June 23, 2025 • 49 mins
Robert Tanenbaum's new book, is best described as a prosecution of those corrupt, unscrupulous government and unelected agency officials, who from inception with predetermined outcomes, deceitfully engaged in insecure, phony pretense probes regarding the assassination of JFK. He shares stunning and shocking “immutable facts” that reveal the government’s reliance on the Warren Commission investigation and the House Select Committee on Assassinations which are wrong today as they were then.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of w FOCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio
or its employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should
be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing
(00:21):
W FOURCY Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, it's been over six decades, right, and the mystery
still continues as to who was responsible for killing John F.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Kennedy. And you know has many.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
As many people out there are opinions, but clearly the
majority of America believes that this is a conspiracy that
yet has been resolved. And one of the greatest mysteries
is why the man accused of assassinating President John F.
Kennedy was himself gonned down. Think about that, right? Well,
Robert Tannenbaum, who was an attorney that in seventy six
(01:14):
was appointed Deputy Chief Council in charge of the Congressional
Investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. He is the
author of the book That Day in Dallas, Leigh Harvey
Oswald did Not Kill JFK. He's an author of thirty
three books twenty nine novels for nonfiction books. One of
the most successful prosecuting attorneys, having never lost a fellow
(01:37):
new trial and convicting hundreds of violent criminals. He was
a special prosecution consultant on the Hillside Strangler case in
Los Angeles and defended Amy Grosberg in her sensationalized baby
death case. He was the Assistant District Attorney in New
York County and the office of legendary District Attorney Frank Hogan,
where he ran the homicide Bureau. Robert Tennenbaum joins us, now,
(02:00):
welcome to the show. Good to have you with us.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Sir, Yeah, thank you, thank you. It was good to
be here.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Well, this has been one of those questions that has
haunted the American people for six decades as to who
shot JFK. And in your book That Day in Dallas,
you said, there's no question about it, it wasn't Lee
Harvey Oswell.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
The evidence in the case is overwhelming. As a matter
of fact, the way I got involved in this whole thing.
Was in aug was in October of seventy six, and
Richard A. Sprague, who was mister Pennsylvania as far as
lawyers were concerned. He was a chief assistant DA in Philadelphia,
and he was he became in the middle of October
(02:44):
seventy six he was appointed Chief Counselor of the House
of that Committee on Assassinations where I was looking into
the assassinations at President Kennedy and the Reverend doctor Martin
Luther King, and.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
He called me up. I didn't know who he was.
Speaker 5 (02:58):
I was, as you mentioned that, during a homicide here,
and I was trying murder case. After I was prosecuting
murder case after murder case turned out that the only
person who ever tried more, no one ever tried more
in New York than I, but Richard Spray tried more
than I. And that's kind of guy he was. He
was tremendous and teperity person and a brilliant, brilliant, wonderful individual.
(03:19):
So he called me up in the middle of October
seventy sixth and asked me if I wanted to be
part of this investigation that he wanted me to work
with him on the assassination of President Kennedy, and it
was a subcommittee. So we met, we chatted, and I
believed in him that he was a truth seeker, and
(03:39):
indeed I was right, and we stayed together for many,
many years. We had a forty six year friendship as
a result of meeting through this case and what happened
when we went to Washington. As you know, so that
committee has a life of two years. That is to say,
it gets funded. All the standing committees funded each every
(04:01):
couple of years. They don't go through a press, but
a select committee has a two year life. So this
select committee was starting in seventy seven in January, and
it would have expired or did expire in seventy eight
December thirty one.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Now, a lot of things.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Happened during this period of time because ultimately Sprague and
I obtained a commitment from the members of the committee
that they would not interfere with the investigation, they wouldn't
politicize this thing.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
If they did, we would leave because it's their committee.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
It was a congressional committee, wasn't a Tanaban committee or
a Spray committee. And they agreed they were not pulled
around with this, and we said, we have no brief
in this case. That is to say, we're not coming
down here to say Oswell did it or Oswell did
it to it? We don't know and exactly, but whatever
the evidence would be, we're going to tell the American public,
if that's what you.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Want, Robert, I want to make sure our audience understands
the kind of attorney that you and Sprague represent, which
is the majority of attorneys. You didn't come in with
a fixed agenda. You didn't come in, you know, off
the heels of you know, the Warrant Commission or what
anybody else said. You just said, look at we're attorneys.
(05:11):
We follow the evidence, and we follow the evidence to
it to its truthful conclusion. Is that fair to say?
Speaker 5 (05:18):
That's exactly right to say. And that's what we started
out doing. And as a matter of fact, what happened
was but the evidence in this case is so overwhelming
that when I spoke to lous Stokes every day and
he was the chairman of our committee Lustos, he was
a kind of he was a member of the or
the the House for represented Cleveland, Ohio. And as a
(05:41):
matter of fact, he took a special seat because his brother,
Karl STOs was the first black mayor of Cleveland. They
wanted to have a federal seat so that they can
get the money and do good things with infrastructure, schools, education,
all these kinds of things that you know, people want
when they go to Washington. Whether they do it when
they get there's a whole other story, whole other story.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Anyway.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Our story is is that first week we were in Washington,
I got a call from Richard Schweiker. He's a Republican
member of the so called Church Committee, which was investigating
the assassinations of the executive intelligence agencies, and they wanted
to know the effect on the executive intelligence agencies and
(06:24):
who may have committed the murders that were involved with
President Kennedy and ultimately with Martin Luther King. So the
bottom line here was that Schweiker told me he wanted
to sit in the Schweiker again a conservative Republican. He
wasn't ounced for any kind of self angrandizement. He wasn't
looking for any meetings with the press, etc. And as
(06:47):
a matter of fact, he was very subdued because he said,
I want you to take my notes. The evidence is
in there from what we found. We know that you're
not bound by it by any stretchy imagination. And I
said that's correct. And I said, what else can I
do for you? He said, I want you to know
two things, both of which I know your background. You
(07:08):
were head of the criminal courts and the homicide hereau
in the New York County DA's office. And when you
were ahead of the criminal courts, you had two hundred
and fifty new cases every day because we arranged seven
days a week at night as well as during the day.
So there were one hundred and fifty new cases during
the day and one hundred at night. And he said,
I need someone who can evaluate caseload, who can evaluate evidence.
(07:32):
You're the person for me. So that was what the
whole thing with Sprague was. And so anyway, Schwiker gives
me his notes and he said, what I have to
tell you is that the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA,
totally obstructed this investigation from inception.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
They lie told you. He told you that upfront.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Up front, right the first week when I was in Washington,
when he asked me to come to his office when
it all happened in his office, and he said, they
totally obstructed this investigation. They lied, they made things up,
and it's all there in my notes. But what really
rankles me, and I must say it's gut rentry for
me to tell you, is someone who spent ten years
(08:15):
in the DA's office in Manhattan doing what you were doing.
We know about all the cases that you prosecuted. They
were all cases, jury cases. Confernic by the way, not
that you put a juror in the box and someone
then polase guilty.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Oh I haven't I just had a jury trial. Yeah, no,
that's a dream.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
But anyway, what I'm saying is that he then said
to me what his gut wrenchry for me to tell
you is from the evidence as we found it, CIA
was involved and participated in the assassination.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Of President John F. Kennedy. Well, I must tell you
he was right. I was shocked.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
And when he told me that, I felt that there
were like ten gallons of ice water poured on my head.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Because because you're kind of going into this in with
a neutral mindset, saying okay, let me find the evidence,
and so the guy who brings you in says, well,
let me tell you. Let me tell you upfront all
my research. I mean at this point, where what fourteen
almost fifteen years since the assassination, right.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Yeah, exactly, This was seventy seven six. I was appointed
in October, right, and then is seventy seven It was
the first week I was in Washington on this case
along with Sprague. And that's when Senator Richard Schwiker called
me to tell me what his findings were, because he
was head of the subcommittee the Congression, the Senatorial Subcommittee
(09:32):
on the assassination that occurred in the Executive Intelligence ass
is how they responded to it. That was what his
mission was. So he investigated the Kennedy assassination. And these
were the things he told me the very first week
we were in Washington.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
So what other things did he revealed to you, Robert,
besides that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK.
Did he refute the sole gunman, Lee Harvey Oswell, that.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
Is probably the evidence that was offered by the select
committee was so embarrassing. And he said that to me
during the course of the conversation. He said, you're not
going to believe what people did who were on these committees.
They definitely, in his opinion, the government contrived knowingly This
was not some naive situation. He claimed from the evidence,
(10:29):
all of which was in his notes, that the government
knowingly contrived the predetermined conclusion through the pretense of an investigation.
It was a pretense probe, if you will, and both
the Warrant Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations,
according to his opinion, were disregarded all the convincing and
testimony of evidence that and trustworthy evidence that was there,
(10:54):
and it's still there as far as he was concerned,
You'll be very surprised.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
How would so accessible? I said, why? Why has nobody
else come up with this?
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Exactly? That's that I want to.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Tell you why.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
And you're going to hear this from other people who
I'm sure Low Stokes, who was chairman of the committee,
will tell you and verify this. People were afraid of
retaliation from the CIA if they investigated this case properly.
I said, that is something that I find absolutely also incredible. Moreover,
(11:28):
what was incredible was the committee decided, after they came
down with the single bullet theory with neutron activation analysis,
the ellegts science in this case, they claimed, and you know,
the lest science metallurgical PhDs like PhDs rather by metallurgical
(11:49):
PhDs when they heard about this neutron activation analysis, which
was the principal testing component for comparative bullet letter analysis.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
What does all that mean?
Speaker 5 (12:00):
I mean is that they claimed he's so called experts
from neutron activation analysis. They claimed that a fragment could
match a fragment and a fragment could match a bullet.
