The Magic Bullet: Conspiracy Theories in the JFK Assassination
Conspiracies, as time has proven, have become a huge facet of popular, North American culture. America, with its centuries of vicious and violent history, reads like a mystery novel that is filled with elaborate twists and hidden plots. The subtle rift that is created when one's mind swaps from fact to fiction seems almost lost in the unconscious of the North American populous, as a need for a continual sense of suspense grows more tangible with every passing year. Mike Reynolds believes that conspiracy theories fuel a need to keep a story going�they "resist structure, rebut reference, and refuse�to finish" (87). Conspiracies do not need to be radical or reactionary, as they provide a different angle for which to continue the discourse. The theories that are created, act as a mirror that reflect a certain image. These images are then left to the general public to scrutinize and make sense of, as well as propagate. Paranoia about fluoride in the drinking water aside, no conspiracy theory can rival the amount of dedication and press of that of the Kennedy assassination. Even forty years later, the Kennedy story seems almost legendary in its continual retelling and revamping. Was there one shooter? Two? A magic bullet? A dark and sinister plot orchestrated by the CIA? A group of shadowy figures that have kept the truth concealed and buried under mountains of false paperwork? At this point, anything and everything is possible, and the truth�though it might be out there�seems to be inaccessible. What is known for certain is that in the latter half of the twentieth century, no single political event has captured the public's imagination like the assassination of American president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
As one would expect, the American populace was in shock when news was broadcast that Kennedy had been assassinated. Uncertainty and fear set in quickly, confusing millions of mourning citizens. In the following weeks, one thing would become clear: the people wanted to know what had happened (Simon 16). Vice President Johnson, now serving as President, would try to set the nation's mind at ease with the instigation of the Warren Commission (Epstein 43). The sole purpose of the Warren Commission was to build a report on their findings of what transpired on November 22, 1963 (Epstein 43). Pumped out less than a year later, the Warren Commission's report was riddled with incoherent witness testimonies, blatant omissions, and stated that, without any doubt, Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman that killed John Kennedy (Epstein 44-5). Within days of the report being released, criticisms rolled in (McKnight 59). The doubt and misdirection that saturated the report fueled a fire beneath the public in (McKnight 59). For the first time, American truly felt as if their government was lying to them in (McKnight 63). For this explicit reason, the Kennedy conspiracy began.
All conspiracies begin with a source. For the Kennedy assassination, the Zapruder film would come to be the defining foundation of what occurred in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Quite literally, the Zapruder film captured the last moments of John Kennedy's life. Filmed by a simple fashion clerk, Abraham Zapruder would have no idea just how crucial a part his twenty-nine second, nine millimeter, Kodak film would play in one of the most devastating moments of twentieth century history (Simon 30). Immediately taken from Zapruder by the CIA after the assassination, Zapruder would later sell his film to LIFE magazine (Simon 30). It is within the pages of LIFE magazine that further disbelief would be raised, when, for aesthetic purposes, the magazine editor decided to publish frames of the Zapruder film out of order (Simon 31). Instead of President Kennedy being shot from the Grassy Knoll (as is depicted in Zapruder's film), LIFE magazine's pictures reveal Kennedy to have been shot from the back, at the Texas Book Depository, which follows the Warren Commission's hasty findings (Simon 31).
The Zapruder film itself, as well as the events and procedures that follow the assassination of John F. Kennedy, skate somewhere between offering a conspiracy-less series of unfortunate events and a full blown cover-up of epic proportions (Simon 40). Although Simon�s book largely focuses on Oliver Stone's 1991 JFK film, his article goes further into the myth of the Kennedy assassination and puts forth a question of film as v�rit�, as well as discusses the revelatory status of the moving picture (film) vs. the still picture (photographs). Simon describes how the Zapruder film was used in a controlled reenactment of the Kennedy murder and how still images were taken of the entire reenactment to try and debunk the rumors that had been circulating (43). The still images were then compared to the film, frame for frame, to try and determine the angle and location of exactly how Oswald could have shot Kennedy (Simon 43). As Simon states, photographic images backed up the "truth revealing video" (47). For those of us growing up in the technological age, the fact that video proof was actually debated as being 'real', and that images were needed to prove it to be 'truth' is an absolutely mind-boggling concept. Simon states, "you can�t believe what you see, but only what you can measure" (46). In a twisted sort of insane logic, this sentence makes perfect sense. Hundreds of people saw Kennedy gunned down before their very eyes, yet questions began to arise on the trajectory of the bullets and the way in which his body fell, for and not a single person could accurately and conclusively prove what happened. Even forty years later, the Kennedy murder does not have a conclusion that people can rest easy with, even though there is visual proof.
