1

ANNOUNCER: This is a CBS REPORTS INQUIRY: "The American Assassins". Here is CBS News Correspondent Dan Rather.

DAN RATHER: Good evening. In the last dozen years, we have been through a national nightmare, a succession of searing experiences that have shaken confidence in the foundations of our Government. Part of it was the war in Asia - billions of dollars and 50,000 American lives lost. Then there was the criminal conspiracy and cover-up called Watergate - a President and a Vice President forced to resign in disgrace. In between, and during those traumas, three national leaders were assassinated, another was shot and critically wounded. These murderous attacks on political leaders, and their aftermath, helped create a mood of distrust and suspicion that grew darker for a decade.

First, in 1963, came the murder of President John F. Kennedy. This • was the scene, and these were the seconds, that shocked and scared the world.

[Zapruder film of President Kennedy being shot runs in silence. . . Robert Kennedy supporters chanting: "We want Kennedy! We want Kennedy!`']

And that horror was compounded four years later when the President's brother, Robert, a Senator campaigning for his own nomination to the Presidency--

ROBERT KENNEDY: Thank you very much.

RATHER: --was shot and mortally wounded in a Los Angeles hotel.

MAN: Get a doctor! Get a doctor!

RATHER: That same year, 1968, civil rights leader Martin Luther King was killed on a motel balcony in Memphis as he tried to help black workers on strike against the city.

And in 1972, Alabama's Governor George Wallace, a Presidential candidate, was shot and gravely wounded at a political rally in Maryland.

[Gunshots. . .screaming]

Since that day, he has been paralyzed and unable to walk.

The common thread binding these four crimes together is that in each case, whether they were tried in court or investigated by commission, the official finding was that they were the work of one man acting alone. No conspiracies. Many now suspect that the thread that binds the four crimes together is not a similarity of verdicts, but a series of conspiracies - perhaps even one giant conspiracy, which planned and executed all four crimes.

2

CBS News commissioned a national public opinion poll in October, and an astonishing 46% of the persons polled believe that there is some connection between the three assassinations and the attempt on Wallace. Only 38% believed the crimes were unconnected incidents. The rest had no opinion.

In an effort to explore and evaluate new information, new contentions and theories, CBS News tonight begins re-examining the Kennedy, King and Wallace cases. This series of broadcasts will continue tomorrow night, and on future dates to be announced. One caveat, please. Keep in mind that a news organization does not have power to subpoena witnesses; nor can we order agencies such as the FBI and CIA to produce evidence. We report the facts as best we can determine them with the tools of journalism.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

ANNOUNCER: "The American Assassins'' continues with the case of John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. Here again is Dan Rather.

RATHER: In 1967, CBS News broadcast four one-hour reports examining findings of the Warren Commission. We tried to give ourselves every chance to prove that the Commission's conclusion was wrong. We were unable to do that. We did conclude then that there was reason for dissatisfaction with some of the Commission's work, especially the fact that the FBI and CIA were allowed to investigate themselves. But our overall conclusion in 1967 was that what the Warren Commission decided was probably the best and most likely explanation of the John Kennedy assassination based on available evidence.

Let us now briefly review that evidence, and the Warren Commission findings.

On November 22nd, 1963, at 12:30 PM, the youthful 35th President of the United States drove triumphantly through the streets of Dallas, Texas. Seconds later, a dying President sped away from Dealey Plaza into history, into legend, into a controversy that persists to this day.

From the beginning, belief in a possible conspiracy ran high. The new President, Lyndon Johnson, appointed a Commission of seven eminent Americans. This Commission was headed by the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, and including then Congressman Gerald R. Ford, to investigate the assassination and report on all its details. The Commission labored for ten months, came up with this basic story.

A man named Lee Harvey Oswald crouched in this dingy window of a school book depository building as the Presidential motorcade passed below. Oswald, the Warren Commission concluded, probably fired three shots; one missed, one struck both the President and Texas Governor John Connally riding with him, a third killed the President. Oswald, the report decided, had hidden his rifle between cases of books, then

3

ran down the stairs and left the building on foot. He hurried to his rented room, picked up a revolver, and about 12 minutes later shot to death police officer J. D. Tippit. Oswald was captured, revolver in hand, shortly after that. He was questioned for two days in a confused, almost madhouse, atmosphere.

LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I really don't know what the-- what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything, except that I'm accused of--of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request to someone to come forward to give me a legal assistance.

QUESTION: Did you kill the President?

OSWALD: No, I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.

QUESTION: You have been--

MAN: Nobody said what?

OSWALD: Sir?

QUESTION: You have been--

MAN: Nobody said what?

MAN: Okay. . .okay.

QUESTION: What did you do in Russia?

RATHER: Then, in a grisly climax, Oswald himself was murdered right in the Dallas police station by nightclub operator and police hanger-on Jack Ruby.

That, in brief, is the Warren Commission version of what happened. In the immediate wake of the official report, some people challenged and even ridiculed it. Many Americans simply weren't sure the Warren Commission was right. The doubts never really died, but talk about them did - for awhile. Then came the Robert Kennedy and King killings, the attempt on Governor Wallace, and the conspiracies and cover-ups of Watergate. Theories of conspiracy in the John Kennedy case were revived.

The largest block of new believers may consist of young people, such as those at a recent meeting of an organization called The Assassination Information Bureau at Boston, Massachusetts, listening to Carl Oglesby.

CARL OGLESBY: Most of us started out believing that Oswald probably did it by himself, and there was nothing to the rumors of a larger conspiracy, just as most of us probably started out believing that

r

4

American motives in Vietnam were essentially just and that the war was probably winnable and that it would no doubt do us good to try hard to win it. A great many people have been changing their minds about a great many things over these past years, and we think that now, given the-- the work of-- of investigators and-- and researchers, it's now possible to put together a-- a really very powerful visual case for another theory of Dallas.

RATHER: The CBS News nationwide poll last month indicated that in President Kennedy's case 68% believe that Oswald was involved with others in the crime. I remind you that the official version is Oswald alone was solely responsible. Only 15% believe that. None believe that he wasn't involved at all. But curiously, although only 15% of those polled believe the official finding, when asked if the investigation should be re-opened, only 45% said yes; 44% said no; 11% had no opinion. Apparently half of us are willing to let the matter rest. But calls in Congress for re-opening the case have been increasing. The first was a resolution signed by 53 Congressmen, introduced by Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas. He spoke with CBS's David Culhane.

