Task Three: 2.

1 Source Evaluations

Source #1: Reclaiming History - Vincent Bugliosi

Reference:
Bugliosi, V. (2007). Oswald at the Sniper's Nest and "Evidence" of His Innocence.
In Reclaiming History. (pp. 1437-1439). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Main ideas presented: Bugliosi questions the theory that Oswald was set up in a
conspiracy. The two variations of this theory, that Oswald was set up unwittingly or
that Oswald was in on the plan to set him up as the fall guy both come in for
ridicule from Bugliosi in this section. Bugliosi dismisses the latter theory by asking
who would agree to being set up as John F. Kennedy’s killer, and pointing out that
Oswald’s actions in the aftermath of the shooting (his attempts to escape and to
resist arrest) are not in line with what would be expected if he was in on a plan to
frame himself. He then casts serious doubt on the former theory by pointing out
how unlikely it was that groups involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK would rely
entirely upon Oswald - whose previous behaviour had shown him to be anything
but reliable and obedient in following orders.

Deeper meaning inferred: Bugliosi, in trying to disprove conspiracy theories

around the assassination of JFK once and for all, runs into the roadblock of the
somewhat confused and conflicting evidence surrounding the assassination. Many
conspiracy theorists take advantage of this confusion around material facts to put
forward a multitude of alternative explanations for the assassination and cast doubt
upon the Warren commission’s findings. Bugliosi implicitly acknowledges that
conspiracy theories will always pop up to explain the assassination, regardless of
the lack of evidence to support them. Therefore, he appeals to the undecided
reader by applying Occam’s Razor: that is the theory that when presented with two
explanations for an event, and in the absence of definitive empirical evidence, the
simplest explanation is generally true. If we look at the way Bugliosi frames the
conspiracy theories around Oswald’s innocence, we can observe that he finds
such theories patently ludicrous mainly due to the sheer unlikelihood of them
occurring without a hitch. Thus we can infer that Bugliosi responds to most if not all
conspiracy theories with the catch-all Occam’s Razor technique

To what degree is the evidence reliable?

This evidence can be considered reasonably reliable. The book ‘Reclaiming
History’ was written by Vincent Bugliosi, a well regarded American attorney and
author. He was the lead prosecutor in the Manson killings case, and has received
critical acclaim for the books he has authored, including an Edgar award in 2008
for “Reclaiming History”. His experience as a prosecutor on a major case such as
the Manson killings suggests that he is qualified to undertake a careful and
rigorous analysis of the evidence surrounding the assassination of JFK. However,
his experience as an attorney (a job where he is legally obliged to do his utmost to
prosecute a successful case against a suspect) may lead to him focusing on
‘proving’ Oswald guilty without accommodating different perspectives and
interpretations of evidence. During his time at the LA attorney’s office Bugliosi
successfully prosecuted 105 of 106 felony jury cases, so the pressure of this
record could cause Bugliosi to discard inconvenient evidence in order to ‘get his
man’. Therefore, it is important when analysing this source to recognise that
Bugliosi’s ‘tunnel-vision’ tendencies may affect the reliability of the source. As an
aside, it is interesting to note that one of the major figures in the pro-conspiracy
camp, Jim Garrison, was an attorney.

The intended audience of ‘Reclaiming History’ would be those among the general
public interested in the assassination of JFK, although the work is very rigorously
researched and would be of use to the academic. This results in the source having
to meet a reasonable standard of reliability, although this does not mean the
reliability of the source is beyond question by any means as an author of a book
only has to answer to the editor and publisher - two parties that do necessarily
always value reliability over commercial interests. Bugliosi seeks to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the conclusions of the Warren commission, and does not give
much credence to the extreme conspiracy theorists as his main audience is those
who are convinced by the Warren commission and those who are undecided.

Bugliosi’s motive is to provide further supporting evidence for the Warren

commission report conclusion that Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. While
much of the book is based on objective evidence, the section of the book I have
chosen for analysis is subjective, and is based on Bugliosi’s conclusions and
inferences about the evidence he studied. Bugliosi doesn’t give much
consideration to the potential for the evidence to be interpreted in a different way,
so the reliability of the source is hampered somewhat.