Why is this important in the case, because the in
the justification for what they decided the CIA decided to
(12:20):
go through, it was that neutron activation analysis NAA was
science and if anybody disbelieved the science of NAA, and
this is what they said, this is not something to
be made up, that then you believe in the world
is flat.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Oh yeah, exactly yeah, same argument they told us about COVID, right, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
Exactly, yeah, there's no question.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
And so what happened was no one bothered from the
government at that time to speak to metallurgical PhDs.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
But once they found out about what was.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
Being alleged from NAA, they came in and they said
NAA is invalid and here are the reasons why you
can't get involved in this soup. Development of these issues
as it relates to for example, a pistol. We know
from every pistol that's made as an infirmity, and so
now bullet spins through it. You have the loops in
(13:13):
the world, and you can show that they came from
the same gun. That's not what this is. That's not
what neutron activation analysis is. That is since and the
importance in the case, in the lie which the evidence
tells us, was that the NAA issue left two pieces
of missiles in the case, two pieces of ballistics. Why
(13:36):
they claimed that that there were two major fragments in
the limo that matched each other and that they came
from one bullet. Then they said Governor Connolly had some
fragments removed from his wrist because Tonnally, as you know,
was struck as they found out that they made up
that in their wound in JFK's throat, the magic all
(14:00):
it came out finally in the back and the shoulder,
fractured his his axial nerve, in his right wrist and
seven to ten and in his thumb and is between
his right thumb and his right index finger. Now this
bullet talking about absurdity was that we know from from
what happened at dearly Plaza. The government's position was and
(14:22):
has never changed for six or two years, is that
there were three shots from the rear of JFK. One
hit him in the head and one hit him in
the right in the in the body five six inches
below the neckline, so the opening were on the throat.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
It was below the neckline on the show of the
blade area of his back, and it was a downward
track exactly.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
Rushian Arose I wanted to know if that was If
that's the case, we know that from war tops you
and all this evidence is in the book. It's all
in the book. So what happened was they said, yes,
there was a downward track, but you know what happened here,
It actually went up eleven degrees and came out JF
case throat.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
And that's the bullet of the one bullet theory.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Now, I mean, you mean, in all your court cases
and dealing with and dealing with any kind of bullet trajectory,
you've never seen a bullet, you know, alter its flight.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Well, offer its trail.
Speaker 5 (15:18):
It all takes a rail, right, Yeah, we want to
talk about the absurdities of this case. By the way,
the House Select Committee decided that once they were getting
questioned about what they were finding, they then sealed for
fifty years the evidence in this case, which was totally
improper to do. In my judgment, there's no there was
no evidence here that we found to this date that
(15:41):
dealt with national security. And I said to them, I
said to the government people, if there is any interferes
here or disclosures we don't want to make about about
national security, we'll go to court. We'll have an end camera,
you know, a private meeting with the judge on the record,
and asked the judge to make a I know from
my experience when I looked at all these documents, there's
(16:03):
nothing there involving any embarrassment or unnecessary disclosures of national
security or anything else. So they totally ignore this. But
here's the other aspect of the case which I think
is important, and that is when the shots were fired
at Daily Plaza, and when you and again Sprague and
(16:23):
I did nothing different than we did with investigating every
murder case we had responsibility for, and for that matter,
every other case as well. And that is there were
five shots fired at Daily Plaza. I mean the significance
of it was the witnesses were very important. Why do
I say that, because most witnesses feel if they can't
make an identification of a shooter, and in a shooting
(16:46):
murder for example, or any kind of case like that
where they think they could identify the shooter at a lineup,
they don't think they made any contribution. But that's not
the case, because here we go at Dearly Plaza. The
witnesses told us that there were basically from all the
documents and everything else we looked at that there were
two flurries of shots.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
The first flurry hit.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Kennedy and Connelly in the back, and Kennedy according to
the government, that was hitting the head. Those were it
turned out because of the science in the case. Keep
in mind, from when I was investigating this case, I
had what I call immutable evidence scientific visual, audio, and
acoustics that were laid out more scientifically than others who
(17:28):
at the time were doing this. So when I say
that the witnesses said there were two or three shots
in the first flurry, there were three shots, we know that.
And they said it happened very quickly, Well, we know
what happened in two point six seconds. And then they said,
by the way, all the shooting at that at the
at dearly Plasa took eight point three seconds two point
(17:49):
six they said. It happened quickly. Then the witnesses said
there was a pause. The pause was four point eight seconds.
They didn't know these numbers right exactly. And then this
is what happened. And I urge everybody to take a
good look at this see for yourself. We're about to
tell you. The fourth shot was a boom blast that
people on the bridge watching the motorcade, the limo come
(18:13):
down Elm going westerly, and that was Holland and his
other group of five that were with him and so on.
They immediately turned to their left to look at the
area of the stockade fence. A matter of fact, when
you look and you look at Zapru to filming, he
looks over there in that area, and there were people
on the grass in front of that area who went
(18:35):
down on the grass to someone who protect their children
because they thought they were a line of fire.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Right.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
So now at frame three one three, I call that
Zapru to frame three one three, we see and again
this is all in the book that day in Dallas.
It's in the book because it represents what we see
a major flare and that's the shot that blows Kennedy's
head out. So he's murdered complete lately, he's murdered at
(19:02):
frame three thirteen. I even have frame three twelve and there,
so you see the difference right away, Bengal, it's eighteen
point three frames per second from the film. So when
we're talking a few frames, it's an insignificant period of
time because.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Four Robert and Robert, this is a side shot.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
And it isn't right.
Speaker 5 (19:21):
That's right, because seven tenths of a second later is
the fifth shot that takes place in this case, and
it it's Kennedy in the top of his cow lick.
And we were able to Bob Groden and I Bob
Groden was a representative expert in all of this who
worked with me on this issue when we determined that
there must have been a fifth shot because of all
(19:43):
of the damage that the fragments had done. But where'd
they come from? But I'll get to that in the moment,
because what happened with the fourth shot that was in
the stockade fence area in close proximity to where Zach
Rudu is filming this shot and this is what destroys
in part, the entire government pretense of an investigation. The
(20:04):
fourth shot was Kennedy's head to violently move backwards and
to his left, just as I'm doing here for you.
Now his head with he was shot here above the
right temple and above the right temple, above his right ear.
His head snaps back as if he were hit with
a baseball. About it, some of the witnesses said, who
(20:25):
were watching this whole thing? And it falls on his
wife's right shoulder where he becomes vitally depressed. He's immobile
and he basically is slum dead resting on Missus Kennedy's
right shoulder. But why do I mention this to you?
Is so important? We know this as human beings who
know the very basics of science. If someone is shot
(20:46):
in the back of the head, which the government says
Kennedy was, how does his head go backwards?
Speaker 3 (20:51):
No, does it goes forward?
Speaker 4 (20:53):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (20:53):
Now, the government was confronted with dilemma. They knowingly went
out of its way to say that Kennedy was shot
three times off from the back. But now the evidence
shows us on film that is head snapped back. So
what the government did to try to cover that up
was to make ten gelatinized skulls, and they were going
to do with a shooting practice same height as the
(21:15):
depository window, six floor, same distance, same rifle. And they
then shot these ten skulls and guess which direction they
went take a while, Guess.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, they had to go forward exactly.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Thank you very much. You win the prize, you get
the cooopy doll here, that's it.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
I'm a witness for you. So how can they justify
all this? And that's how they come up with neuchrun
activation analysis, and then that gets destroyed because these metallurgical
PhDs went out of their way to give skating critiques.
And so what happened was the FBI now was under
the gun because they had sent agents into court under
(21:54):
road testifying that you can match to a fragment or
a fragment to a bullet. And now the I said, please,
do the experts. Give us the ten best experts you
know in the country who are metallurgical experts, and we
want to know what their opinion is. And they did that,
and every one of them in their opinion was you
shoot somebody in the back of the head. The head's
going to go forward. This is so basic.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Yeah, I mean Rogers and Roger Stone even presented it
in his movie as you know.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
Well, I'm not something if I tell you about something
about Stone. In my opinion, we don't share the same
view of America. I thank god I was born in Brooklyn,
New York. Okay, you don't have to you know what
I'm coming from with that. Yeah, I know, and I
don't perceive him. And I've had this argument with him
about how we differ about what America is and so on.
I'm very much as far as my value system goes somewhere,
(22:43):
you know, between Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. So but that
doesn't mean I don't listen to other people and I
don't respect their right to have a different opinion. I'm
just telling you myself and that movie. The reason I
mentioned Stone was he puts in that movie a load
of important It's very difficult for someone to watch that
film for the first time and process it all. So
(23:06):
to his credit, I told him this when we met
on occasion. You know, what you've done here is a
good service, no question about it. And that's my opinion,
and he was very gracious about it all. Always we
were very professional. This wasn't any head of anti stuff.
So we now know that neutron activation analysis was invalid.
And the one bullet theory is an embarrassment because how
(23:28):
do you get a bullet that has a downward track
to come up eleven degrees and come out the throat
in order to justify what the one bullet theory is
all about?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Right, So Robert, let me ask you what about was
there any validity to that bullet that was found in
the stretcher.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
No, because the bullet that was found in the structure
they claimed to be the pristine bullet.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
That's the other aspect of all this.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
In the evidence in the book, I was able to
show where the government took that bullet as an example
and and and did test firing with the bullet and
with other similar bullets. And that is to say they
had they took two shots with bullets into cotton wadding. Well,
(24:12):
there was no deformity, nor did anybody expect it. But
that's two bullets. So the third, the third bullet, I'm sorry,
the fourth bullet was shot and struck Kennedy in the rib,
and that bullet was had some deformity. The fifth bullet
struck struck the skeleton in the right wrist. This is
(24:35):
the axial nerve and the right wrist where Kennedy was
where Connolly was shot, and that's where they took that
fragment from. And that's where Connolly was struck. According to
the government in the single bullet theory. From the bullet
going up with eleven degrees out the throat, it struck.