REP. HENRY GONZALEZ [Dem., Texas]: In essence, what I seek is a Congressional evaluation of a decade of political assassination - its impact on the Government, its impact on our democratic processes, which I think have been great, and they require some kind of a Congressional assessment and evaluation.

DAVID CULHANE: There are people who say: Why stir this up again?

REP. GONZALEZ: "Well, can we afford not to?" is my answer to that

RATHER: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is probing various CIA operations, also is moving on the John Kennedy case. Pennsylvania Republican Richard Schweiker is one of two Committee members delegated to investigate new leads. Schweiker told Marya McLaughlin why he wants the case fully re-opened.

SENATOR RICHARD SCHWEIKER [Rep., Pennsylvania]: Mainly because the two principal agencies that were doing the investigation have perpetuated cover-ups doing the investigation that we now know about that we did not know about then. We find they deceived us in the Vietnam situation, they deceived us in Watergate, and I think there's an honest and big question in my mind whether they, in fact, didn't deceive us about the Kennedy assassination. And that's what our--our job will be.

RATHER: Now, as in the beginning, two questions stand above all others in the John Kennedy assassination: Did one gunman shoot President Kennedy? Did Oswald do it? And was there a conspiracy?

5

While suspicions of a conspiracy long have been around, they have taken on added significance since Watergate, the revelation of CIA connections with the Mafia, and CIA murder plots. Old doubts and questions have been revived: Was the Warren Commission told the whole truth? And has there been a cover-up?

In this hour, we will concentrate on the question: Was Oswald the gunman and the only gunman? Tomorrow night, we will take up the others.

What we have now that we did not have in 1967 includes the original film Abraham Zapruder made of the murder. CBS News bought rights to it from the Zapruder estate. With the aid of new scientific techniques, this film may reveal valuable new information. It is not pleasant viewing for you or your family. We have attempted to keep on-the-air use of it to a minimum; but many conspiracy theories are based on this film, so we believe it must be shown, sometimes at slow speed, in order that you may follow our examination of it. This time we also have had access to x-rays and photographs taken at the time of the Kennedy autopsy. In 1967, they were not available; not even the Warren Commission saw them. This year, those x-rays and photographs were exhaustively examined by an independent consultant for CBS News. He is the President-elect of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and acknowledged to be one of the nation's foremost experts in this field, Dr. James Weston. You will see and hear two of the most respected opponents of the Warren Commission's findings: Haverford College's Professor Josiah Thompson; and Pennsylvania forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, who has also examined those x-rays and photographs.

First, a review of the crime itself. The independent investigation by CBS News in 1967 answered, at least to our own satisfaction, one series of questions dealing with basic facts. For example, did Oswald own a rifle of the make and model that killed President Kennedy? Yes. And he apparently took that rifle to the school book depository building the day the President was shot. Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? Yes, it was. Where was Oswald? Definitely in the building, and probably on the sixth floor. How many shots were fired? The strongest evidence indicates there probably were three. Another question we considered at length: Could Oswald or any other lone gunman fire his rifle fast enough to have been the sole assassin?

The late Abraham Zapruder filmed the assassination from this spot with his eight-millimeter camera. The film from the camera serves as a clock - for if we can see in the film when the shot struck, it should be possible to determine the time between them. Using the Zapruder film as a guide, we can reconstruct what a gunman on the sixth floor would be seeing. Here, at frame 202, the President would be concealed by leaves (those overhead signs were not there then), emerging just as the Zapruder camera across the street is shooting its 210th frame. But Mr. Zapruder's view was blocked by a ground-level sign. The Zapruder film did not show the President again until frame 225, and

6

here he seems to have been hit. So the assumption is that the first hit occurred somewhere between frames 210 and 225. A possibility is that along here a second shot was fired, and probably missed entirely. But here, at frame 313, the fatal shot. Total time elapsed from the first moment the Commission estimated the President could have been shot until the definitely fatal shot is known to have hit - about 5.6 seconds. That, the Commission estimated, is the time the assassin had to get off three shots - two hits, and a miss. Could one gunman alone really have done this? Could Oswald alone have done it? Let's consider that.

To begin, note that some of Oswald's fellow servicemen say they didn't consider him really an expert, but he did attain the Marine Corps rating of "Sharpshooter", second-highest marksmanship medal given by the Corps, an outfit that prides itself on excellence in riflery. Oswald's rifle was test-fired for the Warren Commission by FBI and military marksmen. The rate of fire for this bolt-action rifle, and its accuracy against a moving target, were critical to the Commission's case against Oswald; and yet, incredibly, all tests for the Warren Commission were fired at stationary targets.

We do not have Oswald's rifle, but we do have one identical to it, right down to the scope. The main conclusion the Warren Commission drew was that a Mannlicher-Carcano such as this could not be fired three times in a span of less than 4.6 seconds, because it took about 2.3 seconds to operate the bolt mechanism between shots. Times to remember: Warren Commission estimate of minimum time rifle could be fired three times with accuracy - 4.6 seconds; Warren Commission estimate of maximum time Oswald had to fire - 5.6 seconds.

CBS News had a tower and target track constructed to match exactly the heights and distances in Dealey Plaza; the target moved by electric motor at 11 miles an hour, approximately the speed of the Presidential limousine. A rifle of the same make and age as Oswald's was fitted with the same four-power telescopic sight found on his rifle. Eleven volunteer marksmen took turns firing clips of three bullets each at the moving target. Results varied. One Maryland State trooper made two hits in the silhouette, one near miss, in slightly less than five seconds. Another state trooper's best time was 5.4 seconds. [Gunfire] One hit, two near misses. A technician at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory managed three shots in the fastest time [Gunfire] - 4.1 seconds, half-a-second faster than the fastest time turned in for the Warren Commission, but he had only one hit. A weapons engineer had the best score [Gunfire] - three hits in 5.2 seconds.

There is no pat answer to the question of how fast Oswald's rifle could be fired. We couldn't test his own rifle. We have done more thorough testing on the subject than anyone we know of, including the Warren Commission, and have demonstrated that the rifle probably could be fired three times with fair accuracy in five seconds or less.

7

So, our answer, based on actual tests, was and is: A lone gunman could have fired fast enough.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

RATHER: Even if one accepts the weight of the evidence that Oswald did probably fire at President Kennedy and that his weapon could have been fired fast enough, a big central question remains: Was there only one gunman? And two vital secondary questions behind that: Did a single bullet strike both President Kennedy and Governor Connally? And from what direction did the shots come?