The limitations of this piece of evidence if it were to be used in isolation is that it

only addresses the ‘Oswald Framed’ conspiracy theory, and does not address the
theory that Oswald was working as a willing assassin for some group. Additionally,
caution is justified as there are questions to be raised about Bugliosi’s inferences
given they are influenced by his motive to prove Oswald’s guilt beyond refute.

What makes the evidence useful?

The source material is useful as it helps to answer my focus question (what
evidence was there that Oswald was the lone assassin?). It is helpful in this regard
as it makes a strong case against theories such as Oswald as a knowing ‘patsy’ or
conspiracies around Oswald’s innocence, strengthening the case for Oswald as
the lone assassin. The source material is of high quality because Bugliosi is an
accomplished author who has made conclusions based on a detailed analysis of
primary and secondary evidence from the assassination. However, Bugliosi does
appear to have somewhat of a bias against alternative theories to the official
Warren report, and as a result the source mostly exhibits a single view so is slightly
less useful. The particular chapter I analysed and the section I chose for evaluation
contained a reasonable mix of facts and opinions, and the opinions put forward by
Bugliosi are logical inferences based on facts. The limitations of the usefulness of
this evidence is its relatively biased, single point of view and the fact that it only
addresses one branch of the conspiracy theories around JFK’s assassination.
Source #2: Gunshot-wound dynamics model for
John F. Kennedy assassination
The delayed observed forward momentum of the jet of material [from JFK’s head],
occurring well after the projectile had passed, was then quantitatively shown to be
associated with a short-lived recoil effect that imparted a backward change in
velocity (i.e deceleration) on the President’s head from the initial forward velocity to
a backwards velocity over the following shutter cycle.

...From the foregoing modeling calculations and observations of the Zapruder Film
it was thus quantitatively shown that the President’s reactions just after the
projectile impact were physically consistent with a gunshot wound caused by a
high-energy Carcano military bullet fired from the vicinity of the [Texas School
Book Depository]

….Of course, the validity of [previous statement disproving existence of frontal

impact] does not rule out conjectured missed shots (although no physical evidence
was ever recovered for such shots), nor does it pinpoint the exact origin of the shot
that hit (e.g the [Texas School Book Depository] as opposed to a nearby building).
But the modeling study (and underlying dynamics and conservation laws)
presented in this paper, in corroboration of the autopsy findings, do imply that
President Kennedy was not hit by a hypothesized gun shot from the front. The
conclusion is an important one given that the hypothesized existence of a shooter
in front of the limousine (viz., on the Grassy Knoll) has been the primary foundation
for virtually all conspiracy conjectures to date on the topic.

Reference: Nalli, N. (2018). Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy

assassination Heliyon, 4(4). Retrieved from
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00603

Main ideas presented: Nalli presents empirical evidence for the non-existence of
any projectile impacts from the front of JFK, and shows how the movement of
JFK’s head and body immediately after being hit by the third fatal shot is in line
with what would be predicted by a model. An important aspect of this is his
explanation for the apparent backward movement of JFK’s head after the fatal
shot, which Nalli concludes to be a result of recoil from the jet of material ejected
from JFK’s head due to the damage it sustained from the shot, as well as a
delayed neuromuscular reaction leading to a contraction of the muscles in JFK’s
back, causing him to move backwards. Therefore, Nalli rules out any chance of the
fatal shot coming from in front of JFK’s limousine; it must have been from behind
the car.

Deeper meaning inferred: Nalli makes it clear that his model’s results only show
that an impact from behind fully explains the motion of JFK’s head, and therefore
does not rule out missed shots from the front and does not ‘pinpoint the exact
origin of the shot that hit’. However, Nalli does say that “virtually all conspiracy
conjectures” are based on the Grassy Knoll shooter theory, implying that this
research debunks most JFK conspiracy theories. With regard to the possibility of a
Grassy Knoll shooter who simply missed, Nalli implies that this scenario is highly
implausible given that “no physical evidence was ever recovered for such shots” to
substantiate the presence of such a shooter.