It struck Connolly in the back, in the right shoulder
(24:55):
and the right in.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
His back and his rib and struck him the actual nerve.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
Now, why didn't want to mention this against you because
when you look at the testing that the government did
on this bullet, it was totally deformed. But not the
pristine bullet, not alleguly did all this. You're with me,
and I'm saying, I know, I guess confused after a while.
But the bottom line here is that the pristine bullet
that they used and this five bullet example, the first
(25:24):
two in cotton wadding, no deformity. The fourth bullet I'm
talking one is the pristaine two three cotton watting. The
fourth bullet strikes the rib and then the fifth bullet,
which did most of the damage here struck and in
the actual nerve in Connolly's wrist fractured his wrist. And
(25:46):
by the way, how do we know all this as well? Connelly,
as you recall, was holding that stetson hat, the white hat,
exactly upside down, so they could just flip it on
to all the shooting. He holds onto that except when
he gets that shot in the axial nerve, and it
would be the equivalent that doctors have told me the
experts is if we were shot in the right below
(26:12):
the knee. If that were the case, we would fall down.
We wouldn't be able to stand up. Similarly, when you're
shot in the axial nerve and it fractures your wrist
and severs the tendon in your right hand from right
thumb to index finger, you must he must have had.
That's why he experienced and that's why he drops the
white stets in hat. So there were so many different
(26:33):
ways to tell the truth here, but yet our government
contrived its conclusion. It was predetermined that it was a
pretense and none of this evidence was off it. By
the way, the Parkland doctors offering what were potential major
truth tellers in this case here they are in trauma
(26:53):
Room one when the body is brought in and they're
trying to do everything they can experimentally or in otherwise.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
We're all within the is that they were familiar with.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
They could not save his life, and they tried to
do everything they could to do it.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
And it's amazing how heroic that was, Robert, because his brain,
half of his brain was out of his skull.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
And what your perfect point I wanted to mention that
to you, and that is that doctor kem Clark, who
was chief of neurosurgery, was in the intrauma Room one
with his staff and he said he observed the gaping
hole in the back of JFK's head and it was
it was the lower right occipital bone, which is the
harryella bone in the occipal bone meet together in the
(27:36):
back of our head that was blown out. And he
said he saw the cerebellum. And Clint Hill was a
secret service as when he went and hit the car
at the back of it, he looked down, he said
he saw JFK had an empty head and he wrote
about that in his own book.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Clinton And also that the Jacqueline Kennedy when you saw her,
you know, jumping to the back of the truck was
and Clinton I interviewed Clinton. He said that she was
just grabbing the president's brain matter and bringing him back in.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
So then we have doctor Robert McClellan. This is interesting.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
He drafted a vivid diagram and an expert came in
and it depicted the gaping hole in the back of
JFK's head, which has been legendary.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
You see it.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
It's about this large just taking hole in the back
of the president's head. And then an interesting phenomenon was
that doctor Robert Shaw was the thoracic surgeon that helped
out that went right to the aid of Governor Connolly
in the drama room, and he did something and says
something a few people mentioned, but I want you to
(28:44):
hear it, and that is that doctor Robert Shaw, who
was Connery's thorastic surgeon, said that it was a downward track.
He keep in mind, this was before he smoke to anybody,
and that has to say other than the injured.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
And he said it downward track.
Speaker 5 (29:01):
And he's talking into his microphone as the doctors do
at autopsy and sell on the pictures of which they
want to make sure that anyone else who comes in
can pick.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
It up right away.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
And they don't own this day. Know that it's all
scientific and they share information. And Shaw said that the
shot in Connell that hit Connolly was had a twenty
seven degree declination downward.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Track exactly right. Let me let me ask you this
side sidebar, real quick. I'm sorry, but did they ever
did they ever determine that the rifle that Lee rb
Oswald supposedly used, Was there any evidence of that around
had been shot from that gun?
Speaker 4 (29:45):
No? And I want to tell you something about it.
Let me just finish this point to us.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Oh yeah, all right, I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
I'm going to go right to that the rifle issue,
the problem they really had, and it deals exactly with
your question, so thank you. I'm going to get right
to it though, and that is Robert Shaw said. Doctor
Roberts Shore said that there was a twenty seven degree
declination and it was a downward track in and out
bullet that hit Connolly in the back. Remember what the
(30:09):
first shots the first flurry? Right, here's something few people
you have ever mentioned. Guess what the downward track is?
From the rooftop of the County Records building, in the
northeast corner of Houston Street and Elm and that was
directly to the rear of presidential the presidential limo. That
(30:31):
the downward track from the rooftop of the County Records
Building to the point of hitting Connelly and Kennedy in
the back was twenty seven degrees. Now keep in mind
you know this that the downward track from the County
Records Building on high has a direct view of Elm
(30:53):
Street and that limo moving down westerly. So when people say,
what is the evidence of another shooter, that is evidence
of another shooter. And here's why a problem occurred in
the case. And part of the problem that occurred in
the case was that the following had happened. In December
of sixty three, the Secret Service of the FBI found
(31:13):
that Connolly and Kennedy was struck by two separate bullets.
Two separate bullets, both were shot within one point nine
seconds of each other. Well, why is that important? This
wipes out the Van Louko Carcano rifle as the murder
with whys because the man look of Carcano takes two
point three seconds in order to engage in the.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Right exactly repeat that for a moment.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Kennedy and Connolly were struck with separate bullets at a
differential of one point nine seconds in order for that
rifle to fire, or it takes two point three seconds.
So the best that it could say in this case
was they got off the first shot, it could not
have got off the second shot.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Therefore it is no longer the major murder weapon in
this case.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
But yet, you know, they showed this demonstration I think
was ABC did this whole demonstration about this nineteen dollars
rifle and how they were able to release those rounds.
You know, accordingly, so it was irrefutable. But here you know,
you're proving, you know, you're saying it was impossible.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
Exactly, it's possible because you can't get off the second
shot from the rifle in less than two point three seconds, right, Well,
then who else shot? There had to be another shooter
to the extent that we know there was more than
one shot, and that it.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Took.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
The manual bolt action says you can't fire this rifle,
the manical coccano rifle in less than two point three seconds,
But they were hit between one point nine seconds. All
of what you see when they lied they didn't know
any of this. Whatever happen, they didn't know. The zach
Ruder film would show us exactly what was going on here.
Frame three thirteen, we see the president's head step back.
(32:58):
Heads do not step back when they're shot from the
back has moved forward when they're hit. By the way,
an interesting thing I think for your audience to appreciate
what you're doing here, and you're making your major service
as far as I'm concerned, is that scientifically from the
facts here, not opinion. We're demonstrating that the government's case
is totally unbelievable and contrary to what they alleged, they
(33:21):
alleged they had science. The metallurgical PhDs said, there is
no science in this case. That neutron activiation analysis is
a fake, it's invalid, and it's a fabrication.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
And as a matter of fact, what we have in the.
Speaker 5 (33:38):
Case, which I haven't mentioned yet, is what we call
me minute metallic fragments.
Speaker 4 (33:42):
I'll be very quick on this.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
If someone who shoot me in the back of the
head right now, there would be no minute metallic fragments
in the front of my skull. So keep in mind
that the minute metallic fragments inside jf case head.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
We're at the side of his head, and.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
Scientifically, the minute metallic fragments tell us that the direction
of the wound, and you could get you can see
the three skull X rays. It's available in the archives right,
and it shows it shows how this wound goes from
the above his right ear the temple area all the
way to the back of his skull.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
But what it also tells us is the point of entry.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
I was going to say exactly that was my question.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
That's it, the point of entry. Once we know the
point of entry.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
He came from the front send the geographically front of
the limo, the limos moving this way. The shots were
here and hit Kennedy in the side of the head
and blew his head back. That's why one thing is
watch the head, not the body of JFK. Because it's
not the body moving JFK's head. It's the head moving
(34:50):
the body. And that's why we know all of these
facts that are irrefutable. This is just my opinion on.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
Any of this. Well.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
And the thing is, lest we forget, jam was in
a brace exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:03):
Oh right, absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
That gets into the detail that is so magnificent From
an evidentiary point of view, all of this is let
me keep in mind, this is our government telling us
neutron activation analysis.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
We know how the science.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
They were going around saying, and they were saying, you, you, congressman,
you said it you if you disagree with us, you
believe the Earth is.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Flat, they said these things. This is not made off.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Yeah, well it turns out that guess what, the only
people who believe that the Earth is fly and people
who believe in the one bullet theory. And that's the
bottom line here. It's a big twist around. They weren't
be expected not to happen from our government. But lo
and behold, that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You know, you imagine you imagine here, Robert, how many
millions of dollars did the government spend a taxpayer money
to come up with this big lie.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
Well, not only is it the money, as you well know,
but I know from you, given the kind of person
you are, it shatters the credibility of our government.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
And there's no reason for this to have happened except
that the CIA was running the show, pure and simple.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
And complicit with the FBI exactly.