One must wonder if the Zapruder film actually hindered, rather than helped, in putting the American people at ease. Researchers have spent years taking the Zapruder film and splicing it with other recorded film reels of the event to offer up a more complete sense of the assassination (Simon 50). This only brings up the question of spectatorship and censoring and video�s uncanny ability to depict real life in real time, while simultaneously assuming an authoritative position that restricts the gaze to one specific aspect of an event, rather than the panoramic view that could potentially give the event context.
Yet, what is even more troubling, are the omissions to the Warren Commission's report. One such omission can be found with a surgeon named Charles Crenshaw. Crenshaw, a Texan surgeon, was in the Parkland Hospital emergency room where Kennedy was taken after he was shot (Crenshaw ii). In his book, JFK: A Conspiracy of Silence, he provided a detailed version of what he witnessed in the emergency room while trying to save the life of John Kennedy (Crenshaw ii). Crenshaw very clearly states:
"Two wounds were visible. There was a small, round opening in the front of the midline of the throat. This became the site of Dr. Malcolm Perry's tracheotomy incision. In the occipito-parietal region at the right rear of the head, there was an avulsive wound nearly as large as a fist. I considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound to be an exit wound. Along with many of my Parkland colleagues, I believed at the time that President Kennedy had been hit twice from the front" (102).
Crenshaw largely argues for a conspiracy and a cover-up, claiming that upon witnessing Kennedy�s body, the President had to have been shot from the front rather than from behind (Crenshaw 106). Thus, as Crenshaw concludes, the Warren Commission is inaccurate in their findings (Crenshaw 108). As a medical doctor, Crenshaw's testimony offers definitive proof that Kennedy's death did not occur in the manner in which is stated in the Warren Commission's report.
Crenshaw, along with providing a medical, journalistic account of the events he saw transpire on November 22nd and 23rd of 1963 in Parkland Hospital, presents other "evidence" to support his theory that a second gunman firing at Kennedy from the front had to have been involved (112). While Crenshaw does not place outright blame on one particular individual, he points to the FBI and Kennedy�s Secret Service entourage as suspects and suggests that following the assassination, Lyndon Johnson went to great efforts to cover up any possible evidence of a conspiracy (Crenshaw 114). While Crenshaw presents a unique account of what he witnessed in Parkland Hospital during the two days following Kennedy's murder, he provides evidence to support his theory of a second shooter.
On that note, Edward Jay Epstein's Inquest�The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth, serves a different purpose than many of the other competing books on conspiracy. His work is unique in the sense that he does not suggest there was one specific theory or even that there was a conspiracy, necessarily (81). What Epstein does succeed in doing, however, is to continue the conspiracy discourse by suggesting that there were grave errors in the way that the Warren Commission operated and the conclusions it reached (37). Epstein does not outwardly insult the Commission, but he finds a key number of problems within their operations and choice to exclusively select the evidence that supported their "lone assassin" claim (50). Epstein's work is more of an expos� of why the Warren Commission failed to suit America's needs and spawned a conspiracy theory: the truth was unbelievable and inconclusive. By questioning the Warren Commission's version of the truth, Epstein effectively demonstrates the "widespread loss of faith�in the legitimacy of the authorities who investigated the murder" (148). Epstein says that, "if the Commission had made it clear that very substantial evidence indicated the presence of a second assassin, it would have opened a Pandora's box of doubts and suspicions" (152).