To what degree is the evidence reliable?

The evidence can be considered highly reliable. This article was written by Dr
Nicolas Nalli, whose main field is atmospheric studies. However, he has published
a previous paper on the subject of the JFK assassination in addition to a large
volume of well regarded atmospheric research. This suggests that he can be
considered a thorough and reliable researcher. The journal that this article was
published in is ‘Heliyon’, a multi-disciplinary journal owned by Elsevier, which owns
many other journals well respected journals such as ‘The Lancet’ and are
reasonably well-regarded (despite being a parasitic soul destroying corporation
hellbent on exploiting the research of academics for profit while simultaneously
preventing the general public from accessing the bulk of said research in a manner
not dissimilar to the government in “Brave New World”). To be approved for
publication this article would have had to have undergone the peer-review process
and gotten approval from the editorial board of the journal, so it’s validity and
reliability as a piece of research can be considered extremely high.

The intended audience for this article would be academics familiar with or
interested in the field of gunshot-wound dynamics. Due to the demands of this
audience around depth of evidence, rigour of methodology, and disinterest in
approach, the evidence used and conclusions drawn in this would have to be of a
very high standard.

Nalli’s motive for writing this article is to communicate how his model can
determine that the shot that killed JFK originated from behind the limousine, not in
front as some conspiracy theorists claim. This article is written from an objective
viewpoint, and Nalli outlines the rigorous methodology behind his model before
making a conclusion justified by the evidence (that the fatal shot cannot have
originated from the front of the limousine).

One limitation of this evidence is that in isolation it does not provide conclusive
evidence as to where behind JFK the fatal bullet came from (i.e does not
necessarily rule out Jim Garrison’s Dal-Tex building theory). Additionally, this
article only addresses the fatal shot, and makes no attempt to ascertain the origin
of the first or second shots (mainly because an infamous billboard obstructs the
Zapruder film view of when the second shot hits). Some caution is justified when
viewing this source as it is based off of a complex model that I do not profess to be
able to understand in depth, and some variables are sure to have been reasonable
guesses made by Nalli as opposed to empirically accurate figures.

The reliability of this source is further affirmed when it is cross-referenced by other

sources. In ‘Reclaiming History’ Bugliosi presents the evidence that three spent
bullet cartridges and a Carcano rifle (belonging to Oswald) were found in the
South-East corner of the Texas School Book Depository, in and around the
‘sniper’s nest’ that was formed out of arranged book cartons, all of which were
found to have Oswald’s hand print on them (Bugliosi, 2007). Thus the conclusion
drawn by Nalli, that the fatal bullet must have originated from behind the limousine
appears sound given the material evidence highlighted by Bugliosi that suggests
Oswald fired from the Texas School Depository (well behind the limousine).

What makes the evidence useful?

The source material is useful as it helps to answer my focus question (what
evidence was there that Oswald was the lone assassin?). It is useful in this regard
as it rules out the theory that the fatal shot originated from the Grassy Knoll, and
offers further circumstantial supporting evidence for the Oswald lone assassin
theory. The evidence can be considered of a very high quality, as Nalli is an
experienced academic who has published a large volume of research. This article
goes into a lot of depth with regard to details, and the conclusions that Nalli draws
are logical, and entirely based on facts as opposed to his opinion. The article is
written with very little detectable bias and Nalli clearly strives to present a balanced
view of the evidence.

Source #3: Reaction of Soviet and Communist

Party Officials to JFK Assassination

Reference: Hoover, J. (1966). Reaction of Soviet and Communist officials to JFK

assassination. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releas
es/docid-32204484.pdf

