by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished.Photographs, evidence and a?davits have been doctored out of recognition.Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald havebeen completely blacked out. Meanwhile the ???, the police and the SecretService have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence togive. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.the autobiography of bertrand russell 674It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the WarrenCommission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before thepublication of the Warren Commission’s report, leaks to the press have mademuch of its contents predictable. Because of the high o?ce of its membersand the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission hasbeen widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce theTruth. An impartial examination of the composition and conduct of theCommission suggests quite otherwise.The Warren Commission has been utterly unrepresentative of the Americanpeople. It consisted of two Democrats, Senator Russell of Georgia and Con-gressman Boggs of Louisiana, both of whose racist views have brought shameon the United States; two Republicans, Senator Cooper of Kentucky and Con-gressman Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the latter of whom is leader of his localGoldwater movement, a former member of the ??? and is known in Washing-ton as the spokesman for that institution; Allen Dulles, former director of the???; and Mr McCloy, who has been referred to as the spokesman for thebusiness community. Leadership of the ?libuster in the Senate against theCivil Rights Bill prevented Senator Russell attending a single hearing duringthis period. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl War-ren, who rightly commands respect, was ?nally persuaded, much against hiswill, to preside over the Commission, and it was his involvement above allelse that helped lend the Commission an aura of legality and authority. Yetmany of its members were also members of those very groups which havedone so much to distort and suppress the facts about the assassination.Because of their connection with the Government, not one member would havebeen permitted under American law to serve on a jury had Oswald faced trial.It is small wonder that the Chief Justice himself remarked: ‘You may neverknow all of the facts in your life time.’ Here, then, is my ?rst question: Whywere all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the ?? Government.If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct con?rmedone’s worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that cross-examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointedthe President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of theleaders of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. Tomy knowledge he did not attend a single hearing, but satis?ed himselfwith representation by observers. In the name of national security, theCommission’s hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policywhich has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my secondquestion: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in Franceduring the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted allits enquiries in the strictest secrecy?the foundation 675At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which itwould conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do onNovember 22, 1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What didOswald do in the ?? Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How didRuby kill Oswald? (5) What is Ruby’s background? (6) What e?orts weretaken to protect the President on November 22? This raises my fourth ques-tion: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of whokilled President Kennedy?All the evidence given to the Commission has been classi?ed ‘Top Secret’,including even a request that hearings be held in public. Despite this theCommission itself leaked much of the evidence to the press, though only ifthe evidence tended to prove Oswald was the lone assassin. Thus Chief JusticeWarren held a press conference after Oswald’s wife Marina, had testi?ed, hesaid, that she believed her husband was the assassin. Before Oswald’s brotherRobert, testi?ed, he gained the Commission’s agreement never to commenton what he said. After he had testi?ed for two days, Allen Dulles remained inthe hearing room and several members of the press entered. The next day thenewspapers were full of stories that ‘a member of the Commission’ had toldthe press that Robert Oswald had just testi?ed that he believed that hisbrother was an agent of the Soviet Union. Robert Oswald was outraged bythis, and said that he could not remain silent while lies were told about histestimony. He had never said this and he had never believed it. All that he hadtold the Commission was that he believed his brother was in no way involvedin the assassination.The methods adopted by the Commission have indeed been deplorable,but it is important to challenge the entire role of the Warren Commission. Itstated that it would not conduct its own investigation, but rely instead on theexisting governmental agencies – the ???, the Secret Service and the Dallaspolice. Con?dence in the Warren Commission thus presupposes con?dencein these three institutions. Why have so many liberals abandoned their own responsibilityto a Commission whose circumstances they refuse to examine?It is known that the strictest and most elaborate security precautionsever taken for a President of the United States were ordered