# Today in history, 9/27/64: Warren Commission findings



## littlemissattitude (Sep 27, 2003)

On 27 September 1964, according to decades.com:



> The Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, announced that according to its findings Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as did Jack Ruby in the assassination.


I've always been fascinated with the whole controversy surrounding Kennedy's assassination and the conspiracy theories that have grown up around it.  I have always found it hard to believe that Oswald acted alone - just a gut feeling.  At the same time, most of the conspiracy theories that have appeared are pretty outlandish.

What I'm wondering is, do you all think Oswald acted alone?  If you do, do you think we'll ever know for sure why he did it?  And, if you don't, do you think we'll ever know the truth about what really happened and who was behind it?


----------



## Gnome (Sep 27, 2003)

No, I don't think Oswald acted alone. And no, I don't think we will ever know the reason or who the conspirators were.

I think there have been many suspicious deaths and assasinations in the course of history that have been explained, but not necessarily correctly.  

Even when it's not a major player that's killed, the Police (or any investigating group) are under enormous pressure to solve the case quickly.  Even to the point of coersing a suspect til he confesses (even when he may not have done it).

It comes down to whether someone will gain political advancement when the case is closed.  That's mighty big impetus to get it solved.

Someone knows what really happened in 1963, but it will die with him if it hasn't already.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 28, 2003)

> Someone knows what really happened in 1963, but it will die with him if it hasn't already.


You're probably right, Gnome.  But I still don't discount the (admittedly small) possibility that one of these days, out of the blue, there will be some sort of definitive statement turn up.  Maybe that's just wishful thinking.  I don't know.  Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 1, 2003)

If any such evidence exists, I guess we'll unlikely see it from government departments, Maybe found in a rubbish heap.

Amazing scenario, really, the entire JFK issue.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 1, 2003)

The thing that fascinates me so much about all of this is the sheer variety of conspiracy theories that have been proposed over the years.  It might be easier to list who _hasn't_ been considered as being responsible for JFK's assassination.  People have speculated that the CIA had it done, that the FBI had it done, that Castro had it done, that the Mob had it done, and on and on and on.  There has even been a theory that it had something to do with the "sacrifice of the king", as in some pre-Christian European cultures.  My mother is absolutely convinced that Lyndon Johnson, JFK's vice-president, was involved in the plot.  Some of these theories are ridiculously intricate, and some of them are just plain silly.

I think that there are, however, issues that aren't adequately addressed by the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 16, 2003)

Coincidentally, a few days after I posted this thread I came upon a book about the JFK assassination in the library. I had heard of the author, so I picked it up and I'm in the midst of reading it now. Fascinating stuff. The book is called "Crossfire" and is by Jim Marrs. He is a bit of a fringy writer, generally - writes a lot about conspiracy theories, UFOs, and the like (fun stuff to consider, whether or not you believe in any of it) - but this book, so far at least, is mostly a review of all the different conspiracy theories with what seem to be fairly rational assessments of the chances that each theory might be valid.

If any of you are interested in this subject, I think this book would be a good one to start with. It's got huge amounts of detail, a pretty good bibliography, and interviews with lots of people who were on the scene. While I would advise reading carefully and not taking any of it as gospel truth - it's probably a good idea to not take _anything_ written about this subject as gospel truth - I would say that it is probably a lot more reliable than some of the books out there on the subject. One drawback to the book is, it has no index; consequently it would be hard to use strictly as a reference book.


----------



## Twelve (Oct 16, 2003)

Well, it's actually government policy to keep issues like this under wraps for at least 20 years.

12


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 17, 2003)

Twelve said:
			
		

> Well, it's actually government policy to keep issues like this under wraps for at least 20 years.
> 
> 12


More than that in this case.  This coming November 22, it will be 40 years since the assassination.  And, according to the book I'm reading now, a lot of the files are sealed until the year 2036.  So, it looks like it'll be awhile until we find out anything substantive, if we even do then.  Let's see, in 2036 I'll be....never mind.  That's just too depressing to even contemplate.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 17, 2003)

2036?? Now I didn't actually realise that. What an extraordinary time period. Simply ensures that anyone accused of complicity by the records is long dead, I presume. If so, it would be ironic that those who murdered a United States President used the protection of national government to ensure they were protected in their own lifetimes.

Then again, quite possibly the files released for 2036 are as inconclusive as anything we have already.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 17, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> 2036?? Now I didn't actually realise that. What an extraordinary time period. Simply ensures that anyone accused of complicity by the records is long dead, I presume. If so, it would be ironic that those who murdered a United States President used the protection of national government to ensure they were protected in their own lifetimes.
> 
> Then again, quite possibly the files released for 2036 are as inconclusive as anything we have already.


I wouldn't doubt it.

I do think it is interesting that the files of the second investigation into the assassination were unsealed in the early 1990s.  That investigation, by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, was begun in 1976 and its final report was released in 12 volumes in 1979.  Interestingly, that investigation concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, although it never managed to figure out anything about how the conspiracy worked or who was involved and still maintained that Oswald fired all the shots.  (This information comes from http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/contents.htm)


----------