It has been firmly established that some shots came from the rear. If any shots came from the side or front, there were at least two gunmen. Governor and Mrs. Connally have said consistently they believe that there were three shots, and they have no doubts about where those shots came from. Both talked in 1967 with former CBS affiliate News Director Eddie Barker.

GOVERNOR JOHN CONNALLY: All of the shots came from the same place, from back over my right shoulder. They weren't in front of us, or they weren't at the side of us. There were no-- no sounds like that emanating from those directions.

EDDIE BARKER: Was there any doubt in your mind the direction that those shots came from?

MRS. CONNALLY: No. They all came from the same direction.

BARKER: Which was?

MRS. CONNALLY: It was behind us, over my right shoulder.

RATHER: But Professor Thompson, relying on other witnesses and what he says is other evidence, claims the Connallys are wrong.

PROFESSOR JOSIAH THOMPSON [Haverford College]: My own view is that some shots, very likely two shots, came from the depository sixth floor window; that the shot that hit Connally - about a second after the President was hit - came from a different building (had to, given the trajectory); and that a fourth shot was fired from the right front, from the knoll area, and that was the killing shot, and blew half the President's head off.

RATHER: That would be four shots, and from different directions. As we shall soon see, that theory does not correspond with the facts of the President's wounds.

But belief in such theories often is based on what people believe they see in films. For example, many of the seminars being conducted at universities and elsewhere around the nation about the assassination

8

view a film put together by Robert Groden, an independent film man who made it from a copy of the Zapruder footage plus various other eight-millimeter films shot by other amateur cameramen. At the meetings, speakers show Groden's film and make the point over and over that the President's head appears to move slightly forward and then violently backward when he is obviously struck at frame 313.

ROBERT GRODEN: And then the fatal head shots. Two shots hitting him simultaneously, the more powerful of which throws him violently backwards and to the left. There is a double motion to the President's head.

RATHER: That is his speculation. It isn't supported by most of the evidence. It is a fair example of the theories of critics based on films. All of them ask: How could a man struck by a bullet from the rear possibly move so violently backward? It is, they insist, against the law of physics. The Zapruder film does indeed show the President lurching backward after moving forward. This is what the unaided eye sees. CBS News asked Itek Corporation, world-renowned for film analysis, to study the film scientifically, using the best modern techniques and equipment. It is important to remember that Itek had, for this first-time-ever study, not copies of the Zapruder film, but the original.

According to John Wolfe, President of Itek's Optical Systems Division, this is what they found. When the fatal bullet struck, the President's head went forward with extreme speed, almost twice as rapidly than it subsequently travelled backwards.

JOHN WOLFE: So, in the-- in the three frames following 313, he reversed his direction and came back to where he was before. It took him three frames to do it, so he's moving considerably slower coming back than he moved forward.

RATHER: No matter how many times you look at it, that's not the impression that one gets just sitting in a room and looking at the film. The very clear impression is that his head jolts backward faster than it went forward.

WOLFE: That, of course, is the whole point of doing this kind of--applying this kind of technique, is to get away from the subjective impressions that are developed by looking at a-- at a blurred motion picture. My answer to your implied question is: I don't know what I see, I know what I measure.

RATHER: What Itek measured in head movements is an important indication that the fatal shot struck President Kennedy from behind. That's point one. Now point two. Computer analysis shows that all major particles from the President's head travelled away from him, forward - another strong indication that the fatal shot came from the back.

9

RATHER: Any doubt that the particles are moving forward?

WOLFE: No doubt.

RATHER: What about Mrs. Kennedy? What, if anything, do her movements indicate? Additional computer analysis of the film, measuring motions' direction and the velocity, suggests the following: she may have pushed her husband backward while pushing herself forward, away from him, as a reflex reaction when the fatal shot hit. If true, that could help account for some of the backward movement of his head and body.

CBS News also had the scientists examine a strip of eight-millimeter film taken by Robert Hughes just as the motorcade turned onto Elm Street, seconds before the assassination. This is the only known film in which one is able to view all together the motorcade, the school book depository building, and the sixth floor window. Through use of a computerized process called "image integration", Itek experts first sharpened the visual content of the Hughes film; then they studied the frames for movement. In one four-second span, they found what they called "definite signs of movement in the window."

But the key conclusion of this complicated computerized study of the films is: analysis of the President's head movements and the direction of particles blown from his head both indicate the bullets that hit him came from behind. That is one of the most important results of this new CBS investigation.

Another is what we learned about the President's wounds. John Kennedy autopsy x-rays and photographs that were not seen by the Warren Commission and were not available to CBS in 1967 now have been studied.

CBS News commissioned Dr. James Weston, Chief Medical Examiner for the State of New Mexico and President-elect of the National Academy of Forensic Sciences, to make an independent study of the x-rays and photographs taken at the Kennedy autopsy. He is very positive about what his examination disclosed. I talked to him in the National Archives.

Doctor, based on your own examinations, how many shots hit the President?

DR. JAMES WESTON: Two.

RATHER: Only two?

DR. WESTON: Only two.

RATHER: You're certain of that?

DR. WESTON: Yes.

RATHER: How can you tell?

10

DR. WESTON: Well, you can tell on the head-- you can tell, because any place where there's an entrance wound of any kind the bullet bevels the skull in such a way that there's a crater on the inside; and where there is an exit wound, it bevels the skull in such a way that there is a crater on the outside.

RATHER: So you're prepared to say, without any doubt whatsoever, the President was hit by two shots?

DR. WESTON: Yes.

RATHER: From what direction?

DR. WESTON: From the rear and above and slightly to the right.

RATHER: Any possibility that either of the two shots could have come from the side or front?

DR. WESTON: No.

RATHER: Based on your experience and your standing as a forensic pathologist, you don't have any difficulty reconciling the movement of the President's head you see on the film with your statement that it was definitely an entry wound in the back of the head that caused that fatal wound?

DR. WESTON: No. I-- I would have trouble reconciling it. On the other hand, I've had the privilege of examining in photographs the entire interior of the skull, and examining on the x-ray the three pieces which were recovered which were not a part of the skull; and in none of those is there anything that suggests other than an entrance hole in the back and an exit hole here in the right front.

RATHER: Doctor, are you willing to stake your reputation on the statement that President Kennedy was not struck from the front in the skull?

DR. WESTON: Absolutely. Yes.

RATHER: Note, Dr. Weston says that he would have trouble reconciling the movement of the President's head backward after being struck from that direction, except for the fact the medical evidence, he says, leaves him no room to doubt it.