Sadly, for every credible and plausible conspiracy theorist, there are a handful of ones that provide a hysterical and overdrawn version of 'the truth'. Of all the conspiracy theorists that made themselves known after the Kennedy assassination, none have reached the level of infamy that Jim Garrison has. Known for offering disjointed accounts of the Kennedy assassination, Jim Garrison's 1967 Playboy interview and his novel On the Trail of the Assassins emphasize society's need for answers�so much so they would turn to anyone for them. In On the Trail of the Assassins, Jim Garrison, a defense attorney from New Orleans, recounts the highly personal details of his investigation into the assassination of John Kennedy (5). From a combination of individual and legal interests that begin in his office's jurisdiction, Garrison notices inconsistencies in the aftermath of the assassination and conducts an investigation that appears to uncover what he believes to be a mass conspiracy to murder the president and then cover it up (7). Garrison rants, (ad nauseam one should add) about the piling up of witnesses, the multiple covert operations, the international ties and implications, and most importantly, his collapse of trust in the government and the justice system (15-6, 19).
To say that Garrison lost credibility through his investigation and subsequent trial against Clay Shaw in 1969 would be an understatement. Although the history books have largely written Garrison off as a fanatic, his controversial 1967 Playboy interview proved to be equal parts insane ramblings and cemented proof. In the Playboy interview, Garrison explains his theories on who killed John Kennedy. He goes into great detail while justifying his facts and proof and presents them clearly, even though at times, his conclusions seem illogical. The main problem with the interview, while being chalked full of information, reads like a John Grisham novel. By the end of the article, one gets the distinct impression that Garrison is frantically pointing his finger at every political group and government organization, blaming them for the death of the president.
Sadly, Garrison spends too much time trying to dispel the notion that he is an unreliable source of information. Every time the interviewer asks him a direct question that would serve to clarify unanswered questions, Garrison claims he is not at liberty to reveal any information "at this moment" but asks the reader to take his word that he has the information and that it is real. Yet, even if the reader were to trust Garrison, the interview becomes a 'grab bag', pell-mell arrangement of conspiracy theories that are so disconnected and disjointed, that one cannot help but think Garrison is simply a paranoid man with a soap box. For instance, Garrison offers up the theory that a guerilla team of about seven men killed President Kennedy. He and goes as far as to say there were different shooters positioned in at least three different and strategic areas of downtown Dallas and that some of the men in the guerilla team had the specific job of picking up the discharged shell casings from the shots fired, as well the pieces of bullet that would have splintered after shooting the president.
Though, for all the outlandishly farfetched and unbelievable theories Garrison presents, he does manage to present a completely sane and valid explanation as to why Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been Kennedy�s lone assassin. Garrison describes Oswald as "a decoy at first, and then he was a patsy, and then he was a victim" (Playboy 1967). Garrison further states that, "we have uncovered substantial evidence that he was influenced and manipulated rather easily by his older and more sophisticated superiors in the conspiracy, and it's probable that he trusted them more than he distrusted them" (Playboy 1967). Garrison provides ample information that proves the rifle found on Oswald the day of the murder could not have been the rifle used to assassinate Kennedy. In a sharp summation of Oswald's innocence, Garrison attests that:
"If there's one thing the Warren Commission and its 26 volumes of supportive evidence demonstrate conclusively, it's that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Of course, the Commission concluded not only that Oswald fired at the President but that he was a marksman, that he had enough time to "fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds," that his Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle�the leading critics of the Commission have proved that Oswald was a mediocre shot; that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle he allegedly used was about the crummiest weapon on the market today; that its telescopic sight was loose and had to be realigned before Commission experts could fire it; that the 20-year-old ammunition he would have had to use could not have been relied on to fire accurately� the Commission's own chronology of Oswald's movements made it highly implausible for him to fire three shots, wipe the rifle clear of fingerprints�hide the rifle under a stack of books and rush down four flights of stairs to the second floor, all in the few seconds it took Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker to rush in from the street after the shots and encounter Oswald standing beside the vending machine in the employees' cafeteria" (Playboy 1967).
With that piece of information alone, Garrison pokes a hole in the Warren Commission�s final and irrefutable report, thus piquing the curiosity of the readers, making them wonder what else the Warren Commission could have potentially overlooked.
