The Probability Is That Stone Believed This, Too

PREFACE

Oliver Stone's smash Hollywood success, his movie mistitled JFK, created an enormous interest in assassination records. He led the people to believe the government was behind the assassination and had records of that it was still withholding thirty years after that assassination.

The probability is that Stone believed this, too,

The certainty is that it is not true.

Stone began with an idea he believed would be a commercial success--make money and add to his reputation. He was correct on both counts.

His idea was to make a hero of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison and make the movie of what he imagined Garrison had developed by way of assassination evidence.

When Stone announced his movie, he said that it would, and these are his words, tell the people who killed the President, why and how.

He announced his movie as a work of nonfiction.

I believe that, as we all do, Stone has the right to write what he wants to write, whether or not it is true.

But with the years I have spent working on that assassination and its investigation I did not believe that Stone or anyone else has the right to lie to the people about anything as important as the assassination of their President and the investigation of that most subversive of crimes in a society like ours.

Most do not think in these terms but it is inevitable in this country that the assassination of a President is a coup d'etat.

All presidential candidates select as their running-mates those they believe can add to the ticket, can appeal to voters to whom the presidential candidate believes he does not appeal as he would like. This means that to a large degree the vice-presidential candidate holds to beliefs that are not the same as the presidential candidates.

There were major differences between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson as men and in their beliefs, although there also were broad areas of their agreement.

While there is much controversy about it, the record is clear, there were major differences between them on Viet Nam and what United States policy should be and what it should and should not do.

Stone decided to use Garrison's book, On the Trail of the Assassins (which was the one trail Garrison never took) and that of Jim Marrs, Conspiracy, as the alleged basis of his script. The Marrs book is not about the assassination. He wrote about the innumerable conspiracy theories and nice a fellow as he is, with his background as a reporter, he still could not and did not get them straight or write about them with a factual correctness.

I knew nothing of Stone other than that he made movies. I did not assume that he was aware of these things and I did assume he was an honest and a conscientious man. So, after reading what he said in announcing his movie, I wrote him at some length. I told him he could not possibly do a nonfiction movie based on these two books.

I went into some detail and promised him more if he wanted it. I told him about Garrison's plan to commemorate the fifth anniversary in 1968, when two members of his staff enlisted my help in trying to prevent the utter irrationality he had told them he planned. He was going to charge two men with being the actual assassins on that Grassy Knoll!

One of them was Edgar Eugene Bradley, the other Robert Lee Perrin. Bradley was the west-coast representative of the far-right Cape May, New Jersey, political preacher, the Rev. Carl McIntire, the man who through his ownership of a radio station in Media, Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia suburb, was so partisan, so blindly, resolutely one-sided he led the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate the Fairness Doctrine.

Perrin was, I knew, to Garrison's knowledge, a corpse. He had killed himself in Garrison's own jurisdiction in New Orleans, more than a year before the assassination.

Garrison's alleged proof of Bradley as one of those Grassy Knoll assassins was a fictitious "identification" of him as one of those men who after being photographed by Dallas news photographers were called the "Dealey Plaza tramps" by assassination theorists. They had nothing to do with the assassination. I was confident that I could prove that readily, as I did when I had to, but how could I handle Garrison's invention that the long-dead Perrin was an assassin worried me. In the end, however, I was able to do that.

I was able to prove that those “tramps" had no possible connection and I did wind up with irrefutable proof that Perrin had killed himself. (I had in fact, earlier forced an FBI investigation of those men. The results of that investigation were later disclosed to me in two different FOIA lawsuits I filed against the FBI. Those records were seriously misused years later in a mistitled work of assassination fiction, Oswald Talked, which he didn't. (I attach the first of this series of FBI reports that identifies me as causing that investigation, as Exhibit 1).

On a Saturday night, after several weeks of difficult effort in New Orleans, I gave Andrew "Moo" Sciambra, the youngest of the assistant attorneys and the one who spent the most time with Garrison, the investigative report I had put together that I believed would make it impossible for Garrison to file those charges.

This is an abbreviated but accurate version. I do not want to relive more of that!

Garrison recognized he could not do as he had planned but he had to do something so he fired William Wood, who used the name Bill Boxley, a man he hired and paid from private funds and a man devoted to him. Garrison alleged falsely that the CIA had infiltrated Boxley onto his staff to wreck the investigation from inside.

The details make quite a story but this is not the place for them.

With my letter and an account of this, with some of it detailed, I sent Stone some documentation. I offered him more if he asked for it, and told him I would answer any questions he might have. He did not respond.

About two months later he began to shot his movie in Dallas.

Among the reporters there was the Washington Post's assassination expert George Lardner. When Lardner returned he told me that Stone had for all practical purposes taken possession of public property, like the Grassy Knoll. He placed private guards there, and even when there was no movie activity there, these guards had removed Lardner from that knoll he went to examine and understand better.

Meanwhile, one of the many copies of the script Stone had to distribute for various purposes ranging from raising the money he needed to interest actors and actresses into working on the film, was mailed to me.

I regarded it as a childish script, full of inaccuracies and entirely unreal. It was the script of a movie that, if taken as non-fiction, Stone's advance billing of it, would deceive and mislead many people. So, I offered Lardner that script and the file I kept on preventing what could have been more of a disaster than Garrison's charging Clay Shaw with being an assassin when he had no evidence of that at all.