for November22 in Dallas. The city had a reputation for violence and was the homeof some of the most extreme right-wing fanatics in America. Mr andMrs Lyndon Johnson had been assailed there in 1960 when he was a can-didate for the Vice-Presidency. Adlai Stevenson had been physically attackedwhen he spoke in the city only a month before Kennedy’s visit. On themorning of November 22, the Dallas Morning News carried a full-page adver-tisement associating the President with communism. The city was coveredwith posters showing the President’s picture and headed ‘Wanted for Trea-son’. The Dallas list of subversives comprised 23 names, of which Oswald’sthe autobiography of bertrand russell 676was the ?rst. All of them were followed that day, except Oswald. Why did theauthorities follow as potential assassins every single person who had ever spoken out publicly infavour of desegregation of the public school system in Dallas, and fail to observe Oswald’s entryinto the book depository building while allegedly carrying a ri?e over four feet long?The President’s route for his drive through Dallas was widely known andwas printed in the Dallas Morning News on November 22. At the last minute theSecret Service changed a small part of their plans so that the President leftMain Street and turned into Houston and Elm Streets. This alteration took thePresident past the book depository building from which it is alleged thatOswald shot him. How Oswald is supposed to have known of this change hasnever been explained. Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take himpast Oswald’s place of work?After the assassination and Oswald’s arrest, judgement was pronouncedswiftly: Oswald was the assassin, and he had acted alone. No attempt wasmade to arrest others, no road blocks were set up round the area, and everypiece of evidence which tended to incriminate Oswald was announced tothe press by the Dallas District Attorney, Mr Wade. In such a way millions ofpeople were prejudiced against Oswald before there was any opportunity forhim to be brought to trial. The ?rst theory announced by the authoritieswas that the President’s car was in Houston Street, approaching the bookdepository building, when Oswald opened ?re. When available photographsand eye-witnesses had shown this to be quite untrue, the theory was aban-doned and a new one formulated which placed the vehicle in its correctposition.Meanwhile, however, ?? Wade had announced that three days afterOswald’s room in Dallas had been searched, a map had been found there onwhich the book depository building had been circled and dotted lines drawnfrom the building to a vehicle on Houston Street. After the ?rst theory wasproved false, the Associated Press put out the following story on November27: ‘Dallas authorities announced today that there never was a map. Anyreference to the map was a mistake.’The second theory correctly placed the President’s car on Elm Street, 50 to75 yards past the book depository, but had to contend with the di?culty thatthe President was shot from the front, in the throat. How did Oswald manageto shoot the President in the front from behind? The ??? held a series ofbackground brie?ng sessions for Life magazine, which in its issue of Decem-ber 6 explained that the President had turned completely round just at thetime he was shot. This, too, was soon shown to be entirely false. It was deniedby several witnesses and ?lms, and the previous issue of Life itself had shownthe President looking forward as he was hit. Theory number two wasabandoned.In order to retain the basis of all o?cial thinking, that Oswald was thethe foundation 677lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with themedical evidence altered to ?t it. For the ?rst month no Secret Service agenthad ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedy’s life inthe Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with thedoctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrancewound in the President’s throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet hadnot ranged down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could havebeen so mistaken, Dr McClelland advanced two reasons: they had not seen theautopsy report – and they had not known that Oswald was behind the Presi-dent! The autopsy report, they had been told by the Secret Service, showedthat Kennedy had been shot from behind. The agents, however, had refused toshow the report to the doctors, who were entirely dependent upon the wordof the Secret Service for this suggestion. The doctors made it clear that theywere not permitted to discuss the case. The third theory, with the medicalevidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case against Oswald. Why has themedical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?Although Oswald is alleged to have shot the President from behind, thereare many witnesses who are con?dent that the shots came from the front.Among them are two reporters from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, four fromthe Dallas Morning News, and two people who were standing in front of thebook depository building itself, the director of the book depository and thevice-president of the ?rm. It appears that only two people immediatelyentered the building, the director, Mr Roy S. Truly, and a Dallas police o?cer,Seymour Weitzman. Both thought that the shots had come from in front ofthe President’s vehicle. On ?rst running in that direction, Weitzman wasinformed by ‘someone’ that he thought the shots had come from the build-ing, so he rushed back there. Truly entered with him in order to assist withhis knowledge of