| dc.description.abstract | This paper is divided into two sections. The first is a brief history of the assassination and the ensuing investigations. It draws primarily on the Warren Report, and secondarily on the account of historians and contemporary accounts in magazines and newspapers. It is also written with the critiques of the report in mind, so as not to give it a biased view in favor of any assassination theory.
The second section examines the government investigation. While the section is a series of criticisms of the procedures used, it is not meant to imply that the investigation was without merit or success. On the contrary, most of the information on the assassination was uncovered by this investigation. Lauding these successes would be of little benefit, except to the ego of those investigators. Identifying the failures is, however, the first step in correcting them. This is why they are dealt with so extensively here.
The approach taken in this study is one not found in the writings, referred to in the first paragraph, examining the assassination investigation. The emphasis there is on the conclusion; either support or opposition is provided. Those writings dwell on the facts of the assassination itself. It is more a murder mystery than anything else. The mechanisms of investigation and the motivations of the investigators are usually mentioned only in passing, and then only to buttress some attack or defense. The emphasis in this paper is on the response by the government to crisis situations in general, and the Kennedy assassination in particular. The assassination is a case study to examine this response. The choice of this crisis is not meant, however, to be universal or representative, simply instructional.
I had originally intended to dwell exclusively on the Warren Commission. In the course of the study, I have been forced to include a number of other agencies also, such as the F. B. I., the Secret Service, the C. I. A., and the Dallas police. This does not exhaust the impact of other agencies on the investigation, nor does this study exhaust the areas it does examine. However, it does attempt to provide a coherent, organized discussion of information previously revealed. The scope is far greater than I had intended it to be and yet much more remains.
A caveat before proceeding. The author of the study enters it with some well-developed biases. I do not accept the warren Commission findings of fact and I do believe that a conspiracy was involved. However, this is totally irrelevant to the examination of the investigation. An adequate investigation can result in an inadequate conclusion, just as an inadequate one can have a correct conclusion. The conclusions are simply value judgments, just as is the point at which an investigation is labeled “adequate.” No attempt is made to label the whole investigation either adequate or inadequate (although specific procedures are so labeled). These judgments remain for the individual.
One last comment: this study has been both enjoyable and stimulating. I hope reading this paper will be the same. The investigation will not end with this paper, at least, not for me. It is and has been an ongoing project. Like so many subjects, this is open-ended and expanding. My presentation here is only a small part. | en |
