John F. Kennedy's murder: The untold Story
John F - John F. Kennedy's murder: The untold Story introduction. Kennedy’s murder: The untold Story
More Essay Examples on John F. Kennedy Rubric
A shocking event in the history of America and indeed the history of the world occurred on this day, November 22, 1963. The president of the world’s most powerful nation was murdered in Dallas, Texas as he toured the state. What has remained unclear is the motive behind John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Was it political, religious or could it be that he posed a threat to world political and economic stability? Why is the murder unsolved to this very day? Were powerful people in the world involved or was it an American affair? The only people who could answer these questions were those that saw the need for his death and the perfect lead on this was the man or woman who pulled the tiger. It is on this note that I wish to look deeper into the mystery of J. F Kennedy’s assassination with regard to reliability of witness account and intelligenceKennedy
The inquiry and findings into the assassination of J. F. Kennedy did not satisfy many people. This could have been as a result of many factors ranging from intelligence to witness account. It is evident that many people were involved in the assassination of J. F. Kennedy contrary to what the investigative report indicated. The main link to this mystery was however Harvey Oswald. According to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, a panel which was constituted to look into the assassination, the bullets that killed J. F. Kennedy came from a gun which was fired in the sixth floor of the book depository warehouse. It is alleged that it was Oswald who fired the gun.
In order to implicate Oswald in this case, sufficient evidence must have been presented. Supposing that indeed it was Oswald who pulled the trigger, what could have been his motive or motives taking into account the moral and legal implications of such an act. Even though the commission did not find any particular motive, it concluded that Oswald was motivated not by any calculated reason but by a superseding resentment to his environment. A glimpse into his character reveals the fact that he appeared to have been unable to relate constructively with other people. A deep seated discontent was evident as he had an apparent dislike for anything American. He desired to be a great man by ending the life of another man considered great in the eyes of the world. Additionally, Marxism as well as Communistic ideals made him to seek an ideal society that hardly existed. All this coupled with a remarkable disregard to the real consequences of his action produced the man Lee Harvey Oswald – a man willing and able to assassinate President J. F. Kennedy (Warren Commission Report).
According to this statement, Oswald did not see any meaning in life. Why would he find any meaning in assassinating the president? If he could not establish meaning relationship with other people then what was his relationship with Jack Rubi, the club owner who shot him after the assassination? How would he have known the perfect position to fire the shot? One apparent thing is that if Oswald was involved then he was not alone in this case. This whole event involved a carefully planed plot to assassinate the president and the Warren Commission was only serving a purpose of locking the gates to other possibilities. The fact that Oswald himself was killed after the assassination disproves the alleged ‘hostility to the environment theory’ that the Warren commission hypothesized. Assuming that Oswald was discontented with life then John F. Kennedy would have been the last person of whom he would have held responsible for his life even though he was the president.
This murder was not about an individual tired of life hence looking for something great to do. It was a high scheme to eliminate a person who held a central point in global issues. If this was the case, then what was the role of Jack Ruby? Was he just an ordinary citizen earning a living through business? Who was he? It was often alleged that Ruby had an association with criminal gangs and was a major figure when it comes to organized crime in Dallas. A major crime such as the assassination of the president would have not taken place without the knowledge of Dallas crime bosses. The reasons that Ruby gave for shooting Oswald were not sufficient especially in a society that embraces the rule of law. His utterances in support of his action would have not passed as the major reason why he shot Oswald. Several witnesses reported that Ruby said he shot Oswald so that the world can see how much guts the Jews had. Another reason was that by killing Oswald, he helped the city of Dallas regain itself in the eyes of the public. (Warren Commission Hearing)
The killing of Oswald and the appearance of Ruby were an attempt to shift the focus on the real issues behind the murder of J. F. Kennedy. Whoever was behind the scene succeeded in shifting this focus because the mystery has never been solved. If Oswald was the kind of person that the Warren Commission thought he was then there was no point in Ruby killing him. There is a high probability that the man or woman who killed Kennedy was never apprehended and instead an innocent man accused of being the assassin died in the event. Oswald may not have been aware of the plot to kill the president and there is sufficient evidence that points towards that. Oswald denied any involvement with the assassination and did not provide any lead into the purpose of the killing. Instead, the authorities sought to link his background with communism and Marxism which to any rational being could pass as mere fabrication. Why was there no recording of his interrogation? Was this a case of an ordinary man against a system beyond the perception of the majority of men?