Speaker 5 (36:10):
Exactly So there was another piece of evidence that I
was able to uncover which I think we should mention him,
and that was this John mccoone issue. John McComb was
a lawyer and JFK was so livid about what happened
at the Bay of Pigs in the Cuban fiasco in
sixty one that he fired Alan Dolles and he put
in John mccoon and mccoone. Again, I mentioned this is
(36:34):
important for what he did. John mccoone was a major
Kennedy supporter, and he received an inquiry from James Rowley,
who was then Chief of the Secret Service, and Raley
said to him, you know, we're concerned here that there're
being links from our committees, that is the Secret Service
and from the CIA, because mccoone now was headed the
(36:55):
CIA from sixty one, and he wanted.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
To know what mccone's feeling was.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
Mister Rowley who was Chief of the Secret Service, and
McCone wrote back to him and said the following. In substance,
he said, the leafs about Lee Harvey Oswald are very
very important because he gets involved with his training and
his suspect activity. They were concerned at that point more
with hiding the fact that Oswald was an agent of
(37:22):
the CIA and the FBI since nineteen fifty seven when
he was at at Sudi Air Force Base in.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Japan exactly monitoring the U two flights.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
And one of those flights got shot down, as you
may recall, and the government figured there must be a
mole because no one can know, no one can know
how to bring these planes down and or lift them
up except experts, and so they decided that they would
try and make sure that people did not know. And
(37:54):
that's the American people were talking about here, that the
American people would not know that Lee Harvey Oswold was
a contract employer for the CIA and the FBI. So
what he says is, I'm concerned if this information in
any way is disclosed to the wrong person's meeting the
media right that they will claim that that this agency,
(38:15):
the CIA, and perhaps others were directly involved in the
assassination Mason come in. It's a two page letter. At
the top of page two, which is paragraph six. While
the persons involved, he goes on to say, we're in
the employ of the CIA, the persons involved in the assassination.
We're involved and by the way they recfer to the
(38:37):
assassination as the Dallas Action. So let me put that
together again for you. Macoone says in response to rallies,
concerned about people finding out that Oswald was really an expert,
a person who was working for our government, And he said,
I'm concerned that this information in any way is disclosed
to the wrong persons, who would lead the media to
(38:59):
erroneously claim that the CIA and perhaps others would directly
involve in the Dallas Action assassination at president and the
next sentences, you got to sit down for this one, Okay, Well,
the persons involved in the assassination weren't in the employ
of this agency talking about in the United States an
admission later on this happened. Oh my god, please tell
(39:20):
the public that this was a lie. Yeah, and I
had this checked out from afflatu Omega from that what's
in the field when who found it?
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Others who were who used it?
Speaker 5 (39:32):
And it was all the document was there where were
supposed to be. There was no fake here. The fake
here is the government trying to spin itself out yet.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Again exactly and look at how far the government's come, Robert,
I mean, you know here at least in paper they're
saying they're concerned the media could chase this down. Now
fast forward to the Trump assassin attempted assassination, and it's
interesting the pattern and how you may have people who
(40:03):
were government operatives involved, and how this kind of ends up,
you know, disappearing conveniently. I don't know it just there's
some similarities here for me in my mind as I
follow this, and of course now today whether it's January
sixth or other events that have happened in our country
(40:23):
where you know, the exposure of government operatives FBI and
CIA operatives are operating domestically within our country doing a
lot of bad stuff.
Speaker 5 (40:37):
That is why I received I was able to get
a hold of you, leading me right into this point
of President Truman. President Schruman was had a major revelation
that he felt responsible for the CIA, that the Office
of Strategic Services OSS, which was our intellig organization in
(40:58):
World War Two. He was the stress that he permitted OSS,
Office of Stecution Services to morph into the CIA, and
why was he concerned about that? And he wrote a
very damning memo on this thing on December twenty two,
sixty three, twelve twenty two sixty three, and in it
is a very important critique of the CIA, and what
(41:19):
he's saying was it's become operational and it forms policy,
and the people involved in oversight are not doing their job.
They're afraid of retaliation. I'll give you an example, mister Schumer,
this great senator from Brooklyn, not when I was that,
That's all I can tell you. He went after Trump
and Trump's first term when you recall, I'm sure Trump
(41:41):
was dealing with the executive intelligence agencies that they've gone
a far afield here. So what did Schumer say? And
by the way, he was in charge of oversight in
the United States senator at the time, because that was
the majority party at the time, the Democrats. Schumer says,
as the major overseer, I thought, you know, we thought
that that Trump was so smart. This was during his
(42:02):
first term. He's now taking on the executive intelligence agencies.
Speaker 4 (42:06):
Doesn't he know.
Speaker 5 (42:07):
There is ten seven, eight, nine, ten ways till Sunday
that they'll come back at you.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
And get you.
Speaker 3 (42:14):
Yes, that was that was crazily telling. You're exactly right.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
I remember when he said that, and I'm going, whoa,
that that's quite you know because everyone, because even crazy
Jerry Nadler, right, he goes, there's no such thing as
the deep state.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
Absolutely absolutely, So all of the things that we're talking
about here render what they've done, you know, in a
very shad fed I'll give you another example of this.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
We've got about five minutes left, so I'm going to
let you kind of do a summation here, Robert, Okay,
We're gonna put you a little bit and the.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
You know, there's a lot of viewers here well.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
A part of any insulation here. You're the first person
I have to commend for giving me the opportunity and
others to tell what the facts are. That's all we
talk about the truth. It's not an opinion. The facts
here are overwhelming. And I'll give you an example of
what I mean. I always kept time. It's been loose
Stokes every night. I told him where we were. So
(43:12):
everything I'm telling you i've I told him. This is
not something that Sprague and I kept to ourselves. We
weren't here again trying to make history, if you will.
To the contrary, we were appalled with the facts that
were there, So why didn't others do this? So I
said to Lou lose Stokes, very good man, and we
became lifelong friends. And I said, Lou, I need a subpoena.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
Two subpoenas. One, I have information that the CIA.
Speaker 5 (43:41):
In fact has has memos talking about its participation in
this assassination, and the other memo and the other. The
other subpoena I need is that I'm trying to determine
whether this was an action taken by the CIA.
Speaker 4 (43:59):
Or it was a rogue.
Speaker 5 (44:01):
Action by some one or two or more people decided
to take us into their own hands. He said, Bob,
the Committee's not going to help you. I said, why
do you hire us? I told you not to hire
me and Dick if it comes down to any issue.
We're not going to compromise on search for truth here.
And you can't win the Congress in Article one in
(44:23):
any way without compromise. You can't have everybody as a
chief executive here in the Article two. So he said, Bob,
the committee never thought you would find out much less
how quickly you did about this sortied mess we have.
I said, Lou, you know everything I know because I've
told you this. Why what am I missing? He said,
(44:46):
they're afraid of retaliation. So here I am again. I
went through this. You know, we went through this with
new Shorn activation analysis. We went through this with a
single bullet theory. And here he is, at the end
of this mess telling me that people are afraid that
they can be somehow unfriendly. Let's put it in a
(45:07):
very quiet light, a gym light, that somehow or rather
the CIA can harm them in some fashion, is.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
What he was telling me.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Robert, hundreds of people have died who have investigated the
jfk assassination. Donald Trump, you and I talked about this
last time. He was getting ready to release everything right,
and all of a sudden he stops. Why does he stop?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
He said.
Speaker 5 (45:32):
The reason he stopped he said to good people that
if you saw what I saw in these records, he said,
you would not have released them either.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
But that's exactly what we need to see, exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:44):
So tired of listening to people who don't trust the
American public that you represent the American public, representing the
very people you're saying to the American public, we don't
trust you. It's just too heavy handed. That's nonsense and stokes.
As I said, a good man, and as a matter
of fact, I wanted to mention that we started off
with this in essays was a Stone movie. It created
(46:07):
the JFK Records Act of nineteen ninety two. I think
the movie was in ninety one and run in that area,
and it created the Assassination.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Record Review Board of ninety three.
Speaker 5 (46:20):
I was asked by the District court judge from Minneapolis,
very fine young man and federal judge, and he asked
me if I, after talking to him, would appear before
the committee and give my testimony. I said absolutely. The
reason I mentioned this is I in ninety three and
this is on the record. You can get these this transcript.
(46:43):
I said in ninety three that every document should be
given over exactly. There was no absolute reason for anyone
to suggest that the American public can't handle all of
this information. They're the best people to handle all this information.
Speaker 4 (47:00):
Out.
Speaker 5 (47:00):
So yeah, in summation, I would say, we need desperately
to cut this nonsense out about who is who can
who can we trust with information? Right when it's the
government's responsibility in cases like this to tell the truth.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
And that's what we went to Washington to do.
Speaker 5 (47:19):
We found out that we didn't let us do it,
and Sprague and I left and like the March of
seventy seven, and we never regretted that because I never
dreamed that they would wind up doing what they did,
and that was they made major lies to the American public.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Well, Robert Tannebaum, you're you're a true patriot, and I
appreciate all the great work. Thank you so much for
coming on and bringing the evidence you know to our audience.
They can continue to do their research. The book That
Day in Dallas Lee Rvey Haswall did not Kill JFK.
And read and do your own research. This is, after all,
(47:57):
is the government of for by we the people, which
means means that in order to have the consent of
the govern the government must be educated. They must be intellectualized.
This is why our first Amendment is so key. Robert, again,
thank you so much. God speed, my friend. I appreciate you.
Speaker 4 (48:14):
God bless you. Thank you so much. You got it.
Speaker 2 (48:17):
Robert Tennenbaum. His book That Day in Dallas Lee, Harvey
Oswell did Not Kill JFK is best described as prosecution
by mister Tennenbaum of those corrupt, unscrupulous government and unelected
agency officials who from inception with predetermined outcomes deceitfully engaged
(48:38):
in insecure bony pretense probes regarding the assassination in daily plaza,
those responsible should be prosecuted, while those who speak truth
to power should be exonerated. In nineteen seventy six, as
Robert pointed out and explained, he was appointed Deputy Chief
Counsel in charge of the Congressional Investigation into the assassination
(49:01):
of President JFK. And it would appear that he has
not finished with his job yet because the truth fully
has not gotten out. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for
sharing a part of your day, and hopefully this motivates
you to do further research and find out for yourself.
As we say, own your own knowledge. I thank you
(49:23):
for being with us. May God bless you, may keep you,
may make His face shine upon you and give you peace.
Speaker 3 (49:29):
God bless
The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of w FOCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio
or its employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should
be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing
(00:21):
W FOURCY Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well, it's been over six decades, right, and the mystery
still continues as to who was responsible for killing John F.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Kennedy. And you know has many.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
As many people out there are opinions, but clearly the
majority of America believes that this is a conspiracy that
yet has been resolved. And one of the greatest mysteries
is why the man accused of assassinating President John F.
Kennedy was himself gonned down. Think about that, right? Well,
Robert Tannenbaum, who was an attorney that in seventy six
(01:14):
was appointed Deputy Chief Council in charge of the Congressional
Investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. He is the
author of the book That Day in Dallas, Leigh Harvey
Oswald did Not Kill JFK. He's an author of thirty
three books twenty nine novels for nonfiction books. One of
the most successful prosecuting attorneys, having never lost a fellow
(01:37):
new trial and convicting hundreds of violent criminals. He was
a special prosecution consultant on the Hillside Strangler case in
Los Angeles and defended Amy Grosberg in her sensationalized baby
death case. He was the Assistant District Attorney in New
York County and the office of legendary District Attorney Frank Hogan,
where he ran the homicide Bureau. Robert Tennenbaum joins us, now,
(02:00):
welcome to the show. Good to have you with us.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Sir, Yeah, thank you, thank you. It was good to
be here.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Well, this has been one of those questions that has
haunted the American people for six decades as to who
shot JFK. And in your book That Day in Dallas,
you said, there's no question about it, it wasn't Lee
Harvey Oswell.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
The evidence in the case is overwhelming. As a matter
of fact, the way I got involved in this whole thing.
Was in aug was in October of seventy six, and
Richard A. Sprague, who was mister Pennsylvania as far as
lawyers were concerned. He was a chief assistant DA in Philadelphia,
and he was he became in the middle of October
(02:44):
seventy six he was appointed Chief Counselor of the House
of that Committee on Assassinations where I was looking into
the assassinations at President Kennedy and the Reverend doctor Martin
Luther King, and.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
He called me up. I didn't know who he was.
Speaker 5 (02:58):
I was, as you mentioned that, during a homicide here,
and I was trying murder case. After I was prosecuting
murder case after murder case turned out that the only
person who ever tried more, no one ever tried more
in New York than I, but Richard Spray tried more
than I. And that's kind of guy he was. He
was tremendous and teperity person and a brilliant, brilliant, wonderful individual.
(03:19):
So he called me up in the middle of October
seventy sixth and asked me if I wanted to be
part of this investigation that he wanted me to work
with him on the assassination of President Kennedy, and it
was a subcommittee. So we met, we chatted, and I
believed in him that he was a truth seeker, and
(03:39):
indeed I was right, and we stayed together for many,
many years. We had a forty six year friendship as
a result of meeting through this case and what happened
when we went to Washington. As you know, so that
committee has a life of two years. That is to say,
it gets funded. All the standing committees funded each every
(04:01):
couple of years. They don't go through a press, but
a select committee has a two year life. So this
select committee was starting in seventy seven in January, and
it would have expired or did expire in seventy eight
December thirty one.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Now, a lot of things.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Happened during this period of time because ultimately Sprague and
I obtained a commitment from the members of the committee
that they would not interfere with the investigation, they wouldn't
politicize this thing.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
If they did, we would leave because it's their committee.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
It was a congressional committee, wasn't a Tanaban committee or
a Spray committee. And they agreed they were not pulled
around with this, and we said, we have no brief
in this case. That is to say, we're not coming
down here to say Oswell did it or Oswell did
it to it? We don't know and exactly, but whatever
the evidence would be, we're going to tell the American public,
if that's what you.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Want, Robert, I want to make sure our audience understands
the kind of attorney that you and Sprague represent, which
is the majority of attorneys. You didn't come in with
a fixed agenda. You didn't come in, you know, off
the heels of you know, the Warrant Commission or what
anybody else said. You just said, look at we're attorneys.
(05:11):
We follow the evidence, and we follow the evidence to
it to its truthful conclusion. Is that fair to say?
Speaker 5 (05:18):
That's exactly right to say. And that's what we started
out doing. And as a matter of fact, what happened
was but the evidence in this case is so overwhelming
that when I spoke to lous Stokes every day and
he was the chairman of our committee Lustos, he was
a kind of he was a member of the or
the the House for represented Cleveland, Ohio. And as a
(05:41):
matter of fact, he took a special seat because his brother,
Karl STOs was the first black mayor of Cleveland. They
wanted to have a federal seat so that they can
get the money and do good things with infrastructure, schools, education,
all these kinds of things that you know, people want
when they go to Washington. Whether they do it when
they get there's a whole other story, whole other story.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Anyway.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Our story is is that first week we were in Washington,
I got a call from Richard Schweiker. He's a Republican
member of the so called Church Committee, which was investigating
the assassinations of the executive intelligence agencies, and they wanted
to know the effect on the executive intelligence agencies and
(06:24):
who may have committed the murders that were involved with
President Kennedy and ultimately with Martin Luther King. So the
bottom line here was that Schweiker told me he wanted
to sit in the Schweiker again a conservative Republican. He
wasn't ounced for any kind of self angrandizement. He wasn't
looking for any meetings with the press, etc. And as
(06:47):
a matter of fact, he was very subdued because he said,
I want you to take my notes. The evidence is
in there from what we found. We know that you're
not bound by it by any stretchy imagination. And I
said that's correct. And I said, what else can I
do for you? He said, I want you to know
two things, both of which I know your background. You
(07:08):
were head of the criminal courts and the homicide hereau
in the New York County DA's office. And when you
were ahead of the criminal courts, you had two hundred
and fifty new cases every day because we arranged seven
days a week at night as well as during the day.
So there were one hundred and fifty new cases during
the day and one hundred at night. And he said,
I need someone who can evaluate caseload, who can evaluate evidence.
(07:32):
You're the person for me. So that was what the
whole thing with Sprague was. And so anyway, Schwiker gives
me his notes and he said, what I have to
tell you is that the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA,
totally obstructed this investigation from inception.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
They lie told you. He told you that upfront.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Up front, right the first week when I was in Washington,
when he asked me to come to his office when
it all happened in his office, and he said, they
totally obstructed this investigation. They lied, they made things up,
and it's all there in my notes. But what really
rankles me, and I must say it's gut rentry for
me to tell you, is someone who spent ten years
(08:15):
in the DA's office in Manhattan doing what you were doing.
We know about all the cases that you prosecuted. They
were all cases, jury cases. Confernic by the way, not
that you put a juror in the box and someone
then polase guilty.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Oh I haven't I just had a jury trial. Yeah, no,
that's a dream.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
But anyway, what I'm saying is that he then said
to me what his gut wrenchry for me to tell
you is from the evidence as we found it, CIA
was involved and participated in the assassination.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Of President John F. Kennedy. Well, I must tell you
he was right. I was shocked.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
And when he told me that, I felt that there
were like ten gallons of ice water poured on my head.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Because because you're kind of going into this in with
a neutral mindset, saying okay, let me find the evidence,
and so the guy who brings you in says, well,
let me tell you. Let me tell you upfront all
my research. I mean at this point, where what fourteen
almost fifteen years since the assassination, right.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Yeah, exactly, This was seventy seven six. I was appointed
in October, right, and then is seventy seven It was
the first week I was in Washington on this case
along with Sprague. And that's when Senator Richard Schwiker called
me to tell me what his findings were, because he
was head of the subcommittee the Congression, the Senatorial Subcommittee
(09:32):
on the assassination that occurred in the Executive Intelligence ass
is how they responded to it. That was what his
mission was. So he investigated the Kennedy assassination. And these
were the things he told me the very first week
we were in Washington.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
So what other things did he revealed to you, Robert,
besides that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK.
Did he refute the sole gunman, Lee Harvey Oswell, that.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
Is probably the evidence that was offered by the select
committee was so embarrassing. And he said that to me
during the course of the conversation. He said, you're not
going to believe what people did who were on these committees.
They definitely, in his opinion, the government contrived knowingly This
was not some naive situation. He claimed from the evidence,
(10:29):
all of which was in his notes, that the government
knowingly contrived the predetermined conclusion through the pretense of an investigation.
It was a pretense probe, if you will, and both
the Warrant Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations,
according to his opinion, were disregarded all the convincing and
testimony of evidence that and trustworthy evidence that was there,
(10:54):
and it's still there as far as he was concerned,
You'll be very surprised.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
How would so accessible? I said, why? Why has nobody
else come up with this?
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Exactly? That's that I want to.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Tell you why.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
And you're going to hear this from other people who
I'm sure Low Stokes, who was chairman of the committee,
will tell you and verify this. People were afraid of
retaliation from the CIA if they investigated this case properly.
I said, that is something that I find absolutely also incredible. Moreover,
(11:28):
what was incredible was the committee decided, after they came
down with the single bullet theory with neutron activation analysis,
the ellegts science in this case, they claimed, and you know,
the lest science metallurgical PhDs like PhDs rather by metallurgical
(11:49):
PhDs when they heard about this neutron activation analysis, which
was the principal testing component for comparative bullet letter analysis.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
What does all that mean?
Speaker 5 (12:00):
I mean is that they claimed he's so called experts
from neutron activation analysis. They claimed that a fragment could
match a fragment and a fragment could match a bullet.