Lardner and I knew that the attention drawn to the coming movie would be helpful to it but I wanted to make the record Lardner's story did make, that the movie was not non-fiction.

Stone exploited the attention to his movie that began with that Lardner story to make himself out a persecuted man. I emerged in his propaganda as some two hundred hawks flying over him for the CIA to pick apart.

He knew what he was doing and he did it ably. He did promote his movie with that controversy. But despite the fact that in advance it was made clear that the movie was fiction, not non-fiction, many people were led to believe that it proved that the government had assassinated the President and that its files would hold the proof.

In the wake of the movie, the attention to it and its success, there was a demand for the release of what Stone and the movie led people to believe was the truth about the assassination that was allegedly hidden in the government's files.

The truth is, as I began NEVER AGAIN! documenting, that the government never investigated the crime itself and never intended to. There was a de facto conspiracy as soon as it was known that Oswald was dead and there would be no trial at which evidence would have to be produced, examined and cross-examined, to hold Oswald the lone assassin.

With the success of the movie and the continuing clamor the demand grew for the release of all those government records that so many people believed held the secret to the assassination, as none did.

Under the pressure the Congress passed an Act in 1992 to require that all possible assassination records be disclosed. The Act provided for a board to supervise the staff that would do most of the work. Under the Act President George Bush should have appointed that board. He, former CIA director that he was, did nothing. Neither did President Clinton for a long time.

But, finally the board was appointed, sworn in April 11, 1994,

and the hiring of a staff was begun.

Meanwhile, the CIA which is politically more cunning than most agencies, anticipated that the Congress would do as it did in response to public demand and started frustrating the intent of the act that was coming.

After withholding a vast amount of records for so many years the CIA suddenly started disclosing them. Those it wanted to unload and those it could anticipate it would be required to disclose under the Act that was certain to be passed and made the law of the land. It did this under what it called its Historical Records Program. That enabled it to withhold much that under the law as passed it could not withhold. Much was kept secret on hundreds of thousands of pages. The CIA knew very well that no bureaucrat and no court was going to order it to go to the great cost of processing all those pages all over again just to have some names and paragraphs that had been withheld not to be withheld.

For some thirty years after the assassination the CIA resisted almost every effort to get it to disclose any piece of paper at all. More than two decades ago I filed several requests for all the records it had on Lee Harvey Oswald. It acknowledged receipt of that and a couple of other requests I made. The law then required action within twenty days. The CIA then did nothing until the next year, after I filed a few more FOIA requests. It then notified me in writing that several of the overdue requests were subsumed in the later requests. And there they stayed, without anything being

done about them ever. Under the law that states the people have the right to know what their government does, other than records that are within the exemptions of the law, the people are entitled to receive copies of these records.

in theory any way, with this its record of three decades the CIA suddenly started flooding the National Archives with records, mostly relating to Oswald. I do not know how many there were but in writing his Oswald and the CIA, which appeared in 1995, John Newman

stated that one CIA personality profile file on Oswald or one of its 201 files that had been disclosed was a quarter of a million pages.

Those disclosed Oswald records he used in that book do reflect what seems like a great interest in Oswald, although it may be the same interest reflected in other defectors, real or pseudo-defectors. They do not really connect Oswald with the CIA.

It does seem to be extraordinary that an agency like the CIA, which has virtually limitless money to spend, would spend so much on so many largely meaningless records relating to a man those records do not connect with it or with any espionage activity.

In any event, the wily CIA, with its long record of successfully regarding the American people as an enemy and withholding extensively from it what is well known elsewhere in the world, particularly to the spookeries of other countries, can seem to be making great disclosures, disclosures that are so regarded by the major media. Yet it did not disclose what most of those with a genuinely academic interest in CIA disclosure have been looking for.

If Stone and those many influenced by him, if those in the Congress in particular did not fear the political consequences of not doing what those misled by this Stone approach were clamoring for, the disclosures of all those government records they believed would show that the government assassinated the President, more could have been released and on a more orderly basis, one that enabled more and better use of what was disclosed . Much of what appears to be the most valuable of the disclosed information could have been started on its way to public disclosure almost overnight as early as in 1993.

The House of Representatives created a Select Committee on Assassination. That is a special committee whose life has to be renewed every session. It was created largely under the influence of having the amateur film of the assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder shown over and over again to groups of members. Once that committee got started and what it was doing--and not doing--became apparent, I began referring to it and still refer to it as the House assassins committee. It assassinated any real investigation of the assassinations of the President and Martin Luther King, Jr., and with each bent itself on making the official assassination mythologies seem to be real. It departed from the course only when it had no alternative. From its public records it began with this intent and never really abandoned it.

Robert Blakey, its chief counsel and staff directors--in plain English that means its dictator--began each public hearings with what he referred to as a narrative of what the day's hearings would show. He did not outline part of the story of either assassination, Rather he summarized what one critic after another--and he named them as he mentioned what he said they said--had reported. It was not that committee's legislated responsibility to undertake to put all the critics down. (All but one--he never mentioned me or any of my work, not in any one of his "narrations"). It was that committee's responsibility to investigate these crimes, not writers.