All of the shots that hit the President and Governor Connally probably came from the rear. We believe this to be one of our most important findings. The wounds in both the President and the Governor lead to the inescapable conclusion that whoever was firing, and from wherever, the shots that hit came from behind.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

11

RATHER: The one question that perhaps more than any other has solidified in assassination literature over the years is: Did a single bullet strike both President Kennedy and Governor Connally? The Warren Report version of the assassination is that three shots were fired: one missed the limousine entirely (they are not sure which one); another killed the President with a shot to the head; and one single bullet - quote - "most probably" passed through the President's neck and Governor Connally's body. David Belin, one of the Warren Commission's principal attorneys and author of the book "November 22nd, 1963: You Are the Jury", which defends the Report, tells how the single bullet theory came into being.

DAVID BELIN: Well, the single bullet theory really developed out of an attempt on my part to really try and prove there was more than one gunman. According to the FBI reports, the first bullet struck the President, the second bullet struck Governor Connally, and the third and fatal bullet struck the President. Governor Connally's physicians agreed that the bullet entered the back of his wrist, came out of the front.

I then went back to the FBI lab people and our slides of the Zapruder film, and lo and behold, it turned out that Governor Connally was not in a position to have been hit after frame 240. If President Kennedy was hit at frame 220, and if Governor Connally could not have been hit after frame 240, and if the camera ran at roughly 18.3 frames a second, then less than a second elapsed between those two wounds. And lo and behold, I had, preliminary at least, thought that I might have come up with proof that there was a second gunman. The only possibility that there wouldn't be a second gunman would be if the bullet that went through President Kennedy's neck (and we knew that it exited from his neck) hit Governor Connally. We reconstructed Governor Connally's position and the President's position in a motorcade frame by frame down Elm Street in Dallas. Governor Connally and President Kennedy were right on line at the time of the assassination, and I reluctantly in a sense had to conclude that the same bullet struck both.

RATHER: Professor Thompson, interviewed by David Culhane, belittles the Belin theory, and says it is demonstrably untrue.

PROFESSOR THOMPSON: The crucial issue remains, to this day, this famous single bullet theory.

DAVID CULHANE: But we looked at the Zapruder film frame by frame. What do you think it tells us about the-- the single bullet theory?

PROFESSOR THOMPSON: It tells us that the witnesses were right; that when Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally say he was hit by a second shot, they're right, because we can see that second shot hit him about a second after the President has already been hit. Now let's go to the film.

CULHANE: Okay.

12

PROFESSOR THOMPSON: Here we have Zapruder frame 222. The car is just emerging from behind the sign. One sees Governor Connally just to the right of the sign. Two twenty-five, Kennedy has obviously been hit at this point; so 225, he's reacting. Now, let's go on in time five-eighteenths of a second to Zapruder frame 230. Here's Zapruder frame 230; and now we go to it in close-up. Here's Governor Connally. Notice he's gripping his Stetson upside down with that wrist that, according to the Warren Commission, has already been shattered by a bullet. Let's go on in time.

This is Zapruder frame 236. Governor Connally is now turning to his right, as he said he was turning when he was hit. This is Zapruder frame 237. Now, the hit occurs right now - between this and the next frame. Two thirty-eight, and I'll go on to 239, 240, and now-- now we're back in close-up. This is Zapruder frame 237. That bullet, according to the Commission, went through President Kennedy, came out his throat, smashed into Governor Connally's back, blew five inches out of his fifth rib, blew a hole that size out of his chest, shattered the radius bone of his wrist, and continued on to imbed itself in his thigh. Now, the Government performed tests at Ars-- at Edgewood Arsenal, firing bullets from Oswald's rifle to see what they looked like. This bullet was fired through the chest cavity of an anesthetized goat to simulate, mind you, just one-half, 50%, of the wound in Connally's chest. Notice how grossly it's deformed. Finally (this is a beauty), this one was fired into a corpse's wrist to see what would happen to a bullet from Oswald's rifle when it hit a wrist bone. Notice, all of these are grossly deformed.

RATHER: Taken at face value, Professor Thompson's arguments are powerful, but there is another side, beginning with his major point - this bullet, the famous single bullet, the one Professor Thompson insists is not deformed enough. The expert who performed the tests Thompson mentioned is Dr. Alfred G. Olivier. Olivier told David Culhane he is convinced a single bullet could have done the damage and still emerge in relatively good shape.

CULHANE: Now, as far as the-- the bullet itself appearing--

DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER: Relatively undamaged?

CULHANE: --relatively undamaged on the nose. Is that not a puzzle?

DR. OLIVIER: No, considering first that it went through the President's neck, taking out some velocity - not a great amount, only about 100 feet per second - but then travelling sideways, it lost considerable velocity passing through the Governor; even though it didn't hit the bone directly, it did travel through a lot of flesh and connective tissue around his side. It lost a considerable amount of velocity there and expended quite a bit of energy doing considerable damage to his lung. By the time it hit the wrist, it was at a very much reduced velocity; otherwise, hitting that wrist at an angle the way it did, it would have torn the wrist right off if it was at full velocity, because even a bullet hitting straight on on the wrist does tremendous damage.

13

CULHANE: So wouldn'•t the bullet really have been enormously deformed by that?

DR. OLIVIER: Only if it was travelling at a high velocity.

RATHER: I asked Dr. Weston, who examined the x-rays and photographs and the bullet for CBS News, about that.

Doctor, is it consistent with your experience that a bullet such as this could go all the way through a man's body and come out and be in the condition that this bullet is in? And the Archives has this bullet, and the Archivist is holding it. Now, that bullet is in remarkably good condition.

DR. WESTON: Yes, it certainly is. It's-- It's not, though, what you'd call pristine. If you look at it carefully, you can see it's quite a bit flattened on one side, and-- See, it's quite a bit flatter this way than it is this way. In other words, if you measured it with a ruler, it would be, oh, close to about three-quarters as thick as it is wide that way.

RATHER: So, you wouldn't consider it pristine?

DR. WESTON: No, I certainly wouldn't.

RATHER: About the condition of the famous, and infamous, single bullet, our judgment is it is not conclusive for evidence, one way or another, overall. It does make the single bullet theory difficult; not impossible, but difficult to believe.

Now, as for the film and the single bullet theory, Professor Thompson says he can see in the Zapruder film exactly when Governor Connally was struck. He says it was 1.1 seconds after the President was first hit. That is less than half the time it takes to work the rifle bolt and fire a second shot. Remember, 2.3 seconds minimum to work the rifle bolt. Thompson says there was only 1.1 seconds between the time Kennedy and Connally were hit. But 1.1 seconds is too much of an interval for one shot to have struck both men. So, if Professor Thompson is right, there was a second gunman, and the single bullet theory is wrong.

We at CBS News agree that Kennedy probably was struck somewhere between Zapruder frames 210 and 225. We cannot, however, tell when precisely Connally was hit, and frankly, we do not believe anyone can. The experts at Itek Corporation came up with an estimate that strikes us as the most scientific of any thus far.

Frames 210 to 240 - any indication in those frames as to when Governor Connally may have been hit?

14

JOHN WOLFE: What we've done there is to have five trained photo-interpreters look at the original positive for evidence of anything unusual. And they have all come to the same conclusion, namely, that between frames 223 and 226, which is a short span - three frames or about a sixth of a second.

RATHER: About a sixth of a second?

WOLFE: Yes. Over-- Somewhere in that one-sixth of a second, they all see evidence of the beginning of an arm-and-wrist movement on Connally's part, which later, in frame 228, culminates in his very rapidly flipping his hat from one position to the inverted position

RATHER: So, what your people see over the space of a quarter of a second - frame 225, roughly, to frame 230 - is what?

WOLFE: We see the-- the arm-- In fact, it's-- it's illustrated fairly well here in this graph. I'll-- but I'll just tell you that we see his, Connally's, wrist move, first down, and then up, and then very rapidly down. And by frame 228, his wrist begins to rotate very rapidly, so that two frames later - in other words, a total of one-ninth of a second - and sometime in that one-ninth of a second he has rotated the hat completely from one position to the other. So the--the interval I'm describing then, which is on the order of, what did I say, a sixth of a second total, we think shows evidence of unusual arm-and-wrist motion, and we see that beginning approximately at frame 225.

RATHER: Unlike Professor Thompson, Itek scientists don't claim to know the precise moment Connally was hit. Even with microscopes, computers and the original film, they say, the instant simply cannot be pinpointed. They did find unusual reactions in Connally, including facial expressions and movement of the hand and hat, which raise serious doubts he was wounded as late as Thompson claims. The Itek findings indicate Connally may already have been reacting to a bullet strike only a third of a second or less after the President. If this is true, it increases the probability that the same bullet hit both men.

One of the most respected critics of the single bullet theory is Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist and coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. He has also examined those x-rays and photographs in the Archives. Dr. Wecht said before the examination that the single bullet was too little damaged to have wounded two men; he still believes that. He also stresses what he believes is an impossible trajectory for a single bullet. He theorizes that a second shot by a second gunman came from the school book depository building but from a different window.

DR. CYRIL WECHT: If you take a sketch of the Presidential limousine, a piece of tracing paper, a ruler and a pencil, you can readily demonstrate the pathway of that bullet, which would have been

15

travelling at about 2,000 feet per second. The bullet hit the President in the back on the right side, exited from the front of the neck just to the left of the knot of the tie. The straight line will possibly miss Connally, but to be quite conservative in my presentation, let's say that it might have caught Connally on the left lower lateral, back area. In other words, it's way over toward the side, just above the belt line. But in real life, Connally's wound was just behind the right arm pit.

RATHER: The trajectory. You say there is no way, looking at the trajectory, that that bullet could have done what the Warren Commission said that it did?

DR. WECHT: That's correct.

RATHER: So, this is from the Zapruder frame?

DR. WECHT: Yes, frame 230 of the Zapruder film. And look at Governor Connally, and in his right hand he holds a large Texas white Stetson, which is a hat of some weight, in the right hand, and yet, the nerve and the bone have been severed and he's been wounded.

RATHER: If it didn't strike Governor Connally, where did that bullet go?

DR. WECHT: The answer to that question, I believe, is that the bullet that struck President Kennedy was fired from a position to the rear of the President, but at a slightly more westerly fashion and at a point lower in the Texas school book depository building than the sixth floor. I believe that that bullet had a slight downward trajectory from the back to the front; that when it came out of the President's neck, it went between the heads and shoulder areas of Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, and then out over the top or to the side of the left shoulder of Greer, the Secret Service man who was the driver of the Presidential limousine. So we can easily account for the movement of that bullet after it emerged from the President's neck.

RATHER: But only if there was someone besides Oswald firing?

DR. WECHT: Oh, yes, of course. This is all related to the two gunmen concept, which I believe is a proven fact, based upon the destruction, argumentatively, of the single bullet theory.

RATHER: But it requires a-- a bullet that's unaccounted for?

DR. WECHT: Oh, yes, but please keep in mind that the Warren Commission Report also has a bullet that is totally unaccounted for. They have 399 that did all the damage to the two men; they've got the bullet, or fragments thereof, that struck the President's head; and then they say, in their official Report, a third bullet missed the car completely. So, I'm taking no greater liberty than that which was permitted the Warren Commission in saying that a bullet escaped the car.

16

RATHER: One problem with Dr. Wecht's theory, and with the Warren Commission's single bullet theory, is that no one knows precisely how Kennedy and Connally were positioned in that instant. The independent forensic pathologist we commissioned, Dr. Weston, says there is no way to determine the exact trajectory.

DR. WESTON: You can't be sure exactly what the angle was of the window with respect to the President's body. And also keep in mind that when you're looking at the Zapruder movie you're only looking at--at two angles; you're looking at a plane surface, you're not looking at a three-dimensional surface. And the-- all of these are imposed restrictions that you have to live with.

RATHER: Where was the President hit, precisely?

DR. WESTON: Well, precisely it is rather difficult to say, because the landmarks which the pathologists used are moveable. I couldn't locate it with respect to the spine, because the only picture that they had that showed it clearly to be close to the-- to the root of the neck, the pictures that they had that had a ruler in it, covered up the spine. With everything that was available to me, I could say quite accurately that the bullet hole that entered the President's back was right pretty much at the base of his neck. It was at about the level of the sixth or seventh cervical [verte]brae.

RATHER: Doctor, you say that you are absolutely certain that one entry bullet hole was here?

DR. WESTON: Yes, sir.

RATHER: Well, explain to me why, on this autopsy descriptive sheet 63, number 272, from the Archives, and verified by Admiral Burkley, that the hole is placed down so low in that sketch.

DR. WESTON: Well, I think I ought to explain the purpose of this. This is really a work sheet, and nothing more than that.