Though it should be noted that Garrison's account is attractive for the same reasons that he is discounted. The scope of his investigation penetrates every corner of the United States' major institutions, entrusting the individual with the pursuit of justice. The deep paranoia ingrained in his narrative is a feeling one rejects, but the thrill of danger in the possibility is enough for the reader to continue to consume it. The popular consumption of Garrison's conspiracy has been rehashed multiple times: in the rabid media attention surrounding his investigation and trial, in the publishing of his book, and, most recently, in director Oliver Stone's film JFK. Although Garrison's investigation has not been officially accepted by legal and political institutions it continues to be the narrative that stirs up our cultural imagination.
Peter Knight's book, book Conspiracy Culture, defines a conspiracy theories as, "provid[ing] a consoling sense of closure, gravity and coherence in the face of seeming randomness" (78). They are a way for people to reconcile widely divergent articles of information that are seemingly contradictory. Like Garrison, Mark Lane seeks to capitalize on these contradictions, in his book A Rush to Judgment, to articulate not just one conspiracy theory about the assassination of President Kennedy, but a second theory about the government's deliberate cover up of this event (19). Lane takes evidence that was collected from various sources following the assassination and compiles it to disprove the Warren Commission's ruling regarding the 'lone assassin' theory (32). By bringing in new witness testimony, Lane is able to demonstrate the veritable impossibility of the Commission's findings due to a number of factors (32). Not only do the witness accounts contradict the location and frequency of the shots fired on that fateful November day, they also make for a case against the likelihood that Lee Harvey Oswald was even a viable suspect (Lane 45). Much of this evidence was initially withheld from the public and was undressed at the Commission due to the "need to allay fears of conspiracy" (Lane 161). Step by step, Lane presents each account in its virtual entirety so as to elucidate previously concealed facts and to demonstrate the Commission's deliberate suppression of this (78). On various instances, when testimony was straying too far from the government's streamlined perception of the issue, Lane notes that witnesses were cut off from continuing their story (83). He argues, for example, that the Warren Commission "placed great emphasis on the testimony of Norman, Jarman, and Williams�which it quoted out of context�and no emphasis at all on testimony contrary to its conclusions" (Lane 94).
Ironically, the fact that this material was withheld makes for a glorified and expansive "vertigo of interpretations" (Knight 99). The mere fact that the information is so varied allows for an assortment of conclusions and interpretations to be drawn. How exactly this particular conspiracy was carried out, is left up to the reader to determine. As Knight says, "many conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination open up a space of doubt and suspicion without ever fully closing it down. Nothing is certain; everything can be reinterpreted" (Knight 98).
As one can see, the Kennedy assassination conspiracies vary from one extreme to the next. Lane states the Warren Commission is flawed and deliberately rushed its findings. Both Crenshaw and Epstein find sufficient disproof for the much-speculated 'magic bullet' theory. Garrison claims there is an entire group of people responsible for Kennedy's death; McDonald presents the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was simply the scapegoat for a real assassin. What is safe to say is that conspiracy theories become self-indulgent ways in which individuals are able to connect to a culture of mystery and intrigue. In a way, they become the dividing line between two very diverse sides of a spectrum of information. Which side of the spectrum one falls on, relies entirely on the limits of one's imagination.
Works Cited
Crenshaw, Charles A. JFK: A Conspiracy of Silence. Penguin Books, New York: 1992.
Epstein, Edward Jay. Inquest�The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth.
New York: Viking Press, 1966.
Garrison, Jim. On The Trail Of The Assassins. New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1988.
"Jim Garrison Playboy Interview". Playboy vol. 14 no. 10. 10 October 1967.
Knight, Peter. "Plotting the Kennedy Assassination," Conspiracy Culture: From the
Kennedy Assassination to 'The X-Files'. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
Lane, Mark. A Rush to Judgment. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Eng. 1967.
McKnight, Gerald. Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and
Why. Kansas: University Press, 2005.
Reynolds, Mike. "The Glassy Knoll: Identity, Identification, and Desire in Kennedy
Narratives," Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 6:1 (Spring 2001).
Simon, Art. Dangerous Knowledge: The JFK Assassination in Art and Film (Culture and
the Moving Image). Temple University Press, Philadelphia: 1996.
Zapruder, Abraham. The Zapruder Film. November 22, 1963. URL:
