Is Gerald Posner’s Case Closed an accurate account of the JFK murder? Does he make mistakes in the book?
I’m sure there are mistakes, but nothing consequential. Unfortunately there is not much money in factual information with respect to the Kennedy assasination. The conspiracy nuts are just ghoulish gold diggers. This book is a godsend in rebuttal.
Some of this is IMHO territory, but…
IIRC Case Closed relies on the infamous “single bullet theory.” If you look at the Zapruder film, Kennedy emerges from behind the sign already holding his neck (indicating that he was shot while they were behind the sign), but Connelly doesn’t appear to have been struck yet. Connelly reacts much later in the film, which contradicts the single bullet theory.
The folks who spend far more time than I do studying this event (conspiracy nuts and serious historians both) can’t reach a concensus on what actually happened that day. Personally though, you aren’t going to sell me on any account that relies on the single bullet theory. It’s just plain silly.
But you should also remember that this is another point Posner specifically addresses and rejects. And he is right to do so. It is not at all obvious that Connally wasn’t struck at the same time.
As for the OP, sure, Posner makes some mistakes and there are points which are matters of interpretation, but it is impossible to write a work of non-fiction on that scale and be infallibly and unambiguously correct on every last detail. It is still the best book on the subject.
Not true. A pretty thorough analysis was presented as part of a recent BBC documentary- Kennedy- Beyond Conspiracy. They showed the Zapruder footage frame by frame. Kennedy emerges from behind the sign with his hand raised to his throat. Connelly, in the next frame, is seen to turn to his right (hearing the shot), and begin to lean in that direction, seemingly in pain. This corresponds to the track of the single bullet, which went through Kennedy’s neck, struck Connelly around the right shoulder blade and emerged under his right nipple.
The documentary also showed the relative positions of Kennedy and Connelly in the limo (viz. JFK riding about six inches higher than Connelly, and somewhat outboard) which, given the footage and the injuries sustained, is consistent with the path of a single bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. This defeats the whole ‘bullet turning in midair’ question raised in Oliver Stone’s film, in which JFK and Connelly were depicted as being on the same level, one directly behind the other.
This was clearly a very painstaking recreation of events, taking into account facts which the film demonstrably overlooked.
Well, just remember that Posner was a prosecutor, and his book has the tone of a one-sided prosecutor’s argument. He belittles any questioning of the single bullet theory/Warren Commission report and doesn’t use any information that doesn’t support his conclusions, kind of like the Warren report.
kind of like the conspiracy-spinners stories…
Good link APB. What I’d like to see someone do is a frame by frame study like this on other filmed shootings to see what a standard reaction is like.
To deconstruct his movements and try to assign reasoning to them without a decent frame of reference doesn’t give any concrete answers.
Frankly, the single bullet theory, while ridiculed, is the only one that comes close to matching the actual facts in the case. People nitpick over small details, but there is absolutely no way the bullet that hit Connelly didn’t pass through JFK first – unless you’re willing to postulate that bullets can make a turn in midflight without striking an object.
Harold Weissberg, who wrote a lot about the assassination (and whose files Posner apparently consulted) was clearly not happy with the result, and wrote a book Case Open criticizing Posner’s book. You can read it for an opposing view. I’m sure that you can find opposing views on the Internet, too, with a little surfing.
Weissberg accuses OPosner of being very selective with his cites – citing oner witness for the number of shots fired, for instance,m while ignoring the part of the same witnesss’ testimony that claims he saw two perople in the depository window.
Posner’s claim about the whole “Thornburn Position” thing of Kennedy’s hands was extensivly debunked in Skeptic magazine. As the title implies, that’s not exactl;y a hotbed of conspiracy nuts.
A PBS show – “Frontline”, I think, poked holes in Posner’s claims about Sylvia Odo, as well.
From my reading of Posner, it seems more like a brief (well, longer than brief, mauybe a “length”) for the prosecution. If someone prsents inconvenient information, he’s glossed over or the subject of an ad hominem attack. I wouldn’t call Posner’s book “Fair and Balanced”, but he does put to sleep a lot of ridiculous and stupid things that have been claimed about the assassination, and marshalls an ninjcredible number of facts and cites. I just don’t think you can uncritically accept Posner, either.
But Posner’s interpretation works equally well even if one discounts the ‘Thorburn position’ theory. Almost everyone accepts that the arm movements show Kennedy reacting to the first hit. The only respect in which abandoning the ‘Thorburn position’ theory may weaken Posner’s case is regarding the location of the wound - it assumed that the bullet passed close to the spine - but Posner’s interpretation of the wound locations was only ever consistent with the theory, not dependant on it.
And no one is suggesting that Posner should be accepted uncritically. That the conspiracy buffs would go through it line-by-line, endnote-by-endnote, and find some mistakes was always obvious. It’s just that he’s still probably right on all the important issues.
Just for the record, ABC had a program on this a few weeks ago. A computer analyst had taken the Zapruder film and a set of physical measurements of Dealy Plaza to generate a 3-D computer simulation of the event. The images could then be rotated to be viewed from any angle.
It was a very strong and convincing validation of the single bullet theory.
They also showed the “pristine” bullet. It was anything but pristine.
Their major conclusion was that no one has come up with any hard convincing evidence that supports any scenario other than LHO acting alone.
Gerald Posner has just published a revised edition of Case Closed, incorporating updates and corrections.
Much later? We see Governor Connally react even before President Kennedy emerges from behind the freeway sign. Look at Connally in frame 223 of the Zapruder film. Look especially at the right lapel of his jacket. Now look at that same lapel in frame 224 — it flaps or puffs out suddenly, covering the white of his shirt. The bullet entered his back near his right armpit, left a large exit wound about an inch below his right nipple, and pierced his jacket.
The important thing to note: Kennedy emerges from behind the sign after frame 223. When he disappeared momentarily behind the sign, his right arm was already horizontal, resting atop the limousine. Look at Kennedy’s right elbow in frame 225. He does not lift the elbow the edge of the limousine until frame 226. Use and “back” and “forward” buttons on your browser to toggle between these two frames, and you can see this fairly clearly.
We see his left arm moving up toward his throat with a clenched fist, as in frame 226 and frame 230. Again, toggling your browser between those two frames helps you see the motion.
In other words, Kennedy and Connally are reacting simultaneously to the same shot.
Computer animation of the event, modeled from the Zapruder film.
Still skeptical about the single bullet theory? Dale Myers connects the dots, literally.
In Reeder’s link above, David R. Wrone’s credibility is seriously compromised at the end of his review of Posner’s Case Closed, when he absolves Lee Oswald of any involvement in the assassination.
I’m waiting for two things to happen: a SDMB moderator kicking this non-GQ topic over to Great Debates and for Mintygreen to walk in here and whoop some ass.
CalMeacham, let me say with the utmost respect that I am startled that you posted that response. Weissberg’s entire career depended on selectively ignoring evidence that didn’t fit his original hypothesis. Ditto Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and the whole loony gang who advanced some of the nuttiest theories imaginable. Since this is a fact-driven forum, please do a quick search and you will be rewarded with more than a dozen threads in which GD posters systematically dismantle the conspiracy argument, piece by piece. Better yet, spend a couple of hours at this outstanding site:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I believe at this site, you’ll find that McAdams analyzed the objections to Posner’s original book, and concluded that, of the some 4-5 dozen disputed facts, none fell in favor of the conspiracy gang, the lion’s share of Posner’s suppositions were factually-based, and the remaining few facts could not be scientifically proven one way or the other.
Do the research and you’ll find the single-guman doubters just don’t know the facts. Again, visit McAdams’ site.
I don’t have time to debate the major premises at this site but, as only one example, the author talks about Oswald’s “well-oiled rifle” not having left any oily residue on the brown paper bag that allegedly concealed the rifle as he carried it into the depository.
Consider this brief clip from McAdams’ site:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/wrone/Review_of_Case_Closed.html
“So it seems that conspiracists have been conveniently ignoring a key piece of context. Hoover in fact states that “the firing pin and spring of this weapon are well-oiled.” Later, when he mentions the present well-oiled condition of the rifle, he is referring back to the firing pin and spring. He goes on the state that it could not be determined whether the rifle had been oiled at any time.
Since the firing pin and spring are internal components, there is no reason to expect that any oil would get on a blanket or bag used to carry the rifle.
But just how much oil is necessary for these parts to be “well-oiled?” Some insight into what the military considers “well-oiled” can be found in Operator’s Manual for the M16 and M4. It instructs the reader to “lightly lubricate the firing pin” (0016 00-6). Lightly lubricate is defined as “a film of lubricant barely visible to the eye” (0016 00-3). Because the firing pin and spring are internal components, when they are lightly lubed, they do not drip oil. There is no reason to believe that the rifle would have left oil residue on either the blanket or the bag.
The Operator’s Manual instructs the reader to “lightly lube inside of upper receiver, bore and chamber, outer surfaces of barrel and front sight, and surfaces under handguard” (0016 00-4). One can reasonably assume that Oswald would have been trained in the military in such a manner and so if he did regularly oil his rifle, it also would not be dripping oil. The light cover of oil would be absorbed into the rifle.
The conspiracy claim that the bag or blanket should have had oil residue is another firearms factoid. One can perhaps understand that conspiracists, who mostly aren’t gun buffs, would jump to conclusions about how firearms are maintained. But how does one excuse their concealing the fact that only the firing pin and spring were “well-oiled?”
If you’re really interested in this subject read:
Don Delillo’s Libra
and
Norman Mailer’s Oswald’s Tale
Mailer went to Russia and interviewed people who knew Oswald there, in Texas, and in Japan.
Delillo’s book is a novel, but may well be the best book on the subject.
Is there a definitive answer?
Only Gerald Ford knows for sure.
I’m sure minty’s tired from the extended ass-whooping he had to dole out in this recent GD thread on the JFK assasination. So let’s save him the trouble and just advise CalMeacham, et al, to give it a read.