Main ideas presented: In this recently declassified FBI file J. Edgar. Hoover
(director of the FBI at the time) presents intelligence around the reaction of senior
Soviet officials to the assassination of JFK in a memo to an advisor to Lyndon B.
Johnson. A source that presumably had access to the inner circle of the Soviet
government described the reaction of many officials in terms of bewilderment,
surprise, and disappointment. The permanent representative of the Soviet Union to
the United Nations, Nikolai Fedorenko, was said to have expressed regret and
shock on behalf of the Soviet Union with regards to JFK’s death in a meeting with
diplomatic officials. He went on to say that this reaction was due to the fact that
JFK had developed a mutual understanding between the USA and the USSR ‘to a
certain degree’. Another source said that Soviet officials claimed that Oswald had
no connection to the USSR at all, and that he was ‘a neurotic maniac’ and ‘disloyal
to his own country and everything else’. Evidence from Soviet defector Yuri
Nosenko put forward later on in the memorandum seems to back this intelligence
up. Nosenko claimed that Oswald was refused USSR citizenship on the grounds
that he was mentally unstable, leading to Oswald attempting suicide on his USSR
trip. Nosenko also claimed that the KGB blocked Oswald’s request to return to the
Soviet Union (a request he filed in at the embassy in Mexico a couple of weeks
before the assassination) and that the KGB considered Oswald a routine
unnoteworthy case until the assassination.

Deeper meaning inferred: It is clear from this document that many Soviet officials
were shocked by the assassination. The Soviets appear to have little to no
motivation to assassinate or sponsor an assassination of JFK given that Soviet
officials were relatively positive about JFK’s relationship with the Soviet Union.
There doesn’t seem to be any upside for the Soviet Union from assassinating JFK
if the claims of the sources put forth in this document are to be believed.
Additionally, the prospect of the Russians hiring Oswald to do anything, let alone
assassinate the President of the United States seems very outlandish. The
Russians had seen first hand how mentally unstable Oswald was on his trip to the
USSR, and as a result had attempted to cut all ties by denying him citizenship.
Given that Oswald was considered ‘disloyal to his country and everything else’ by
some officials, it is very hard to believe that he would be hired as a hitman by the
Soviets. The connection between Oswald attempting suicide in reaction to his
citizenship rejection and him being denied passage to the USSR a couple of weeks
before the assassination cannot be understated. It is not completely out of the
realm of possibility to posit that part of Oswald’s motivation was his rejection at the
Mexico embassy, given that the previous rejection in the Soviet Union had
prompted a suicide attempt.

To what degree is the evidence reliable?: This evidence can be considered

reasonably reliable. The information contained within this source was gathered by
the intelligence network of the US, famous for its far-reaching extent. Additionally,
the USSR was the major enemy of the US at the time, and the US intelligence
agencies would have kept a close eye on reaction from Soviet officials in order to
sniff out any potential links between Oswald and the Soviets. However, with any
intelligence the question of reliability has to be asked, as if the Soviets had
conspired to kill JFK they would have kept a tight lid on any leaks. With this being
said, we can still consider the evidence from these sources reasonably reliable
given the depth of infiltration the US intelligence agencies achieved into Soviet
circles. The evidence from the Soviet defector Nosenko was considered highly
questionable at first, and due to inaccuracies in some of his claims about his
position in the Soviet Union he was thought to have been a KGB plant by the CIA.
However, it was eventually found that Nosenko was a genuine defector, and
therefore we can consider his evidence highly reliable.
The intended audience of this evidence was Marvin Watson, an advisor to LBJ,
and presumably other high ranking government officials close to the President. The
document is marked ‘Top Secret’, so would require the highest level of
Government security clearance to view. This suggests that the evidence is highly
reliable as government documents with this level of classification tend to be
factual, and contain information important enough to be withheld from all but a
select few.

Hoover’s motive in writing this memo was to furnish Watson and by extension
Johnson with the highest quality of evidence possible so they could make informed
decisions about foreign policy. Therefore, the evidence would likely be highly
reliable as important decisions around the relationship between the US and the
USSR would be based on it in part.

This memo is mostly objective, with Hoover presenting the observations of the
sources essentially verbatim. However, the views of the sources themselves are
somewhat subjective as they are based on their readings of certain Soviet officials
reactions, and are not necessarily representative of the reaction of all officials. This
being said, the subjectivity of the source reports does not significantly harm the
reliability of the evidence as they capture the general gist of the Soviet reaction,
and their reports are reinforced by Nosenko’s information.

