren
Report) did a nice job of defending the Warren Commission and its
report when those two men (along with WC staff member Alfredda Scobey)
debated Mark Lane during a two-hour special program entitled "A
Majority Rebuttal", which aired on Channel 11 (KTTV) in Los Angeles on
February 11, 1967.
www.Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com
32 minutes of audio highlights from that KTTV program can be heard at
the link below:
www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/lane-nizer-debate.html
>>> "It was not until the last few years that respected writers, Gerald Posner, Max Holland, and Vince Bugliosi have debunked the conspiracy theories. Bugliosi's massive book examined all the evidence and theories, leaving no stone unturned and concluded that the Warren Commission was correct. His work is irrefutable." <<<
I agree 100% with Mr. Mosk's comments above. (But I doubt if that will
come as a surprise to anyone on these JFK forums.) ;)
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com <-- [Revised & Updated.]
www.Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html
Thalia
Well, this is is a surprise. A Warren Commission staffer defending the
Warren Commission. A whole lot of baloney, just like the original report.
He is totally on the defensive - sounds like he is sweating on 2013, a bit
of "discomfort" is coming his way.
jas
Hey I've got an idea for you! You've got three years to come up with a
really, really good conspiracy theory that will rebut the Reclaiming
History series.
Maybe you guys should have a contest...
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Excellent article by Richard M. Mosk. Thank you for posting it, Mr.
> McAdams.
>
>
>>>> "The Commission went into a rope-a-dope position--being battered by
factually and logically inaccurate charges without offering any rebuttal.
This has gone on for decades. So it is no wonder that public opinion
turned in favor of conspiracy theories."<<<
>
>
> Mr. Mosk's above statement isn't quite 100% correct. In past years, a
> few of the Warren Commissioners and counsel members would occasionally
> get in the ring with a conspiracy kook in order to defend the
> perfectly-accurate Warren Report -- such as Gerald Ford, Arlen
> Specter, Albert Jenner, and David Belin. Not many other WC members,
> however, have engaged in any battles with the conspiracy theorists
> (other than in book form).
>
>
Usually they would just appear on talk shows. Not much of a debate. They
rarely debate the case. I will point out that Arlen Specter was brave
enough to actually attend a conspiracy research conference. And he used
his real name rather than an alias and was not beaten up by Lisa Pease.
> www.You-Are-The-Jury.blogspot.com
>
>
> Shortly after Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgment" came out, Albert
> Jenner and lawyer Louis Nizer (who helped write some of the Warren
> Report) did a nice job of defending the Warren Commission and its
> report when those two men (along with WC staff member Alfredda Scobey)
> debated Mark Lane during a two-hour special program entitled "A
> Majority Rebuttal", which aired on Channel 11 (KTTV) in Los Angeles on
> February 11, 1967.
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/TV+GUIDE+AD+(MARK+LANE+DEBATES+LOUIS+NIZER)(1967).pdf?gda=QaS50W8AAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLh8rv7RQaNJ2lscwkrnCyLkOj-BcMxuWqyVVUMNP5Dl_-bidutF2vDbp0Yu3BpCJj37AxmsIltGwhqWChbDlKPtayTg-pqFfPlc99U048UiwSccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0&gsc=o7X1tQsAAABFcZqZAUWUx6xubxGTS3uC
>
>
> www.Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> 32 minutes of audio highlights from that KTTV program can be heard at
> the link below:
>
>
> www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/lane-nizer-debate.html
>
>
>>>> "It was not until the last few years that respected writers, Gerald Posner, Max Holland, and Vince Bugliosi have debunked the conspiracy theories. Bugliosi's massive book examined all the evidence and theories, leaving no stone unturned and concluded that the Warren Commission was correct. His work is irrefutable."<<<
>
>
> I agree 100% with Mr. Mosk's comments above. (But I doubt if that will
> come as a surprise to anyone on these JFK forums.) ;)
>
Dittohead!
>
> www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com<-- [Revised& Updated.]
>
> www.Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
>
>
> www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html
>
>
> www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com
>
>
>
Ray
Quote:The conclusions that Oswald assassinated the President have been
supported by at least 19 doctors who have examined the Kennedy autopsy
photographs and x-rays
UNQUOTE
This guy is a hoot.
So now doctors can identify the killer just by looking at X-Rays and
photos of the victim?
Is Mosk is on Medical Marijuana?
Quote: neutron activation analysis, and other
physical evidence
UNQUOTE
I guess he didn't get the memo. Federal and state courts have RULED
that NAA and similar techniques of bullet lead comparison are JUNK
SCIENCE.
IT IS BANNED FROM COURTROOMS ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.
Is this why they call California the Land of Fruits and Nuts?
David Von Pein
>>> "And he [Arlen Specter] used his real name rather than an alias." <<<
Are you saying Arlen Specter could have gotten away with using an
alias (such as "Martin M. Magicbullet", for example) and nobody at the
convention would have known he was really Arlen Specter?
LOL.
Mr. Tony Marsh, as always, is a howl and a half.
Anthony Marsh
But you don't care about debate. You declare victory before the battle
had begun. You endorse Bugliosi's lies.
Ray
> November 25, 2009
>
> TREPIDATIONS ABOUT NOVEMBER 22
>
> By Richard Mosk
John: Can you tell us where this article by Judge Mosk was published?
I have searched the web, blogs and news without success.
Is this a McAdams Forum EXCLUSIVE?
jas
Yes, I endorse Bugliosi's thorough and monumental work. I am also
confident that his professional expertise, experience, integrity, and
investigative abilities are more than adequate to be able to take on a
massive subject as the JFK assassination and its conspiracy theories, and
conclude what he has concluded.
I do not endorse fairly tales, innuendo, conjecture, personal opinion as
fact, and speculation -- as many, if not all conspiracy books are full of
-- in making my decision about who or what was involved with the
assassination.
Tell me, do you still believe in Santa Claus and Aesop's Fables?
jas
>
> But you don't care about debate. You declare victory before the battle
> had begun. You endorse Bugliosi's lies.
rest of post snipped for space
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 29, 12:30 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> But you don't care about debate. You declare victory before the battle
>> had begun. You endorse Bugliosi's lies.
>
> rest of post snipped for space
>
> Yes, I endorse Bugliosi's thorough and monumental work. I am also
> confident that his professional expertise, experience, integrity, and
> investigative abilities are more than adequate to be able to take on a
> massive subject as the JFK assassination and its conspiracy theories, and
> conclude what he has concluded.
>
And there you have it folks. Another admission that I am right, that he
endorses whatever Bugliosi says, lies and all.
> I do not endorse fairly tales, innuendo, conjecture, personal opinion as
> fact, and speculation -- as many, if not all conspiracy books are full of
> -- in making my decision about who or what was involved with the
> assassination.
>
Wow, you just figured out that conspiracy books have speculation in them?
I've been warning people about that danger for longer than you've known
about this case.
> Tell me, do you still believe in Santa Claus and Aesop's Fables?
>
>
>
Tell you what? I believe that almost all myths have some basis in fact. I
believe that there really was a man who gave out presents at Christmas and
people called him St. Nicholas or Father Christmas. In other languages his
name got changed to Santa Claus.
The idea of fairy tales like Aesop's fables is to tell a moral, to cloak a
real story as fiction. Like much of Sullivan's tales. You are supposed to
be able to read between the lines and figure out who the Yahoos are and
who Tweedledee and Tweedledum are.