RATHER: But you are aware that many murder theories are based on this difference?

DR. WESTON: Yes.

RATHER: But you're an expert in the field, and you don't attach any significance to this, really?

DR. WESTON: Yes. Let-- Let me explain to you, Dan, if-- if the bullet hole had been down there, which is way below his shoulder, then it would have gone through the lung; and if it had gone through the lung, the lung would have collapsed. And if the lung had collapsed, you'd have been able to see the collapsed lung in the x-ray.

17

RATHER: Are you absolutely confident you had enough material on which to make judgments?

DR. WESTON: Yes.

RATHER: No doubt in your mind about that?

DR. WESTON: Yes, sir.

RATHER: As recalled earlier in this broadcast, in 1967 we expressed belief, hope, really, that qualified examination of the x-rays and photographs taken at the time of the Kennedy autopsy might clear up many major questions. Such examination has helped, some. For example, establishing (to our satisfaction, at least) that only two entry wounds can be found, both shots from the rear. But the materials don't answer as many questions as they should because the autopsy was so poorly done. The autopsy was conducted by two Naval pathologists, Commander James J. Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, and an Army Lieutenant Colonel, Pierre Finck. Unfortunately, Finck was the only qualified forensic pathologist there.

The officer in charge in the room was John Kennedy's personal physician, Admiral George G. Burkley. He reportedly directed that certain vital, normal procedures not be carried out. Burkley may have been motivated by an understandable desire to limit disfigurement of the body; but for whatever reason, it is a fact that the autopsy in many important ways was botched. As a result, we have for history a record that Dr. Wecht and Dr. Weston agree is flawed. We think the available evidence shows that the single bullet theory is at least possible. That's the most that can be said.

So, we look again at our questions. Where did the shots come from? Our inquiry has turned up new evidence strongly indicating that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were shot from the rear.

Did Oswald shoot President Kennedy? The evidence indicates yes, he probably did.

Was there only one gunman? There is positive evidence of one gunman. Twelve years after the crime, most evidence still points to one gunman. As far as we can determine now, the answer is yes.

The case for Oswald's guilt is, in our judgment, solidly established. Whether he acted entirely alone has not really been established, and may never be.

There are some things about this affair, such as the question of the single bullet, which simply cannot be settled one way or another with the means available to us today. And there are other frayed ends to the Oswald story - events, incidents, tantalizing bits and pieces that are bound to keep suspicions alive. In a moment, we'll be back with one such fascinating tangled thread.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

18

RATHER: During our reporting on the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, CBS News located Robert Ray McKeown, a known supplier of illegal weapons. In 1959, he had been convicted of running guns to Fidel Castro in Cuba. McKeown showed me the house in Texas, the exact spot on a front porch, where he says he received a visit from Lee Harvey Oswald a few weeks before John Kennedy's murder. This is a story the Warren Commission never heard, never investigated.

ROBERT RAY McKEOWN: It must have been on a Saturday morning. I think it was around eleven o'clock, I'm not sure. I seen these two men get out and come up to the door and knock, so I went to the door. And this little guy, the small, blond-headed fellow, he says, "Well, I see we found the right-- found the man we're looking for." He says, "I-- I can tell you by the-- I know-- I know I've got the right man, because I-- I've seen your picture in the paper so much." That's what he said. So I told him, I said, "Well, my name's McKeown." And he said, "That's-- That's the man I'm looking for." And he said, "My name is Oswald, Lee-- Lee Oswald."

RATHER: He introduced himself that--?

McKEOWN: Right. He says, "There's no need of beating around the bush." He says, "I would like to talk to you about getting some arms. I'm in the market-- The people I represent--" (but he never told me who he represented) "--is in the market for lots of arms like bazookas and machineguns and everything like that." I said, "Well, I tell you, you came to the wrong man." I said, "In-- In one respect you came to the right man, but you're in the wrong--" I says, "I'm not in that kind of business no more." I says, "I'm on tri-- five year probation." And I says, "There's no way-- There's not enough money in the world to get me back in that mess."

RATHER: Did he have someone with him?

McKEOWN: He had a-- a tall fellow with a-- I think he had a mustache, and he was a Latin. But he didn't do-- he introduced me to him, but it's been a long time. I think his name was Hernandez, or either--some kind of a Latin name, you know. But you could look at him and see that he was Latin. I bade him good-- good-by, and in about maybe two or three minutes, maybe five minutes - right quick - he knocked on the door again. So I went to him, and he says, "I want to ask you--" I said, "Wait a minute, I'll come outside." He says, "It won't be nothing like that you was into." He said-- He says, "I'd just like to get four powerful maybe .300 Savage automatics with a telescope sight on them." He says, "Now, we'll be willing to pay you $1,000 each. That'll be $4,000 you could pick up right quick." He said, "We want them unregistered, you know." I says, "Well, like I told you before, and like I'm telling you now" - and I pointed my finger -I said, "Just like I'm telling you right now, I am not getting involved no more with no arms."

19

RATHER: You're absolutely certain it was the Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of John Kennedy?

McKEOWN: I-- I would put my hand on the Bible and say it was, and I believe in the Bible. And it was certainly him. It was the-- It was the man who killed-- that Ru-- that Jack Ruby killed.

RATHER: Did you talk to the FBI about Oswald coming to see you?

McKEOWN: I think they did ask me if I knew Oswald. I-- I think I told them I didn't know him, never heard of him, or something like that. I-- I'm not sure. It was up in the Federal building up in Houston where they asked me to come up there, and, of course, I was scared, you know, and nervous, too.

RATHER: McKeown told me that one of his friends, Sam Neill, who was at his house the day of the Oswald visit, would corroborate his story.

Are you absolutely certain that the person you saw was Lee Oswald?

SAM NEILL: Yeah.

RATHER: No doubt in your mind?

NEILL: No doubt in my mind, because I saw him, you know, on the deal when the President was shot, and I saw him then and he was the same guy.

RATHER: What did you say to yourself when you saw him?

NEILL: I said to myself-- "Just keeping my mouth shut" is what I said to myself, you know, because I don't want to get involved. That's the general public's attitude about everything. I just don't want to get involved, you see. So, that's what I did.

RATHER: Neill did not get involved. He never was interviewed for the Warren Commission. McKeown was interviewed by the FBI, but he told them nothing about Oswald. Curiously, he did say that Jack Ruby had come to see him in 1959, offering $25,000 for a letter of introduction to Fidel Castro. Ruby never came back to pick up the letter, McKeown says.

Thii whole McKeown involvement, if true, has mind-boggling implications. Why four guns, for example, unless there were plans for more than one assassin? Is it mere coincidence that Cuba figures in McKeown's story? And the quote - "Latin looking man" - unquote. Is he another link to Cuba? For Oswald's past was full of Cuba connections. Just how much was known about them by the FBI and the CIA? These are some of the matters we'll be examining tomorrow evening in Part Two of this inquiry as we confront the next questions in the Oswald case: Was there a conspiracy? Was there a cover-up? Until tomorrow night, Dan Rather. Good night.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS1

ANNOUNCER: This has been the first of a series - a CBS REPORTS INQUIRY: "The American Assassins".

CBS REPORTS INQUIRY

"The American Assassins"

Part II

Lee Harvey Oswald and John F. Kennedy

as broadcast over the

CBS TELEVISION NETWORK

Wednesday, November 26, 1975

10:00 - 11:00 PM, EST

With CBS News Correspondent Dan Rather

PRODUCED BY CBS NEWS

PRODUCERS: Leslie Midgley and Bernard Birnbaum

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Leslie Midgley

©MCMLXXV CBS Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

1

ANNOUNCER: This is a CBS REPORTS INQUIRY: "The American Assassins". Here is CBS News Correspondent Dan Rather.

DAN RATHER: Good evening.

Twelve years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, only 15% of the American people believe the official verdict of the Warren Commission - that he was the victim of a single assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.

Last night, in the first of this series of broadcasts about the controversy surrounding the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, and the attempt on the life of Governor George Wallace, CBS News considered and tried to find reasonable answers to some of the major questions that have been raised about the John Kennedy murder. We concluded, through an independent examination by Dr. James Weston of x-rays and photographs from the Kennedy autopsy, that the President was struck by only two shots, both from the rear. Scientists at Itek Corporation, the nation's leading film analysts, examined Abraham Zapruder's film of the assassination. They found evidence that Governor John Connally's body appeared to be reacting to a bullet strike only a third of a second or less after the first shot hit President Kennedy. This was new supporting evidence for the controversial single bullet theory; no proof, but the possibility established. Our conclusion was this: it seems impossible to -quote - '"prove' that all the shots fired that day in Dallas came from a single gun in a single spot, but there is less evidence to support any theory to the contrary. The best available evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed shoot President Kennedy, and that Oswald probably was the only gunman.

But that doesn't close the door on two other major questions in the case: Was there a conspiracy? And was there a cover-up?

If there were a conspiracy, it most likely would have taken one of two forms: either that other gunmen fired at the President; or that Oswald was sole triggerman for behind-the-scenes manipulators. Contrary to popular impression, the Warren Commission itself left this door open just a crack. It said only that the Commission could find no evidence that others were involved. As to whom Oswald might have been a front man, or even patsy, for, well, theories of conspiracy abound. They range from plots hatched by embittered survivors of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba to Cuban Communists determined to avenge the invasion to Mafia leaders angered by Justice Department crackdowns or the loss of their casinos in Havana to right-wing CIA men who feared that Kennedy might pull American troops out of Vietnam.

The Cuban connection is the strongest, and concern that Kennedy might have been killed in retaliation for CIA attempts on the life of Fidel Castro had some highly respectable adherents, including John Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson.

2

PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the fact that there might have been international connections.

WALTER CRONKITE: You mean you still feel that there might-- might have been?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: Well, I have not completely discounted it.

RATHER: We'll have more on Johnson's beliefs later. In addition to the question of whether Government agencies were involved in the crime itself is the question of whether they covered up knowledge about it and didn't tell the Warren Commission the whole truth. Oswald's connections with the CIA and the FBI and with Cuba groups are entwined with his activities in years prior to the assassination.

Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans in 1939, two months after the death of his father. He lived with his mother, Marguerite, at various places in the South, and for a time in New Yotk City. He enlisted in the Marine Corps at Fort Worth, Texas, six days after his 17th birthday. He served 15 months overseas, most of it in Japan, at the Atsugi Air Base, from which U-2 flights were launched to spy on China. The Warren Report said Oswald did not have access to U-2 material, but one of his officers, John Donovan, says otherwise.

JOHN DONOVAN: Lee was a radar man, and he surveilled for aircraft both known and unknown. He also was a plotter, meaning he plotted the positions of the aircraft he saw or one of his counterparts saw.

RATHER: Lay out for me what information he could have had that the Soviets would have been interested in at the time he went to the Soviet Union.

DONOVAN: In relation to the U-2?

RATHER: In relation to the U-2.

DONOVAN: We did pick it up. You could see it on our altimeter. It went to altitudes well beyond what we were capable of detecting. Lee, if he had any insight at all, he could have certainly put two and two together. He-- He would have known that he had a high-flying aircraft, and he did know that - as we all did.

RATHER: After it became known that Lee Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, were procedures changed, codes changed, anything changed in the way you did business?

DONOVAN: There had to be. Once it was discerned that he was-- he had defected, Dan, you just have to change that stuff when it has been compromised.

3

RATHER: What kind of classification would Oswald have to do the kind of work that he was doing?

DONOVAN: He would had to have had a minimum of "Secret", because you do not allow anyone in the door who does not have a "Secret" clearance.

RATHER: While in the Marine Corps, Oswald learned to speak and read Russian. He claimed he taught himself. Some critics of the Warren Report believe Oswald was trained as a spy while in the Marine Corps, and was taught the language in anticipation of being sent to Russia. William Colby, the present Director of the CIA, says that is not true.

Director Colby, did the CIA recruit Lee Harvey Oswald when he was in the Marines and send him to Russia?

WILLIAM COLBY [Director, Central Intelligence Agency]: No, we had no contact with Mr. Oswald.

RATHER: No contact before he went to the Soviet Union?

COLBY: No contact with him before he went to the Soviet Union, and no contact with him after he returned from the Soviet Union. No contact with him while he was in the Soviet Union.

RATHER: Oswald did leave the service in an unusual manner: he asked for a discharge a few months before his scheduled release, saying that his mother was ill and without work, and he wanted to help her. But instead of doing that, he returned to Fort Worth, remained home only a few days, and then sailed off on a freighter bound for France. He was enroute to Moscow.

Oswald's mother told former CBS Dallas affiliate news director Eddie Barker that she has always believed her son was an agent for the CIA.