the building. Mr Jesse Curry, however, the Chief of Police inDallas, has stated that he was immediately convinced that the shots camefrom the building. If anyone else believes this, he has been reluctant to say soto date. It is also known that the ?rst bulletin to go out on Dallas police radiosstated that ‘the shots came from a triple overpass in front of the presidentialautomobile’. In addition, there is the consideration that after the ?rst shot thevehicle was brought almost to a halt by the trained Secret Service driver, anunlikely response if the shots had indeed come from behind. Certainly MrRoy Kellerman, who was in charge of the Secret Service operation in Dallasthat day, and travelled in the presidential car, looked to the front as the shotswere ?red. The Secret Service have removed all the evidence from the car, so itis no longer possible to examine the broken windscreen. What is the evidence tosubstantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?Photographs taken at the scene of the crime could be most helpful. Oneyoung lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots werethe autobiography of bertrand russell 678?red took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting,and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book deposi-tory building. Two ??? agents immediately took the ?lm from her and haverefused to this day to permit her to see the photographs which she took. Whyhas the ??? refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?In this connection it is noteworthy also that it is impossible to obtain theoriginals of photographs of the various alleged murder weapons. When Timemagazine published a photograph of Oswald’s arrest – the only one ever seen –the entire background was blacked out for reasons which have never beenexplained. It is di?cult to recall an occasion for so much falsi?cation ofphotographs as has happened in the Oswald case.The a?davit by police o?cer Weitzman, who entered the book depositorybuilding, stated that he found the alleged murder ri?e on the sixth ?oor.(It was at ?rst announced that the ri?e had been found on the ?fth ?oor, butthis was soon altered.) It was a German 7.65mm. Mauser. Later the followingday, the ??? issued its ?rst proclamation. Oswald had purchased in March1963 an Italian 6.5mm. carbine. ?? Wade immediately altered the nationalityand size of his weapon to conform to the ??? statement.Several photographs have been published of the alleged murder weapon.On February 21, Life magazine carried on its cover a picture of ‘Lee Oswaldwith the weapon he used to kill President Kennedy and O?cer Tippett’. Onpage 80, Life explained that the photograph was taken during March or Aprilof 1963. According to the ???, Oswald purchased his pistol in September 1963.The New York Times carried a picture of the alleged murder weapon being takenby police into the Dallas police station. The ri?e is quite di?erent. Expertshave stated that it would be impossible to pull the trigger on the ri?e in Life’spicture. The New York Times also carried the same photograph as Life, but leftout the telescopic sights. On March 2, Newsweek used the same photograph butpainted in an entirely new ri?e. Then on April 13, the Latin American editionof Life carried the same picture on its cover as the ?? edition had on February21, but in the same issue on page 18 it had the same picture with the ri?ealtered. How is it that millions of people have been misled by complete forgeries in the press?Another falsehood concerning the shooting was a story circulated by theAssociated Press on November 23 from Los Angeles. This reported Oswald’sformer superior o?cer in the Marine Corps as saying that Oswald was a crackshot and a hot-head. The story was published everywhere. Three hours later?? sent out a correction deleting the entire story from Los Angeles. Theo?cer had checked his records and it had turned out that he was talkingabout another man. He had never known Oswald. To my knowledge thiscorrection has yet to be published by a single major publication.The Dallas police took a para?n test of Oswald’s face and hands to try toestablish that he had ?red a weapon on November 22. The Chief of the Dallasthe foundation 679Police, Jesse Curry, announced on November 23 that the results of the test‘proves Oswald is the assassin’. The Director of the ??? in the Dallas–FortWorth area in charge of the investigation stated: ‘I have seen the para?n test.The para?n test proves that Oswald had nitrates and gun-powder on hishands and face. It proves he ?red a ri?e on November 22.’ Not only does thisunreliable test not prove any such thing, it was later discovered that the teston Oswald’s face was in fact negative, suggesting that it was unlikely he ?reda ri?e that day. Why was the result of the para?n test altered before being announced by theauthorities?Oswald, it will be recalled was originally arrested and charged with themurder of Patrolman Tippett. Tippett was killed at 1.06 p.m. on November22 by a man who ?rst engaged him in conversation, then caused him to getout of the stationary police car in which he was sitting and shot him with apistol. Miss Helen L. Markham, who states that she is the sole eye-witness tothis crime, gave the Dallas police a description of the assailant. After signingher a?davit, she was instructed by the ???, the Secret Service and many policeo?cers that she was not permitted to discuss the case with anyone. Thea?davit’s only description of the killer was that he was a ‘young white man’.Miss Markham later revealed that the killer had run right up to her and pasther, brandishing the pistol, and she repeated the description of the murdererwhich she had given to the police. He was, she said, ‘short, heavy and hadbushy hair’. (The police description of Oswald was that he was of averageheight, or a little taller, was slim and had receding fair hair.) Miss Markham’sa?davit is the entire case against Oswald for the murder of Patrolman Tippett,yet District Attorney Wade asserted: ‘We have more evidence to prove Oswaldkilled Tippett than we have to show he killed the President.’ The case againstOswald for the murder of Tippett, he continued, was an absolutely strongcase. Why was the only description of Tippett’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from thea?davit of the sole eye-witness?Oswald’s description was broadcast by the Dallas police only 12 minutesafter the President was shot. This raises one of the most extraordinary ques-tions ever posed in a murder case: Why was Oswald’s description in connection with themurder of Patrolman Tippett broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12.43 p.m. on November 22,when Tippett was not shot until 1.06 p.m.?According to Mr Bob Considine, writing in the New York Journal American,there had been another person who had heard the shots that were ?red atTippett. Warren Reynolds had heard shooting in the street from a nearbyroom and had rushed to the window to see the murderer run o?. Reynoldshimself was later shot through the head by a ri?eman. A man was arrested forthis crime but produced an alibi. His girl-friend, Betty Mooney McDonald,told the police she had been with him at the time Reynolds was shot. TheDallas police immediately dropped the charges against him, even beforethe autobiography of bertrand russell 680Reynolds had time to recover consciousness and attempt to identify hisassailant. The man at once disappeared, and two days later the Dallas policearrested Betty Mooney McDonald on a minor charge and it was announcedthat she had hanged herself in the police cell. She had been a striptease artistin Jack Ruby’s nightclub, according to Mr Considine.Another witness to receive extraordinary treatment in the Oswald case washis wife, Marina. She was taken to the jail while her husband was still aliveand shown a ri?e by Chief of Police Jesse Curry. Asked if it was Oswald’s, shereplied that she believed Oswald had a ri?e but that it didn’t look like that.She and her mother-in-law were in great danger following the assassinationbecause of the threat of public revenge on them. At this time they wereunable to obtain a single police o?cer to protect them. Immediately Oswaldwas killed, however, the Secret Service illegally held both women against theirwill. After three days they were separated and Marina has never again beenaccessible to the public. Held in custody for nine weeks and questionedalmost daily by the ??? and Secret Service, she ?nally testi?ed to the WarrenCommission and, according to Earl Warren, said that she believed her hus-band was the assassin. The Chief Justice added that the next day they intendedto show Mrs Oswald the murder weapon and the Commission was fairlycon?dent that she would identify it as her husband’s. The following dayEarl Warren announced that this had indeed happened. Mrs Oswald is stillin the custody of the Secret Service. To isolate a witness for nine weeks andto subject her to repeated questioning by the Secret Service in this manneris reminiscent of police behaviour in other countries, where it is called brain-washing. How was it possible for Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s evidence wouldbe exactly the reverse of what she had previously believed?After Ruby had killed Oswald, ?? Wade made a statement about Oswald’smovements following the assassination. He explained that Oswald had takena bus, but he described the point at which Oswald had entered the vehicle asseven blocks away from the point located by the bus driver in his a?davit.Oswald, Wade continued, then took a taxi driven by a Darryll Click, who hadsigned an a?davit. An enquiry at the City Transportation Company revealedthat no such taxi driver had ever existed in Dallas. Presented with this evidence,Wade altered the driver’s name to William Wahley. Wade has been ?? inDallas for 14 years and before that was an ??? agent. How does a District Attorney ofWade’s great experience account for all the extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony whichhe has announced during the Oswald case?These are only a few of the questions raised by the o?cial versions of theassassination and by the way in which the entire case against Oswald has beenconducted. Sixteen questions are no substitute for a full examination of allthe factors in this case, but I hope that they indicate the importance of such aninvestigation. I am indebted to Mr Mark Lane, the New York criminal Lawyerthe foundation 681who was appointed Counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of theinformation in this article. Mr Lane’s enquiries, which are continuing,deserve widespread support. A Citizens’ Committee of Inquiry has beenestablished in New York3for such a purpose, and comparable committees arebeing set up in Europe.In Britain I invited people eminent in the intellectual life of the country tojoin a ‘Who killed Kennedy Committee’, which at the moment of writingconsists of the following people: Mr John Arden, playwright; Mrs CarolynWedgwood Benn, from Cincinnati, wife of Anthony Wedgwood Benn, ??;Lord Boyd-Orr, former director-general of the ?? Food and AgriculturalOrganisation and a Nobel Peace Prize winner; Mr John Calder, publisher;Professor William Empsom, Professor of English Literature at She?eld