It was interesting the way that the FBI conducted their investigation. A couple of hours after Oswald was murdered, J. Edgar Hoover, the director of FBI said he wanted something issued that could be used to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin. (Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the US House of Representatives,p.224) The objective of their investigation was to find something that could link Oswald with the assassination. It is a well known fact that the FBI cannot go beyond their objective and in this case, a link between Oswald and J. F. Kennedy’s murder had to be found. In other words, everything had to be fabricated from witnesses to the accused, in this case, Oswald. How else would someone explain the differences in eye witness account. How can we explain the possibilities of events that actually never occurred? The only logical reason could be that the reality behind the assassination of J. F. Kennedy had to be distorted as much as possible and every existing institution had to be used in the cover up. Even the witnesses could have been trained on exactly to say. Why could Hoover not be open to other possibilities?
What is clear is that the American people were pushed into believing that Oswald was the assassin. The inconsistencies in witness accounts were as a result of fabricated events that were meant hide the real people behind the assassination of the people’s president. No expert could unravel the truth behind this heinous act since the investigations were based on irrelevant actors. Abraham Zapruder’s film even though a very important piece of evidence could not give even a vague picture of what the killer might have been. The collection of evidence which pointed to Oswald was based on theory which could otherwise lack objectivity. Witness account would have not helped much in uncovering the assassination because interpretation of reality is subjective. For instance, given a situation and a set of facts, every human individual will adopt his/her own interpretation depending on his cognitive ability to relate situations and facts, and the possible conclusion that he/she is expected to draw. In the case of the investigations, the police reports and forensic analysis deliberately sought to link a particular subject, in this case Oswald, with the situation which was the president’s assassination. In other words, every piece of evidence was tested against the possibility of Oswald providing the missing link thereby going against the principles of falsification.
The nature that the investigation took could not provide any reasonable result and hence the difficulty in coming out with a tangible conclusion. In this case, it is not the inconsistency in the eye witness account that jeopardized the conclusion of the case but rather the nature and complexity of the case coupled with the fact that the secret service had no prior security details of Dallas. However, this could not have obstructed the investigators from having a clue on what might have been the motive behind J. F. Kennedy’s assassination. To a large extent, the motive could have been political. Adopting the principles of falsification would have led to sufficient evidence which might have pointed to an organization, an individual or even a government. Issues such as Kennedy’s foreign policies and domestic policies may have not gone down with some people and governments hence the need to eliminate him. Should this have been the starting point of the investigations then some solid evidence might have pointed to at least some concrete conclusion. The agencies that were involved with investigations did not carry out their mandate as they were required to do or they were lacking in competence. According to the report by the House Select Committee, the FBI’s investigations into the assassination were seriously flawed. “ The conspiracy aspects of the investigation were characterized by a limited approach and an inadequate application and use of available resource.”(House Select Committee on Assassination)
The question that one is bound to ask is that why did the FBI, with all the resources at their disposal, chose to carry out investigations which could not come with a viable conclusion. It could be that within its ranks there were people who had conspired to assassinate the president. If this is the case then why would they do that. The only probable answer could be that some individuals in the bureau were working for people other than the American government. Because this assassination occurred during the time when there was marked rivalry between the Russian government and the United States, there could be possibilities of the Russian government and its affiliates being responsible for this assassination. J. F. Kennedy’s position on certain foreign policies was clear and these to some extent rubbed the Russians the wrong way. Could be that the Cuban government was involved owing to an attempt to overthrow Castro’s regime. All these pieces joined together may have led to assassination of J. F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. May be the question which rung in the minds of the people who plotted to assassinate Kennedy was how and when the operation should be carried out. It seems as if opportunity presented itself on his visit to Dallas. Thus, coupled with the fact that the secret service that is responsible for the president’s security did not have prior knowledge of Dallas’ security details, it was an opportunity to take the president out.
To any patriotic citizen who showed up on the material day only to witness the assassination of the president, it would not have been easy to recount the event. Relying on witnesses on this case may have not been sufficient enough in providing the lead to uncovering the assassination. To a greater extent, the witnesses who appeared before the commission and those who were questioned were either ignorant of the fact that they were being led into giving false accounts or they simply did not reconstruct the events in a sufficient way as to produce any tangible evidence.
Going back to Oswald, it seems he was a victim of circumstance. To what extent did the plot to implicate him in the assassination succeed?
Oswald was never a lucky person. Ten days after being fired, it is alleged that he attempted to murder General Walker, who was an ex-commanding officer of the army. It is alleged that Oswald took pictures of the general’s house some time before he plotted to kill him. However, “this was only known after the assassination of J. F. Kennedy when his belongings were searched.” It is not certain if these pictures were planted in order to give an impression that Oswald was capable of murder. This could be a possibility owing to the fact that Hoover gave instructions for reasons to be brought forth that pointed to the fact that Oswald was the assassin.
The mystery surrounding J. F. Kennedy’s assassination was a highly fabricated thing and the perpetrators succeeded in their plan of assassinating then covering it up. No crime can be solved when the facts are not in order and the people behind this assassination knew this fact just too well. As much as studies can be carried out in establishing the role of memory or personality in solving crimes, the truth lies in the role of the victim in the society and how he relates with it. How much does one influence the society and how much is he influenced by the society. Society in this sense refers to the general population that one’s decisions affect. If humans can understand the society better, then we would be in a position to unmask all the mysteries that accompany life.
Society played a big role in J. F. Kennedy’s assassination in the sense that it harbors criminals. Kennedy also contributed to his assassination in the sense that he did not accept his position in the society.
It is claimed that Kennedy himself had foreseen his assassination. It is even alleged that he said he could be shot from a high building and little could be done to stop it. Having known there was a possibility of his life being taken, he owed a responsibility to himself to ensure his safety. However, his security details also had a responsibility to ensure that his worries and fears were taken seriously. The secret service held that they could not act on speculation. It observed that they had no specific reasons to suspect that there was a plot to assassinate the president.
The Select Committee on Assassination’s finding on the performance at the time of assassination concluded that the secret service was inadequately prepared for an attack by a concealed sniper. (Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the US. House of Representatives)
John. F. Kennedy’s assassination exposed the flaws in the structure and composition of intelligence services in the American society. Besides proving how vague the security of the leaders are, it also exposed the decaying moral standards in the society owing to the fact that people like Ruby could commit murder in front of the cameras and still have the guts to defend their actions in the pretext that they are doing it for the society.
Bishop, Jim. The Day Kennedy was Shot. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968.
Lee Harvey Oswald: Biography (July 23, 2008) from http://www.answers.com/topic/lee-harvey- Oswald
The National Archives. (2008).Warren Commission Report. From http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/
The National Archives.(2008).Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives
United States Warren Commission. The Witnesses: The Highlights of Hearings before
the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965
Warren Commission. The Warren Commission Report: Complete and Unabridged.
New York: St. Martins Press, 1967
Image of an Assassination: A New Look at the Zapruder Film. Dir. Peter Dean.
Baseline Studio Systems, 2008.
Lifton, David S. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F.
Kennedy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1980.
Lambert, Patricia. False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison’s Investigation and
Oliver Stone’s Film JFK. New York: M. Evans and Company, 1998.