I have commissioned another writer who has, on their own volition, chosen to remain anonymous to provide another perspective below on the John F. Kennedy Assassination for the purpose of fairness on the issue. I hope you find this entertaining and enlightening.


On November 22 1963, less than two hours after the assassination of President Kennedy took place, on board Air Force One, Lyndon Johnson is sworn in as the new President of the United States. By his side, visibly shocked, stands Jacqueline Kennedy, wearing the same Chanel pink suit stained with the blood of her husband, while a few decks below lies the still warm body of JFK.

It was, what many will later declare, the day America had lost its innocence and the beginning of a decade of further assassinations and murky politics that culminated with the Watergate scandal.

In the 54 years that followed and in spite of two big-budget government official investigations, some 15 years apart from one another, the majority of the public has always believed in the existence of a conspiracy theory and have rejected the lone gunman official conclusion. Author and former Los Angeles District attorney, Vincent Bugliosi has estimated that throughout history “42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people” have been accused of taking part in the assassination.

Why is it that people don’t accept the official statement in what is undoubtedly the murder of the 20th century? And is the general public right to remain suspicious half a century later?

The drive for both questions lies behind three principle reasons.

  1. The two main official inquiries into the assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Commission in 1963 and the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976, have produced different results, with the former going as far as stating that the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy, without however naming any possible conspirators.
  2. In almost all aspects the incident is bizarre by any definition. From the exceptional long list of people who would have wanted the Presidents death, to the absurd character and rotten reputation of the assassin, the live broadcasted murder of Mr. Oswald while in police custody, just two days after he killed the President by a shady night club owner, all the way to smaller details like the fact that Miss Jacqueline Kennedy was notorious for not accompanying her husband on political trips, but decided to accompany him that 21th of November to Texas.
  3. The simple truth that the human mind has a great deal of difficulty accepting the possibility of such a bland character as J. Oswald, with the help of nothing more than a $ 19.95 5 mm Italian carbine rifle, could kill the enormous personality that was President Kennedy.


With the passing of time the chances of finding the truth diminish, but we have the benefit of advanced technology and the insights that history provided in the years following the assassination.

Related Articles  Scaramucci OUT As WH Communications Director: Report

In searching for the truth we should first rule out all highly unlikely possibilities. In my view those are Kennedy’s most powerful enemies, outside the US border, the Russians and the Cubans. Both have been extremely nervous after the assassination, believing it to be a plot that would provide justification for an assault towards them. We now know this through informants and intercepted communications at that time when especially the Russians seemed convinced they will be blamed and possibly attacked as a result. It is also worth noting that both these governments preferred Kennedy to L. Johnson by a landslide and had been dealing with the elected President in matters of the highest risk, involving possible atomic war, coming out unscarred. Kennedy, regardless of political views, was a stable President and if possible, favoured a peaceful solution every time. As part of the HSCA investigation, Fidel Castro himself was questioned directly if he had anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy, which he denied, offering as explanation that he was certain the US would invade Cuba if he did. People present at that meeting concluded that mister Castro appeared to have been saying the truth and the political climate of that period agrees with this assessment.

With foreign power out of the way, things become unclear and much darker when one investigates powers inside the US.

To start with, both of the main commissions, although heavily funded and manned, have incredible gaps in their investigation.

First, the Warren Commission seems to have been conducted poorly. With later findings that the CIA, involving even the director at the time John McCain, withheld vital information from the members of the commission and incredible omissions in investigating leads, such as the missing page in Oswald’s diary where it is said the names of the people he wanted to murder were written, none of which was Kennedy’s or his trip to Mexico City just weeks before the assassination where he is known to have visited both the Cuban and Russian embassies, that was never investigated, the Warren Commission seems more of a joke than a reliable source.

The Assassination Records Review Board, in 1992, in its final report said it best:

Doubts about the Warren Commission’s findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of scepticism about the Commission’s basic findings.”

The HSCA helped in plucking a few of the holes in the Warren Commission investigation, but in the words of the same 1992 ARRB : “Because the HSCA investigation was marked by internal squabbling and disillusioned staffers, the Committee’s records were the subject of on-going controversy. Some ex-staffers claimed the HSCA report did not reflect their investigative work, and that information that did not conform with the Committee leadership’s preconceived conclusions was ignored or left out of the report and supporting volumes.”