Why is this important in the case, because the in
the justification for what they decided the CIA decided to
(12:20):
go through, it was that neutron activation analysis NAA was
science and if anybody disbelieved the science of NAA, and
this is what they said, this is not something to
be made up, that then you believe in the world
is flat.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Oh yeah, exactly yeah, same argument they told us about COVID, right, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
Exactly, yeah, there's no question.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
And so what happened was no one bothered from the
government at that time to speak to metallurgical PhDs.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
But once they found out about what was.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
Being alleged from NAA, they came in and they said
NAA is invalid and here are the reasons why you
can't get involved in this soup. Development of these issues
as it relates to for example, a pistol. We know
from every pistol that's made as an infirmity, and so
now bullet spins through it. You have the loops in
(13:13):
the world, and you can show that they came from
the same gun. That's not what this is. That's not
what neutron activation analysis is. That is since and the
importance in the case, in the lie which the evidence
tells us, was that the NAA issue left two pieces
of missiles in the case, two pieces of ballistics. Why
(13:36):
they claimed that that there were two major fragments in
the limo that matched each other and that they came
from one bullet. Then they said Governor Connolly had some
fragments removed from his wrist because Tonnally, as you know,
was struck as they found out that they made up
that in their wound in JFK's throat, the magic all
(14:00):
it came out finally in the back and the shoulder,
fractured his his axial nerve, in his right wrist and
seven to ten and in his thumb and is between
his right thumb and his right index finger. Now this
bullet talking about absurdity was that we know from from
what happened at dearly Plaza. The government's position was and
(14:22):
has never changed for six or two years, is that
there were three shots from the rear of JFK. One
hit him in the head and one hit him in
the right in the in the body five six inches
below the neckline, so the opening were on the throat.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
It was below the neckline on the show of the
blade area of his back, and it was a downward
track exactly.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
Rushian Arose I wanted to know if that was If
that's the case, we know that from war tops you
and all this evidence is in the book. It's all
in the book. So what happened was they said, yes,
there was a downward track, but you know what happened here,
It actually went up eleven degrees and came out JF
case throat.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
And that's the bullet of the one bullet theory.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Now, I mean, you mean, in all your court cases
and dealing with and dealing with any kind of bullet trajectory,
you've never seen a bullet, you know, alter its flight.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Well, offer its trail.
Speaker 5 (15:18):
It all takes a rail, right, Yeah, we want to
talk about the absurdities of this case. By the way,
the House Select Committee decided that once they were getting
questioned about what they were finding, they then sealed for
fifty years the evidence in this case, which was totally
improper to do. In my judgment, there's no there was
no evidence here that we found to this date that
(15:41):
dealt with national security. And I said to them, I
said to the government people, if there is any interferes
here or disclosures we don't want to make about about
national security, we'll go to court. We'll have an end camera,
you know, a private meeting with the judge on the record,
and asked the judge to make a I know from
my experience when I looked at all these documents, there's
(16:03):
nothing there involving any embarrassment or unnecessary disclosures of national
security or anything else. So they totally ignore this. But
here's the other aspect of the case which I think
is important, and that is when the shots were fired
at Daily Plaza, and when you and again Sprague and
(16:23):
I did nothing different than we did with investigating every
murder case we had responsibility for, and for that matter,
every other case as well. And that is there were
five shots fired at Daily Plaza. I mean the significance
of it was the witnesses were very important. Why do
I say that, because most witnesses feel if they can't
make an identification of a shooter, and in a shooting
(16:46):
murder for example, or any kind of case like that
where they think they could identify the shooter at a lineup,
they don't think they made any contribution. But that's not
the case, because here we go at Dearly Plaza. The
witnesses told us that there were basically from all the
documents and everything else we looked at that there were
two flurries of shots.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
The first flurry hit.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Kennedy and Connelly in the back, and Kennedy according to
the government, that was hitting the head. Those were it
turned out because of the science in the case. Keep
in mind, from when I was investigating this case, I
had what I call immutable evidence scientific visual, audio, and
acoustics that were laid out more scientifically than others who
(17:28):
at the time were doing this. So when I say
that the witnesses said there were two or three shots
in the first flurry, there were three shots, we know that.
And they said it happened very quickly, Well, we know
what happened in two point six seconds. And then they said,
by the way, all the shooting at that at the
at dearly Plasa took eight point three seconds two point
(17:49):
six they said. It happened quickly. Then the witnesses said
there was a pause. The pause was four point eight seconds.
They didn't know these numbers right exactly. And then this
is what happened. And I urge everybody to take a
good look at this see for yourself. We're about to
tell you. The fourth shot was a boom blast that
people on the bridge watching the motorcade, the limo come
(18:13):
down Elm going westerly, and that was Holland and his
other group of five that were with him and so on.
They immediately turned to their left to look at the
area of the stockade fence. A matter of fact, when
you look and you look at Zapru to filming, he
looks over there in that area, and there were people
on the grass in front of that area who went
(18:35):
down on the grass to someone who protect their children
because they thought they were a line of fire.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Right.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
So now at frame three one three, I call that
Zapru to frame three one three, we see and again
this is all in the book that day in Dallas.
It's in the book because it represents what we see
a major flare and that's the shot that blows Kennedy's
head out. So he's murdered complete lately, he's murdered at
(19:02):
frame three thirteen. I even have frame three twelve and there,
so you see the difference right away, Bengal, it's eighteen
point three frames per second from the film. So when
we're talking a few frames, it's an insignificant period of
time because.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Four Robert and Robert, this is a side shot.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
And it isn't right.
Speaker 5 (19:21):
That's right, because seven tenths of a second later is
the fifth shot that takes place in this case, and
it it's Kennedy in the top of his cow lick.
And we were able to Bob Groden and I Bob
Groden was a representative expert in all of this who
worked with me on this issue when we determined that
there must have been a fifth shot because of all
(19:43):
of the damage that the fragments had done. But where'd
they come from? But I'll get to that in the moment,
because what happened with the fourth shot that was in
the stockade fence area in close proximity to where Zach
Rudu is filming this shot and this is what destroys
in part, the entire government pretense of an investigation. The
(20:04):
fourth shot was Kennedy's head to violently move backwards and
to his left, just as I'm doing here for you.
Now his head with he was shot here above the
right temple and above the right temple, above his right ear.
His head snaps back as if he were hit with
a baseball. About it, some of the witnesses said, who
(20:25):
were watching this whole thing? And it falls on his
wife's right shoulder where he becomes vitally depressed. He's immobile
and he basically is slum dead resting on Missus Kennedy's
right shoulder. But why do I mention this to you?
Is so important? We know this as human beings who
know the very basics of science. If someone is shot
(20:46):
in the back of the head, which the government says
Kennedy was, how does his head go backwards?
Speaker 3 (20:51):
No, does it goes forward?
Speaker 4 (20:53):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (20:53):
Now, the government was confronted with dilemma. They knowingly went
out of its way to say that Kennedy was shot
three times off from the back. But now the evidence
shows us on film that is head snapped back. So
what the government did to try to cover that up
was to make ten gelatinized skulls, and they were going
to do with a shooting practice same height as the
(21:15):
depository window, six floor, same distance, same rifle. And they
then shot these ten skulls and guess which direction they
went take a while, Guess.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, they had to go forward exactly.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Thank you very much. You win the prize, you get
the cooopy doll here, that's it.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
I'm a witness for you. So how can they justify
all this? And that's how they come up with neuchrun
activation analysis, and then that gets destroyed because these metallurgical
PhDs went out of their way to give skating critiques.
And so what happened was the FBI now was under
the gun because they had sent agents into court under
(21:54):
road testifying that you can match to a fragment or
a fragment to a bullet. And now the I said, please,
do the experts. Give us the ten best experts you
know in the country who are metallurgical experts, and we
want to know what their opinion is. And they did that,
and every one of them in their opinion was you
shoot somebody in the back of the head. The head's
going to go forward. This is so basic.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Yeah, I mean Rogers and Roger Stone even presented it
in his movie as you know.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
Well, I'm not something if I tell you about something
about Stone. In my opinion, we don't share the same
view of America. I thank god I was born in Brooklyn,
New York. Okay, you don't have to you know what
I'm coming from with that. Yeah, I know, and I
don't perceive him. And I've had this argument with him
about how we differ about what America is and so on.
I'm very much as far as my value system goes somewhere,
(22:43):
you know, between Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. So but that
doesn't mean I don't listen to other people and I
don't respect their right to have a different opinion. I'm
just telling you myself and that movie. The reason I
mentioned Stone was he puts in that movie a load
of important It's very difficult for someone to watch that
film for the first time and process it all. So
(23:06):
to his credit, I told him this when we met
on occasion. You know, what you've done here is a
good service, no question about it. And that's my opinion,
and he was very gracious about it all. Always we
were very professional. This wasn't any head of anti stuff.
So we now know that neutron activation analysis was invalid.
And the one bullet theory is an embarrassment because how
(23:28):
do you get a bullet that has a downward track
to come up eleven degrees and come out the throat
in order to justify what the one bullet theory is
all about?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Right, So Robert, let me ask you what about was
there any validity to that bullet that was found in
the stretcher.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
No, because the bullet that was found in the structure
they claimed to be the pristine bullet.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
That's the other aspect of all this.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
In the evidence in the book, I was able to
show where the government took that bullet as an example
and and and did test firing with the bullet and
with other similar bullets. And that is to say they
had they took two shots with bullets into cotton wadding. Well,
(24:12):
there was no deformity, nor did anybody expect it. But
that's two bullets. So the third, the third bullet, I'm sorry,
the fourth bullet was shot and struck Kennedy in the rib,
and that bullet was had some deformity. The fifth bullet
struck struck the skeleton in the right wrist. This is
(24:35):
the axial nerve and the right wrist where Kennedy was
where Connolly was shot, and that's where they took that
fragment from. And that's where Connolly was struck. According to
the government in the single bullet theory. From the bullet
going up with eleven degrees out the throat, it struck.