Uni-versity; Mr Michael Foot, Member of Parliament; Mr Kingsley Martin, formereditor of the New Statesman; Sir Compton Mackenzie, writer; Mr J. B. Priestley,playwright and author; Sir Herbert Read, art critic; Mr Tony Richardson,?lm director; Dr Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark; Professor HughTrevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University;Mr Kenneth Tynan, Literary Manager of the National Theatre; and myself.We view the problem with the utmost seriousness. ?? Embassies have longago reported to Washington world-wide disbelief in the o?cial chargesagainst Oswald, but this has never been re?ected by the American press. No?? television programme or mass circulation newspaper has challenged thepermanent basis of all the allegations – that Oswald was the assassin, and thathe acted alone. It is a task which is left to the American people.??? ?????? ?????’? ??????? ??????A speech delivered at the London School of Economics on 15th February,1965, by Bertrand RussellBefore his speech, which begins below, Lord Russell made this emergencystatement on the situation in Vietnam:‘The world is on the brink of war as it was at the time of the Cuban Crisis.American attacks on North Vietnam are desperate acts of piratical madness.The people of South Vietnam want neutrality and independence for theircountry. America, in the course of a war of pure domination in the South,attacked a sovereign state in the North because the ?? has been defeated bythe resistance of the entire population in South Vietnam.We must demand the recall of the Geneva Conference for immediate nego-tiations. I urge world protest at every ?? Embassy. And in Britain the cravenand odious support for American madness by the Labour Government mustbe attacked by meetings, marches, demonstrations and all other forms ofprotest.the autobiography of bertrand russell 682If this aggressive war is not ended now, the world will face total war. Theissue must be resolved without a nuclear war. This is only possible by worldoutcry now against the United States. The American proposition that anindependent Vietnam free of ?? control is worse than a nuclear war ismadness. If America is allowed to have its cruel way, the world will be theslave of the United States.Once more America summons mankind to the brink of world war.Once more America is willing to run the risk of destroying the human racerather than bow to the general will.Either America is stopped now or there will be crisis after crisis until, inutter weariness, the world decides for suicide.’My purpose in what I am about to say is to examine the relations betweenthe foreign policy of the Labour Party before the General Election and thepolicy of the Labour Government in regard to international politics. I shouldlike to recall to you, ?rst, the preamble to that section – almost the last – inthe Labour Manifesto of last September, entitled ‘New Prospects for Peace’.I take it from The Times of September 12th.It begins with a very brief history of East–West relations since 1945 andsays that even in ‘the grimmest periods . . . Labour always regarded the ColdWar strategies as second best . . . and remained faithful to its long-term beliefin the establishment of East–West co-operation as the basis for a strengthenedUnited Nations developing towards World Government.’It castigates the Tory Government for their old-fashioned policies, espe-cially the Tory failure to relax tensions and to halt the spread of nuclearweapons. ‘The Labour Government will do all that is possible to rectify thesepolicies.’The Manifesto then considers the means to be taken to ‘relax tensions’.‘First and foremost’, it says, ‘will come our initiative in the ?eld of disarma-ment. We are convinced that the time is opportune for a new breakthroughin the disarmament negotiations, releasing scarce resources and manpowerdesperately needed to raise living standards throughout the world.’‘We shall appoint a Minister in the Foreign O?ce with special responsibil-ity for disarmament to take a new initiative in the Disarmament Committeein association with our friends and allies.’‘We have’, it says, ‘put forward constructive proposals:(1) To stop the spread of nuclear weapons.(2) To establish nuclear-free zones in Africa, Latin America and CentralEurope.(3) To achieve controlled reductions in manpower and arms.the foundation 683(4) To stop the private sale of arms.(5) To establish an International Disarmament Agency to supervise a dis-armament treaty.’The Labour Government has, to be sure, appointed a Minister in theForeign O?ce with special responsibility for disarmament and even an armscontrol and disarmament research unit headed by a reader in internationalrelations at the ???. It has, indeed, appointed so many new Ministers anddepartments for various phases of disarmament and defence and o?ence thatone is hard put to it to know to whom to apply for what.As to the ?ve proposals. Nothing, so far as the Press has told us, has beendone about implementing any of them. Far from taking measures to stopthe spread of nuclear weapons, the Labour Government has done quitethe opposite. Nor has it taken measures to achieve controlled reductions inmanpower and arms – it has turned down any suggestion of reducing theBritish Army in Germany. Little seems to have come out of the propositionsof Mr Rapacki concerning a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. Chineseproposals – pleas, even – for a nuclear-free zone in Asia and/or thePaci?c have been passed over in apparent scorn. I know of no measures takento stop the private sale of arms or to establish an International DisarmamentAgency.