Related Articles  Charlottesville, Vancouver and Gandhi: Taking On Authoritarianism

It’s most controversial statement, that the assassination was likely the pinnacle of a conspiracy is based solely on what the HSCA said was a forth shot being fired, most likely from the direction of the now infamous “grassy knoll”. Later debunked, that assumption is the only circumstantial evidence provided by this assembly to support its conspiracy claim.


Having taken the foreign powers out of the equation and having serious doubts casted on the findings of the two main official inquiries, I would suggest to treat this murder with standard homicide-procedure. The first and most powerful question that needs to be asked is: “Who would benefit from Kennedys death?” and also “Who had a real reason for killing the President?”.

To this, only two answers can be given, both as valid as they are unbelievable.

First is the Mafia. With Robert Kennedy hot on their trail and their father’s connections to the underworld from the days of the Prohibition, the Kennedys were both familiar and in conflict with the Mob. A direct hit on Robert would have just made things worst by having John replace him with someone even harder on the Mafia as retaliation. Connections between the Mafia and both Oswald and Jack Ruby, his would be assassin, can also be easily made. Looked from a certain angle the whole story is mafia linked one way or another.

Second is obviously Lyndon Johnson. There are rumours of his apparent glee in the day of the assassination, his party anecdotes where he would let out that Kennedys death was justice for having Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnamese President assassinated and apparently Nixon’s own words “both me and Lyndon wanted to be President, the difference is that I wasn’t prepared to kill for it”. He was the direct beneficiary of the assassination, being sworn in as President just two hours after. This, coupled with the overall knowledge that Kennedy was getting ready to drop him as Vice-President in the next election race, add up to a suspicious context. Books have emerged that imply Nixon was convinced that L. Johnson was behind the assassination with the help of the CIA.

Very important to remember is also that this was a time when the CIA was generally known to be involved with the Mafia in order to conduct the shady parts of the agencies activities, going as far as planning to assassinate the Cuban President Fidel Castro with their help.

It is my opinion that looking at things from a distance one can obtain a better perspective. Often the “common sense” answer is the correct one and in the instance of the murder of President Kennedy this can be found in two theories.

  1. Oswald did act alone. With all the murkiness surrounding the assassination and the troubled times in which it occurred, it is very hard to accept the simplest of answers. Especially when it involves a man which David E. Kaiser, an associate professor of history at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh who has studied the assassination theories said ”is an amazingly suspicious character,” that ”it is possible to believe most anything about him and damned near impossible to know what’s true.”To this day however, his prints are on the rifle used in the assassination, on the cartridges found at the place of the shooting and there is absolutely no other CONCRETE evidence to support another theory.
  2. The CIA and L. Johnson were complicit in the assassination of J.F.K. by not stopping it from happening or by direct involvement. What no official commission addresses is the question of how could a well-known socialist sympathiser, who defected to Russia for more than 2 years, was often spotted doing propaganda work for the communist Cuban regime AND WHO THEY KNEW had visited both the Russian Embassy (where he met with an known Russian spy that belonged to the KGB’s assassination and sabotage division) and the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City weeks before the assassination, was let to operate freely. What also all official commissions failed to establish is whether or not Mr. Oswald was associated with the CIA. Infamous being the questioning addressed to former CIA Director Richard Helms in a 1975 deposition, where the records end precisely when he was asked this direct question by Mr. David Belin: “Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an agent…”.
Related Articles  Bullying 101: Barron Trump Or Meals On Wheels is a False Choice


Among the few certainties that remain is that nobody in their right mind would have used Oswald as the assassin to bring down JFK. By all accounts, gathered from both Russian and American sources, Mr Oswald was a highly unstable and unreliable figure.

I am highly inclined to believe that the assassination was done by Mr Oswald himself, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OR AT LEAST ACTIVE SUSPITION of the CIA and with the help of the Mafia to bring things to a complete halt after the tragedy. The CIA appears to have been running the game by selectively intervening to further their desired outcome. Let Oswald be radicalised and then let him kill Kennedy, silence Oswald by appealing to the Mob which they were in constant contact to.

Puppet masters doing their bidding by simply being passive.