Most of the evidence contained within this document was not in the public domain
until very recently, so very little can be cross-referenced outside of well known
material facts such as Oswald’s attempt to gain citizenship in the Soviet Union, and
his visit to the Mexico embassy in the weeks before the assassination.

The limitations of this source are that the information presented is only the extent
of what US intelligence officials knew of the Soviet reaction to the JFK
assassination. Additionally, this source only addresses the theory that the
Russians were behind the assassination, and does not address the theories that
US agencies or the mob were behind it. A little caution is required when
considering this source given the controversy surrounding Nosenko’s defection
and the information he provided, but as that controversy was eventually solved it
should not significantly affect one’s analysis of the evidence and its reliability
thereof.

What makes the evidence useful?

This evidence is useful as it is a good aid in helping answer my focus question:
what evidence was there that Oswald was the lone assassin? The document
essentially throws serious doubt upon any links between Oswald and the
Russians. The quality of the evidence makes it all the more useful, as it is top
secret intelligence. Because it is a reasonably brief memo it doesn’t go overly deep
into details, but is still useful as it gives a good overview of the Russian reaction
and attitude towards Oswald. The fact that the views of a couple of sources are
presented also helps its usefulness as it makes for a more balanced account of the
Russian reaction. There is no noticeable bias in the document, although Nosenko’s
loyalties are still disputed to this day so his bias is unclear. The document is mostly
based off of the opinions of the sources, but these opinions seem logical and
based in fact so the usefulness of the evidence is not seriously compromised.
Source #4: ‘Case Closed’ - Gerald Posner

Reference: Posner, G. (1993). "He looks like a maniac". In Case Closed (p. 232).
Doubleday Books.

Main ideas presented: Posner uses evidence gathered from the testimony of
various police officers who examined the crime scene for the Warren Commission.
In addition, he uses evidence that came out after the report to help build his case
for the Oswald single shooter theory. He quotes Luke Mooney, who testifies that
he saw three expended shells and ‘boxes stacked up’ in a manner that looked like
a rest for a weapon. The three shells found at the sniper’s nest were found to have
been fired from Oswald’s rifle ‘to the exclusion of any other gun’. This relatively
damning evidence of spent shells from Oswald’s rifle being found in a sniper’s nest
is further strengthened when Posner highlights Lt. Day’s testimony. Posner said
that after dusting the boxes in the nest for print he found a very clear one on a box
where the shooter could have sat as he/she waited for JFK’s limousine to come
past, and that the print was most certainly not in a place where you would expect a
print from moving a box to be. According to Day, this print, likely made extremely
clear due to sweat from the palm of the assassin, matched Oswald’s left palm.
Later on in the chapter, Posner mentions that a former Dallas crime scene
Detective R Livingston produced fingerprint evidence in a book in 1993 from the
trigger guard of the rifle found at the scene. This evidence was analysed in detail
by Vincent Scalice, the fingerprint expert for the House Committee on
Assassinations, and was found to match Oswald’s fingerprints. This makes the
case for Oswald firing the shots all the more conclusive.
Deeper meaning inferred: While the testimony from Day is presented by Posner
in this section, Posner does not draw any conclusions from it. The three expended
shells that were found to have come from the gun fired in the sniper’s nest suggest
that the shots were fired from the sniper’s nest using the weapon found there. The
clear right palm print of Oswald’s on a box in the sniper’s nest in a position that
would seem to rule out a print placed due to the moving of a box is very suggestive
and is suspicious enough to place Oswald in the sniper’s nest. The fingerprints
found by Scalice on the trigger guard of the rifle seem to seal the deal. Of course
there is the possibility that Oswald happened to have placed the print on the box in
the sniper’s nest when he was moving the box round earlier in the day, and that
the fingerprints on the trigger guard had some innocent explanation (or that it was
part of some conspiracy on the part of the Dallas police crime scene investigation
team) but on the balance of probabilities it looks overwhelmingly likely that this
circumstantial evidence proves that Oswald did fire the three shots from the
sniper’s nest.

To what degree is the evidence reliable?