It struck Connolly in the back, in the right shoulder
(24:55):
and the right in.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
His back and his rib and struck him the actual nerve.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
Now, why didn't want to mention this against you because
when you look at the testing that the government did
on this bullet, it was totally deformed. But not the
pristine bullet, not alleguly did all this. You're with me,
and I'm saying, I know, I guess confused after a while.
But the bottom line here is that the pristine bullet
that they used and this five bullet example, the first
(25:24):
two in cotton wadding, no deformity. The fourth bullet I'm
talking one is the pristaine two three cotton watting. The
fourth bullet strikes the rib and then the fifth bullet,
which did most of the damage here struck and in
the actual nerve in Connolly's wrist fractured his wrist. And
(25:46):
by the way, how do we know all this as well? Connelly,
as you recall, was holding that stetson hat, the white hat,
exactly upside down, so they could just flip it on
to all the shooting. He holds onto that except when
he gets that shot in the axial nerve, and it
would be the equivalent that doctors have told me the
experts is if we were shot in the right below
(26:12):
the knee. If that were the case, we would fall down.
We wouldn't be able to stand up. Similarly, when you're
shot in the axial nerve and it fractures your wrist
and severs the tendon in your right hand from right
thumb to index finger, you must he must have had.
That's why he experienced and that's why he drops the
white stets in hat. So there were so many different
(26:33):
ways to tell the truth here, but yet our government
contrived its conclusion. It was predetermined that it was a
pretense and none of this evidence was off it. By
the way, the Parkland doctors offering what were potential major
truth tellers in this case here they are in trauma
(26:53):
Room one when the body is brought in and they're
trying to do everything they can experimentally or in otherwise.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
We're all within the is that they were familiar with.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
They could not save his life, and they tried to
do everything they could to do it.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
And it's amazing how heroic that was, Robert, because his brain,
half of his brain was out of his skull.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
And what your perfect point I wanted to mention that
to you, and that is that doctor kem Clark, who
was chief of neurosurgery, was in the intrauma Room one
with his staff and he said he observed the gaping
hole in the back of JFK's head and it was
it was the lower right occipital bone, which is the
harryella bone in the occipal bone meet together in the
(27:36):
back of our head that was blown out. And he
said he saw the cerebellum. And Clint Hill was a
secret service as when he went and hit the car
at the back of it, he looked down, he said
he saw JFK had an empty head and he wrote
about that in his own book.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Clinton And also that the Jacqueline Kennedy when you saw her,
you know, jumping to the back of the truck was
and Clinton I interviewed Clinton. He said that she was
just grabbing the president's brain matter and bringing him back in.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
So then we have doctor Robert McClellan. This is interesting.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
He drafted a vivid diagram and an expert came in
and it depicted the gaping hole in the back of
JFK's head, which has been legendary.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
You see it.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
It's about this large just taking hole in the back
of the president's head. And then an interesting phenomenon was
that doctor Robert Shaw was the thoracic surgeon that helped
out that went right to the aid of Governor Connolly
in the drama room, and he did something and says
something a few people mentioned, but I want you to
(28:44):
hear it, and that is that doctor Robert Shaw, who
was Connery's thorastic surgeon, said that it was a downward track.
He keep in mind, this was before he smoke to anybody,
and that has to say other than the injured.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
And he said it downward track.
Speaker 5 (29:01):
And he's talking into his microphone as the doctors do
at autopsy and sell on the pictures of which they
want to make sure that anyone else who comes in
can pick.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
It up right away.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
And they don't own this day. Know that it's all
scientific and they share information. And Shaw said that the
shot in Connell that hit Connolly was had a twenty
seven degree declination downward.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Track exactly right. Let me let me ask you this
side sidebar, real quick. I'm sorry, but did they ever
did they ever determine that the rifle that Lee rb
Oswald supposedly used, Was there any evidence of that around
had been shot from that gun?
Speaker 4 (29:45):
No? And I want to tell you something about it.
Let me just finish this point to us.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Oh yeah, all right, I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
I'm going to go right to that the rifle issue,
the problem they really had, and it deals exactly with
your question, so thank you. I'm going to get right
to it though, and that is Robert Shaw said. Doctor
Roberts Shore said that there was a twenty seven degree
declination and it was a downward track in and out
bullet that hit Connolly in the back. Remember what the
(30:09):
first shots the first flurry? Right, here's something few people
you have ever mentioned. Guess what the downward track is?
From the rooftop of the County Records building, in the
northeast corner of Houston Street and Elm and that was
directly to the rear of presidential the presidential limo. That
(30:31):
the downward track from the rooftop of the County Records
Building to the point of hitting Connelly and Kennedy in
the back was twenty seven degrees. Now keep in mind
you know this that the downward track from the County
Records Building on high has a direct view of Elm
(30:53):
Street and that limo moving down westerly. So when people say,
what is the evidence of another shooter, that is evidence
of another shooter. And here's why a problem occurred in
the case. And part of the problem that occurred in
the case was that the following had happened. In December
of sixty three, the Secret Service of the FBI found
(31:13):
that Connolly and Kennedy was struck by two separate bullets.
Two separate bullets, both were shot within one point nine
seconds of each other. Well, why is that important? This
wipes out the Van Louko Carcano rifle as the murder
with whys because the man look of Carcano takes two
point three seconds in order to engage in the.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Right exactly repeat that for a moment.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Kennedy and Connolly were struck with separate bullets at a
differential of one point nine seconds in order for that
rifle to fire, or it takes two point three seconds.
So the best that it could say in this case
was they got off the first shot, it could not
have got off the second shot.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Therefore it is no longer the major murder weapon in
this case.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
But yet, you know, they showed this demonstration I think
was ABC did this whole demonstration about this nineteen dollars
rifle and how they were able to release those rounds.
You know, accordingly, so it was irrefutable. But here you know,
you're proving, you know, you're saying it was impossible.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
Exactly, it's possible because you can't get off the second
shot from the rifle in less than two point three seconds, right, Well,
then who else shot? There had to be another shooter
to the extent that we know there was more than
one shot, and that it.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Took.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
The manual bolt action says you can't fire this rifle,
the manical coccano rifle in less than two point three seconds,
But they were hit between one point nine seconds. All
of what you see when they lied they didn't know
any of this. Whatever happen, they didn't know. The zach
Ruder film would show us exactly what was going on here.
Frame three thirteen, we see the president's head step back.
(32:58):
Heads do not step back when they're shot from the
back has moved forward when they're hit. By the way,
an interesting thing I think for your audience to appreciate
what you're doing here, and you're making your major service
as far as I'm concerned, is that scientifically from the
facts here, not opinion. We're demonstrating that the government's case
is totally unbelievable and contrary to what they alleged, they
(33:21):
alleged they had science. The metallurgical PhDs said, there is
no science in this case. That neutron activiation analysis is
a fake, it's invalid, and it's a fabrication.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
And as a matter of fact, what we have in the.
Speaker 5 (33:38):
Case, which I haven't mentioned yet, is what we call
me minute metallic fragments.
Speaker 4 (33:42):
I'll be very quick on this.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
If someone who shoot me in the back of the
head right now, there would be no minute metallic fragments
in the front of my skull. So keep in mind
that the minute metallic fragments inside jf case head.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
We're at the side of his head, and.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
Scientifically, the minute metallic fragments tell us that the direction
of the wound, and you could get you can see
the three skull X rays. It's available in the archives right,
and it shows it shows how this wound goes from
the above his right ear the temple area all the
way to the back of his skull.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
But what it also tells us is the point of entry.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
I was going to say exactly that was my question.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
That's it, the point of entry. Once we know the
point of entry.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
He came from the front send the geographically front of
the limo, the limos moving this way. The shots were
here and hit Kennedy in the side of the head
and blew his head back. That's why one thing is
watch the head, not the body of JFK. Because it's
not the body moving JFK's head. It's the head moving
(34:50):
the body. And that's why we know all of these
facts that are irrefutable. This is just my opinion on.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
Any of this. Well.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
And the thing is, lest we forget, jam was in
a brace exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:03):
Oh right, absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
That gets into the detail that is so magnificent From
an evidentiary point of view, all of this is let
me keep in mind, this is our government telling us
neutron activation analysis.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
We know how the science.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
They were going around saying, and they were saying, you, you, congressman,
you said it you if you disagree with us, you
believe the Earth is.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Flat, they said these things. This is not made off.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Yeah, well it turns out that guess what, the only
people who believe that the Earth is fly and people
who believe in the one bullet theory. And that's the
bottom line here. It's a big twist around. They weren't
be expected not to happen from our government. But lo
and behold, that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You know, you imagine you imagine here, Robert, how many
millions of dollars did the government spend a taxpayer money
to come up with this big lie.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
Well, not only is it the money, as you well know,
but I know from you, given the kind of person
you are, it shatters the credibility of our government.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
And there's no reason for this to have happened except
that the CIA was running the show, pure and simple.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
And complicit with the FBI exactly.
