The Heart of the Matter

Having studied the Kennedy assassination in some detail and a frequent 'Factor' watcher, I looked forward to reading Killing Kennedy. My son had purchased both this and Killing Lincoln for my Christmas presents. I've noticed in my TV watching that Bill O'Reilly seems to have placed greater emphasis on him being an 'independent'. In my way of thinking this is a cause for reservations. If you've read my post on the integrated Mind Map you'll see why I believe you cannot get away from ideological underpinnings. Bill regularly rails saying "this is not ideological" but I think ideology is the oxygen we breath. There are no independent 'bubbles' we can go to devoid of ideology. The facts themselves can be independent but how we treat them, prioritize them, interpret them are based on our philosophy of life or ideology.

So I began my reading thinking Bill would simply follow the facts and it would lead him to affirm the conclusions I had already reached from the same journey. As I turned the pages I had the sense I was reading a docudrama. Meaning a loosely based documentary with creative license taken to fill out the story. This was totally unexpected. In fact it was more like "are you kidding me?" My first thought was isn't this the type of socially palatable, dumbed down information you so detest? You interview people who avoid the facts or the obvious conclusions to be drawn and you rightly call them out. How is this style of writing not the same thing?!

Bill explains it in the first few paragraphs. The book is a narrative form which only goes as far as "the evidence takes us". It is a "fact based book" which will "cut through the fog and "bring you the facts". So for Bill and Martin Dugard it's all about the facts. Then there's this, "We are not conspiracy guys, although we do raise some questions about what is unknown and inconsistent". We are not conspiracy guys?! Let me say the book follows the completely unbelievable ballistics that vomited out of the Warren report. Two bullets caused all the damage to Kennedy and Connally.

Arlen Spector was given the responsibility for the ballistics analysis chapter of the Warren Commission report. Perfect for his fence sitting, wishy washy views that can be twisted to serve whatever means required. So there were 3 bullets. One missed completely. One is the kill shot that took off the right side of his skull. Then the magic bullet that went through Kennedy's back, came out his neck, through Connally's chest, wrist then lodged in his leg to be later found on a stretcher at Parkland memorial. As Wikipedia puts it, "If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone."

So these are the hard dug out facts? Really? Again, are you kidding me? So the authors state they aren't conspiracy guys. Fine. But please don't pretend to be fact based. Not a chance. While the Warren Commission can throw this garbage out to a hungry public to assuage their conspiratorial fears (pre-public release of the Zapruder film) there is no way this can hold ground with what we know today. Not even close.

I could go on but choose not to. I have a large post on Peter Jenning's special on the Kennedy assassination which delves into a number of the major issues. They are far too severe to be called inconsistencies. Throughout my readings there are regular flagrant denials of the truth and flat out cover ups at the highest levels. The bullet theory is the basis of the Commission's non-conspiracy conclusions. When that falls apart, which it completely has, the conclusions are no longer tenable. For whatever reason, Bill and Martin don't want to go there.

One final quote from the book and comment. "Those conspiratorial arguments will become so powerful and so involved that they will one day threaten to overwhelm the human tragedy of November 22, 1963. So let the record state, once and for all, that… " What follows is a type of love poem to JFK's impact on the world. My question is shouldn't the probably of a conspiracy and the necessary implications through the highest levels of the government overwhelm the human tragedy? Yes, it's awful that the beloved leader of the free world was shot in broad daylight sitting beside his beautiful wife. But it's worse that those who perpetrated this crime had internal support within the government and those responsible are not being held accountable.

I thought Bill would dig through the various conspiracy theories and let the evidence guide him to a unified theory explaining the events of that awful day. Nope, he wrote a eulogy to someone he obviously reveres. Yes, the text is fact laden, some of them new and interesting, but where it counts we follow familiar lines that leaves thinking American people with a hole in their hearts and minds. An audience I thought Riley's book was targeting, but now I know better.