The evidence can be considered reasonably reliable. Gerald Posner is a widely
acclaimed investigative journalist and author with a background in law who has
published books on topics as wide ranging as the Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele, and
the intricacies of the Vatican Bank. In 2015 (in a review of ‘God’s Bankers’) the
Chicago Tribune described him as a “merciless pitbull of an investigator”
(Tsouderos, 2015). ‘Case Closed’ is probably his most famous work, and was a
New York Times bestseller when released, receiving a nomination for the
prestigious Pulitzer Prize for History. It was recognised by many reviewers as a
meticulously researched work, and is therefore held in high regard as an account
of the assassination and the events surrounding it. However, Posner did
experience controversy after articles he wrote for the publication “The Daily Beast”
were found to be plagiarised, and upon further investigation accusations of
plagiarism and misattribution of quotes were leveled by ‘The Miami New Times’
against Posner in reference to his 2009 book ‘Miami Babylon’. While ‘Case Closed’
has not been found to have been plagiarised, the accusations of misattribution and
alteration of quotes are somewhat worrying, but as similar accusations have not
been leveled against ‘Case Closed’ it should not affect the reliability of the source
significantly. Taking into account his experience as an author and investigative
journalist, the critical acclaim his works have garnered, and the fact that ‘Case
Closed’ was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize suggests that this evidence can be
considered reliable.

The intended audience of ‘Case Closed’ would be the general public interested in
the assassination of JFK as well as the more serious academic and historian.
Owing to the fact that this book would be scrutinised in great depth by conspiracy
theorists and qualified historians alike, Posner would have had to ensure that the
evidence he uses and the conclusions he draws are reliable. Therefore, the source
can be considered reasonably reliable.

Posner’s motivation in writing ‘Case Closed’ is, as the title suggests, to

conclusively determine who assassinated JFK and why. While it may seem slightly
presumptuous to assume that the release of his book could ‘close the JFK case’,
Posner does not jump to conclusions, and uses a fact-based approach to build his
case. In the section quoted above, Posner essentially quotes important witnesses
verbatim and puts forward very few opinions. Because the evidence is more
objective than subjective, the source is more reliable as a result.

The evidence presented in this source can be cross-referenced with other sources
to check its reliability. The fact that three empty shells from the Marcano rifle that
fired the bullets that hit JFK were found in the Sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the
Texas School Book Depository building makes sense when combined with the
evidence from Nicolas Nalli’s gunshot-wound dynamics model that found that the
fatal shot must have originated from behind JFK’s limousine (Nalli, 2018). The
Texas School Book Depository was situated behind JFK’s limousine, so the
physical evidence of JFK’s head movements as analysed by Nalli agrees with the
testimony of Lt. Day around the evidence of the spent gun shells. In the chapter
analysed above from Bugliosi’s ‘Reclaiming History’, Charles Givens (an employee
at the depository) testifies to the Warren commission that he saw Oswald with a
clipboard in his hand on the sixth floor at 5 to noon. This clipboard was later found
hidden nearby the rifle, placing Oswald under enormous suspicion (Bugliosi, 2007).
This evidence is also in line with the testimony of Day, who found Oswald’s right
palm print on the carton in the sniper’s nest, and Scalice’s evidence of Oswald’s
fingerprints on the Marcano rifle. Because the evidence presented in this source is
able to be cross-referenced by other sources it can be considered more reliable.

The limitations of using this evidence as a single source is it does not look into the
possibility that Oswald was ‘put up’ to the killing by some shady party or parties (for
example the CIA, the Mob, Elvis, aliens, and whoever else conspiracy theorists
decide to magic up). This type of conspiracy theory is relatively popular so a
different source is required to debunk such theories. Caution is justified when
viewing this source as it is shaped by the inherent biases of Posner, and these
biases could lead to contrary evidence being dismissed or omitted.

What makes the evidence useful?