Speaker 5 (36:10):
Exactly So there was another piece of evidence that I
was able to uncover which I think we should mention him,
and that was this John mccoone issue. John McComb was
a lawyer and JFK was so livid about what happened
at the Bay of Pigs in the Cuban fiasco in
sixty one that he fired Alan Dolles and he put
in John mccoon and mccoone. Again, I mentioned this is
(36:34):
important for what he did. John mccoone was a major
Kennedy supporter, and he received an inquiry from James Rowley,
who was then Chief of the Secret Service, and Raley
said to him, you know, we're concerned here that there're
being links from our committees, that is the Secret Service
and from the CIA, because mccoone now was headed the
(36:55):
CIA from sixty one, and he wanted.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
To know what mccone's feeling was.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
Mister Rowley who was Chief of the Secret Service, and
McCone wrote back to him and said the following. In substance,
he said, the leafs about Lee Harvey Oswald are very
very important because he gets involved with his training and
his suspect activity. They were concerned at that point more
with hiding the fact that Oswald was an agent of
(37:22):
the CIA and the FBI since nineteen fifty seven when
he was at at Sudi Air Force Base in.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Japan exactly monitoring the U two flights.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
And one of those flights got shot down, as you
may recall, and the government figured there must be a
mole because no one can know, no one can know
how to bring these planes down and or lift them
up except experts, and so they decided that they would
try and make sure that people did not know. And
(37:54):
that's the American people were talking about here, that the
American people would not know that Lee Harvey Oswold was
a contract employer for the CIA and the FBI. So
what he says is, I'm concerned if this information in
any way is disclosed to the wrong person's meeting the
media right that they will claim that that this agency,
(38:15):
the CIA, and perhaps others were directly involved in the
assassination Mason come in. It's a two page letter. At
the top of page two, which is paragraph six. While
the persons involved, he goes on to say, we're in
the employ of the CIA, the persons involved in the assassination.
We're involved and by the way they recfer to the
(38:37):
assassination as the Dallas Action. So let me put that
together again for you. Macoone says in response to rallies,
concerned about people finding out that Oswald was really an expert,
a person who was working for our government, And he said,
I'm concerned that this information in any way is disclosed
to the wrong persons, who would lead the media to
(38:59):
erroneously claim that the CIA and perhaps others would directly
involve in the Dallas Action assassination at president and the
next sentences, you got to sit down for this one, Okay, Well,
the persons involved in the assassination weren't in the employ
of this agency talking about in the United States an
admission later on this happened. Oh my god, please tell
(39:20):
the public that this was a lie. Yeah, and I
had this checked out from afflatu Omega from that what's
in the field when who found it?
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Others who were who used it?
Speaker 5 (39:32):
And it was all the document was there where were
supposed to be. There was no fake here. The fake
here is the government trying to spin itself out yet.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Again exactly and look at how far the government's come, Robert,
I mean, you know here at least in paper they're
saying they're concerned the media could chase this down. Now
fast forward to the Trump assassin attempted assassination, and it's
interesting the pattern and how you may have people who
(40:03):
were government operatives involved, and how this kind of ends up,
you know, disappearing conveniently. I don't know it just there's
some similarities here for me in my mind as I
follow this, and of course now today whether it's January
sixth or other events that have happened in our country
(40:23):
where you know, the exposure of government operatives FBI and
CIA operatives are operating domestically within our country doing a
lot of bad stuff.
Speaker 5 (40:37):
That is why I received I was able to get
a hold of you, leading me right into this point
of President Truman. President Schruman was had a major revelation
that he felt responsible for the CIA, that the Office
of Strategic Services OSS, which was our intellig organization in
(40:58):
World War Two. He was the stress that he permitted OSS,
Office of Stecution Services to morph into the CIA, and
why was he concerned about that? And he wrote a
very damning memo on this thing on December twenty two,
sixty three, twelve twenty two sixty three, and in it
is a very important critique of the CIA, and what
(41:19):
he's saying was it's become operational and it forms policy,
and the people involved in oversight are not doing their job.
They're afraid of retaliation. I'll give you an example, mister Schumer,
this great senator from Brooklyn, not when I was that,
That's all I can tell you. He went after Trump
and Trump's first term when you recall, I'm sure Trump
(41:41):
was dealing with the executive intelligence agencies that they've gone
a far afield here. So what did Schumer say? And
by the way, he was in charge of oversight in
the United States senator at the time, because that was
the majority party at the time, the Democrats. Schumer says,
as the major overseer, I thought, you know, we thought
that that Trump was so smart. This was during his
(42:02):
first term. He's now taking on the executive intelligence agencies.
Speaker 4 (42:06):
Doesn't he know.
Speaker 5 (42:07):
There is ten seven, eight, nine, ten ways till Sunday
that they'll come back at you.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
And get you.
Speaker 3 (42:14):
Yes, that was that was crazily telling. You're exactly right.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
I remember when he said that, and I'm going, whoa,
that that's quite you know because everyone, because even crazy
Jerry Nadler, right, he goes, there's no such thing as
the deep state.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
Absolutely absolutely, So all of the things that we're talking
about here render what they've done, you know, in a
very shad fed I'll give you another example of this.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
We've got about five minutes left, so I'm going to
let you kind of do a summation here, Robert, Okay,
We're gonna put you a little bit and the.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
You know, there's a lot of viewers here well.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
A part of any insulation here. You're the first person
I have to commend for giving me the opportunity and
others to tell what the facts are. That's all we
talk about the truth. It's not an opinion. The facts
here are overwhelming. And I'll give you an example of
what I mean. I always kept time. It's been loose
Stokes every night. I told him where we were. So
(43:12):
everything I'm telling you i've I told him. This is
not something that Sprague and I kept to ourselves. We
weren't here again trying to make history, if you will.
To the contrary, we were appalled with the facts that
were there, So why didn't others do this? So I
said to Lou lose Stokes, very good man, and we
became lifelong friends. And I said, Lou, I need a subpoena.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
Two subpoenas. One, I have information that the CIA.
Speaker 5 (43:41):
In fact has has memos talking about its participation in
this assassination, and the other memo and the other. The
other subpoena I need is that I'm trying to determine
whether this was an action taken by the CIA.
Speaker 4 (43:59):
Or it was a rogue.
Speaker 5 (44:01):
Action by some one or two or more people decided
to take us into their own hands. He said, Bob,
the Committee's not going to help you. I said, why
do you hire us? I told you not to hire
me and Dick if it comes down to any issue.
We're not going to compromise on search for truth here.
And you can't win the Congress in Article one in
(44:23):
any way without compromise. You can't have everybody as a
chief executive here in the Article two. So he said, Bob,
the committee never thought you would find out much less
how quickly you did about this sortied mess we have.
I said, Lou, you know everything I know because I've
told you this. Why what am I missing? He said,
(44:46):
they're afraid of retaliation. So here I am again. I
went through this. You know, we went through this with
new Shorn activation analysis. We went through this with a
single bullet theory. And here he is, at the end
of this mess telling me that people are afraid that
they can be somehow unfriendly. Let's put it in a
(45:07):
very quiet light, a gym light, that somehow or rather
the CIA can harm them in some fashion, is.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
What he was telling me.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Robert, hundreds of people have died who have investigated the
jfk assassination. Donald Trump, you and I talked about this
last time. He was getting ready to release everything right,
and all of a sudden he stops. Why does he stop?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
He said.
Speaker 5 (45:32):
The reason he stopped he said to good people that
if you saw what I saw in these records, he said,
you would not have released them either.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
But that's exactly what we need to see, exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:44):
So tired of listening to people who don't trust the
American public that you represent the American public, representing the
very people you're saying to the American public, we don't
trust you. It's just too heavy handed. That's nonsense and stokes.
As I said, a good man, and as a matter
of fact, I wanted to mention that we started off
with this in essays was a Stone movie. It created
(46:07):
the JFK Records Act of nineteen ninety two. I think
the movie was in ninety one and run in that area,
and it created the Assassination.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Record Review Board of ninety three.
Speaker 5 (46:20):
I was asked by the District court judge from Minneapolis,
very fine young man and federal judge, and he asked
me if I, after talking to him, would appear before
the committee and give my testimony. I said absolutely. The
reason I mentioned this is I in ninety three and
this is on the record. You can get these this transcript.
(46:43):
I said in ninety three that every document should be
given over exactly. There was no absolute reason for anyone
to suggest that the American public can't handle all of
this information. They're the best people to handle all this information.
Speaker 4 (47:00):
Out.
Speaker 5 (47:00):
So yeah, in summation, I would say, we need desperately
to cut this nonsense out about who is who can
who can we trust with information? Right when it's the
government's responsibility in cases like this to tell the truth.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
And that's what we went to Washington to do.
Speaker 5 (47:19):
We found out that we didn't let us do it,
and Sprague and I left and like the March of
seventy seven, and we never regretted that because I never
dreamed that they would wind up doing what they did,
and that was they made major lies to the American public.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Well, Robert Tannebaum, you're you're a true patriot, and I
appreciate all the great work. Thank you so much for
coming on and bringing the evidence you know to our audience.
They can continue to do their research. The book That
Day in Dallas Lee Rvey Haswall did not Kill JFK.
And read and do your own research. This is, after all,
(47:57):
is the government of for by we the people, which
means means that in order to have the consent of
the govern the government must be educated. They must be intellectualized.
This is why our first Amendment is so key. Robert, again,
thank you so much. God speed, my friend. I appreciate you.
Speaker 4 (48:14):
God bless you. Thank you so much. You got it.
Speaker 2 (48:17):
Robert Tennenbaum. His book That Day in Dallas Lee, Harvey
Oswell did Not Kill JFK is best described as prosecution
by mister Tennenbaum of those corrupt, unscrupulous government and unelected
agency officials who from inception with predetermined outcomes deceitfully engaged
(48:38):
in insecure bony pretense probes regarding the assassination in daily plaza,
those responsible should be prosecuted, while those who speak truth
to power should be exonerated. In nineteen seventy six, as
Robert pointed out and explained, he was appointed Deputy Chief
Counsel in charge of the Congressional Investigation into the assassination
(49:01):
of President JFK. And it would appear that he has
not finished with his job yet because the truth fully
has not gotten out. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for
sharing a part of your day, and hopefully this motivates
you to do further research and find out for yourself.
As we say, own your own knowledge. I thank you
(49:23):
for being with us. May God bless you, may keep you,
may make His face shine upon you and give you peace.
Speaker 3 (49:29):
God bless
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.