The source material is useful as it helps to answer my focus question (what
evidence was there that Oswald was the lone assassin?). The evidence that
Posner presents that places Oswald in the sniper’s nest (the palm print) with the
rifle (the fingerprints on the trigger guard) in addition to the three expended shells
that came from the rifle is highly useful as it puts forward a very strong case that
Oswald was the lone assassin. The evidence presented above is mainly comprises
facts, with Posner leaving the reader space to form their own opinions and
conclusions. Posner also presents the evidence with a balanced view, and does
not necessarily place too much emphasis on any particular strand of evidence.
This is useful for my investigation as it means I can draw my own conclusions
without having to take into account the author’s bias.
Source #5:
For most of my adult life, I'm sorry to say, I've been what some folks call an assassination buff,
convinced there was a massive cover-up in the assassination of John F. Kennedy...By the time I
entered college a decade later, I started the long trek to find out what really happened. I read most
of the books from the critics of the Warren Commission. Back then, those critics made a lot of
sense to a young mind shaped by assassinations, Vietnam and Watergate. I read the theories
about Oswald. He was a loser, a patsy, a Soviet spy, a U.S. double agent, he was training Cubans
to invade Cuba, he was a CIA agent, and on and on. All later determined to be nonsense. He was a
loser. I've also read all the other theories about how Kennedy died. He was killed by the mob, he
was set up by the Army, it was a coup by the generals who wanted us in Vietnam, there were
gunmen all over Dealey Plaza and, finally, one of the more bizarre theories that claimed he was
accidentally killed by a Secret Service man. Then there were the books on the cover-up and the
tampering of evidence. Oswald's prints were planted on the gun, the Zapruder film was altered to
show shots from behind, the autopsy was botched on purpose and, even weirder, Kennedy's
corpse was altered. Then there were all the records that were kept secret. Back then I could only
hope that someday the secret documents would be released and we would learn the truth about the
Kennedy Assassination. Over time, I've become convinced that the essential facts of the
assassination have always been known. Oswald acted alone. He fired three shots from the sniper's
nest in the school book depository; two of them hit Kennedy and one missed. One bullet hit both
Kennedy and Gov. John Connally. That's it. But I also became convinced that there was a cover-up
in the Kennedy assassination. In fact, there was one person who had a lot to cover up and to hide
from the public. That person was the president himself. What did JFK have to cover up? It turns out
an awful lot. We can start with his health. Kennedy was a very sick man. He didn't want the public
knowing about his Addison's disease, or that he took massive medications to get through the day,
or that he was a sitting target thanks to the back brace and ace bandages he wore from his thighs
to upper torso that kept him propped up in that car. So naturally the autopsy was covered up. He
had a lot of girlfriends, including one that was a mob mistress. That's a dangerous game when the
president has a liaison with a mobster's girlfriend. Kennedy's FBI wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr.
Can't let that get out. His attorney general and brother plotted to kill Castro. And guess what? The
mob was enlisted to help. JFK himself had a lot to cover up, a lot to keep secret. I don't know what
the secret documents will truly reveal, but I suspect they will reveal more about the president and
the Kennedy administration than about the facts of the assassination. We already know the basic
facts. Turns out we always did. But that other stuff? It was covered up.

Reference: Blaser, R. (2017). We've known the truth about JFK assassination all
along. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-ahp-colu mn-
blaser-tl-1102-20171026-story.html

Main ideas presented: In this opinion piece for the Chicago tribune, Randy Blaser
posits the theory that Oswald really did act alone in assassinating JFK, and the
real cover up was around embarrassing details relating to JFK himself. He claims
that the facts of the assassination, that is that Oswald fired three bullets and hit
JFK twice, were always known. The reason that there appeared to be a cover up is
that there was, but not in the way most people think. Blaser claims that JFK had a
lot to hide, and for that reason a lot of information was withheld/altered. He puts
the controversy regarding his autopsy down to the government trying to prevent
information about Kennedy’s atrocious health condition reaching the public. He
also mentioned the mob connections Kennedy had - he was having an affair with a
mob mistress, and his brother and the Attorney General were in cahoots with the
mob in plots to assassinate Castro.

Deeper meaning inferred: Blaser appears to have come to this conclusion after
years of believing that JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. It seems as if
the lack of solid evidence to really back any theory even after fifty years has in part
pushed him to this conclusion. Despite the fact that many of the events
surrounding the assassination were somewhat suspicious, after all these years
there have been no dramatic revelations concerning a grand conspiracy on the
part of the CIA or the mob. As a result Blaser, like many, are starting to apply the
concept of Occam’s razor (see first evaluation). Oswald acting alone is simply the
most plausible explanation, and requires the least number of assumptions as
compared to other theories. Blaser also hints that the idolisation of JFK that
occurred in the aftermath of his assassination could have led to details that were
inconvenient to the prevailing narrative regarding JFK’s life (his health, his mob
connections, some of his realpolitik-influenced decisions, his questionable fidelity)
being brushed under the carpet. The cover ups that resulted from this airbrushing
of JFK’s life were then reinterpreted by eager conspiracy theorists as evidence of
an assassination conspiracy.

To what degree is the evidence reliable?

The reliability of this evidence is questionable. Randy Blaser is a real estate agent
and a columnist for the ‘Chicago Tribune’. While the Chicago Tribune is a very
well- established newspaper, with a historical reputation for reliability, Blaser’s
background as a real estate agent doesn’t necessarily help in a discussion of the
JFK assassination, and therefore the provenance of the evidence is of
questionable reliability.

The intended audience of this piece is the readers of the Chicago Tribune. Recent
polling suggests that while the majority of Americans still believe that JFK was
assassinated as part of a conspiracy, the percentage of people that believe that
Oswald acted alone is at an all time high. This audience of people who once
believed that there definitely was a conspiracy but are now not so sure are the
main target audience for this article. As a result, the reliability of the article has to
be of a reasonable standard as the target audience would reject it otherwise.

Blaser’s motive in writing this article is to convince those who are wavering over
whether or not there was a conspiracy that Oswald did in fact act alone, but that
there was a conspiracy to cover up embarrassing details about JFK in the
aftermath of the shooting. This motive does not necessarily increase the reliability
of the piece, as Blaser’s desire to convince and persuade people may lead to him
brushing over evidence and using emotive, rhetorical arguments as opposed to
evidential arguments.

This article is highly subjective. Blaser comes to the conclusion that Oswald acted
alone on the basis of his inability to be swayed by the evidence for a conspiracy
that he claims to have studied in depth. This is in part due to the context of the
article: as a column, it is not expected to go deep into the facts, but rather it should
provide the reader with the opinion of Blaser. For this reason the reliability of the
piece should come under question.

Some of the information in this source can be cross-referenced with evidence from
other sources. Two of the conspiracy theories regarding Oswald’s motivation that
Blaser dismisses (Oswald was a patsy, Oswald was a Soviet agent) were also
dismissed by two of my sources. The first was discredited by Bugliosi, who
systematically took apart the theories that Oswald was a willing or unwilling ‘fall
guy’ in the assassination (Bugliosi, 2007). The second was dismissed by the
recently released Hoover memo that put forward very strong information disproving
any Russian ties to Oswald. Furthermore Nalli mentions that JFK’s back brace
could have been part of the reason for the delayed backwards movement of JFK
after he was fatally shot, which confirms Blaser’s insinuation about JFK’s back
brace (Nalli, 2018).

The limitations of using this article as a single source is the lack of substantial
evidence provided by Blaser to back up his claims. One its own, this could not be
used to form a watertight case for Oswald acting alone. Caution is definitely
required when using this source as it is an opinion piece, so likely influenced by the
biases of the author and the publication

What makes the evidence useful?

This source is only marginally useful in helping to answer my focus question. This
is mainly due to the lack of depth of details, and the emphasis on opinion over fact
in the source. This leads to the source being less useful as little to no substantial
evidence is produced by Blaser that would be useful in refuting conspiracy
theories. Additionally, the usefulness of Blaser’s analysis suffers somewhat due to
his clear bias for the single shooter, no conspiracy theory and the lack of balance
in the views presented. In fairness to Blaser, the case he makes for the cover up
around embarrassing details about JFK is plausible and could be useful in a future
investigation, but again the lack of substantial supporting evidence outside of
opinion does significantly harm this.