MRS. MARGUERITE OSWALD: This is what they tell the American people, they go into great detail - that Lee Harvey Oswald got out of the Marine Corps three months ahead of time because his mother had an accident (which was the truth, and it all went through the Red Cross legitimately), and when he came home he stayed with his mother three days (we sort of know that story), and then he left for Russia. Now, how can Lee Harvey Oswald get out of the Marine Corps three months ahead of time on a dire need discharge, and at the same time be issued a passport to travel?

RATHER: Oswald travelled to Moscow via London and Helsinki. Two weeks after arriving, on a Saturday afternoon he appeared at the United States Embassy and told Consul Richard Snyder that he wanted to renounce his citizenship.

CONSUL RICHARD SNYDER: I recall him being brought into the office by--by the receptionist, and his saying, you know, something to the effect, "I've-- I've come to-- to give up my American passport and renounce my citizenship." He said, as I can recall, "I am a Marxist, and I intend to become a citizen of the Soviet Union."

4

RATHER: Was it your impression that he had been in touch with Soviet authorities before he came to see you?

SNYDER: Oh, yes, yes. He made that clear. He said he - one way or another, probably in several ways - but he had applied for Soviet citizenship.

RATHER: Here's a man who's been in the Marine Corps, worked at an important base in Japan. Didn't that raise a flag of concern in your mind or in someone's mind?

SNYDER: Yes, yes it did. He did say that he had information from his Marine Corps service which-- and that he intended to make available to the Soviet authorities - everything that he knew, everything that he had learned.

RATHER: Did anyone show a concern about it?

SNYDER: Well, there's no question in my mind that the-- that the. Department back here passed it on to the FBI and other-- and the--and the military authority. I mean, that-- that's routine.

RATHER: Any question in your mind that the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald? You've seen photographs of him since then.

SNYDER: Oh, yes. No-- No question.

RATHER: No question?

SNYDER: No, no question at all. The-- The person I saw first and the person I saw last was one and the same - Lee Harvey Oswald. Yeah. Absolutely no question in my mind on that.

RATHER: And-- No question in your mind?

SNYDER: No.

RATHER: At the time of the murder, John McCone, then CIA Director, swore under oath that the Agency had no connection with Oswald. But we know now they had a file on this former Marine who had gone to the Embassy and announced that he was going to give military secrets to the Russians. CIA Director Colby told CBS News that his Agency intercepted Oswald's mail going both ways.

In 1960, the Russians sent Oswald to Minsk, where he worked in a radio factory. The following year - in February, 1961 - he again contacted the American Embassy in Moscow, this time seeking approval to return to the United States. In the meantime, he had met and married a 19-year-old Russian girl, Marina Nikolaevna Prusakova, a pharmacist.

Mr. Snyder describes Oswald's reappearance at the Embassy.

What happened when he came back to the Embassy in 1961?

5

SNYDER: He was considerably subdued at that point, and he said, in effect, "I-- I've learned my lesson. I learned the lesson the hard way."

RATHER: In 1962, a daughter was born to the Oswalds, and by June they had received American and Russian permission to leave. They were given a loan of $435.71 by the State Department for travel expenses. Two weeks later, they arrived at Fort Worth.

Did anyone with the CIA debrief Oswald when he returned to this country?

WILLIAM COLBY: No, he-- the CIA did not debrief him. I think there are some unclassified or declassified reports of FBI debriefings, but the CIA did not debrief him.

RATHER: I say to you, as I have before, that that's difficult for many people - and in all candor, difficult for me - to believe that a young man in the Marines gets out of the Marines, goes to the Soviet Union, marries a Russian woman, moves back to this country, comes back into the society, and it is difficult to believe that the CIA did not, under some circumstances, debrief him.

COLBY: Right. Well, I think-- I-- I understand your-- your doubt on this question. Think you have to look at the circumstances. Mr. Oswald was what can be called a defector to the Soviet Union, and we did have a report on Mr. Oswald which the FBI gave to us about it. We also received some material from the Embassy in Moscow about Mr. Oswald when he tried to disclaim his citizenship. We had a little file, therefore, on Mr. Oswald, which consisted of the two reports from the FBI, the two reports from the Embassy in Moscow, and one report from the Department of Navy, the Marines, I think it was, that-- indicating some exchange between them. That's all we had, until roughly October of 1963.

RATHER: Mr. Colby indicated to me that the Agency might have passed up Oswald because the FBI had interviewed him. John Fain, an FBI agent, talked to Oswald twice in Fort Worth, asking him, Fain said, to let the Bureau know if he was contacted in any way by Russian agents. Victor Marchetti, author of The CIA and the CuZt of Intelligence, who worked with the Agency for 14 years, believes there is still more the public doesn't know about Oswald and the CIA.

John McCone, then the CIA Director, swore to the Warren Commission that the Agency had never communicated with Oswald in any way, directly or indirectly. Do you think this eliminates the possibility that the Agency debriefed Oswald on his return from the Soviet Union, or that he was in some other way connected or contacted with the CIA?

6

VICTOR MARCHETTI: I think John McCone should know better than to ever make such a blanket statement with regard to the CIA, after having been Director of that Agency. I would think he would want to add to that "to my knowledge". They could very well have dealt with him without McCone ever being informed. I think that the CIA knows more about the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination that have not yet been made public about their relationships with Oswald,.and that the Agency has covered up. I'm going on the assumption that the CIA had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. I cannot believe, to this day, that the CIA, as an institution, the people running the CIA that I knew, would have been party to any sort of a crime of this sort: murdering a President of the United States. This doesn't mean that there may not have been individuals, either acting on their own or--or who were only remotely connected with the Agency in some capacity as a contract agent, or formerly a contract agent, who may have been involved.

RATHER: In June, 1963, Oswald applied for a new passport in New Orleans, indicating he wanted to visit Cuba and, again, Russia. Despite his visit to Russia and his attempt to renounce his citizenship there, Oswald this time got another passport in one day. The legal section of the Passport Office of the State Department says now that getting such quick treatment in an office such as New Orleans is not unusual; but there was apparently a slip-up, which the State Department insists today was simply a clerical error. Oswald's previous activities should have caused his name to be flagged in the files to raise questions about his eligibility for another passport. Instead, the new passport was simply handed to him. Many people insist that he must have had secret assistance from the CIA to get that passport. The CIA denies it.

In September, 1963, Oswald is supposed to have travelled by bus to Mexico City, where he visited the Cuban and Russian Embassies, seeking visas. The Cubans, it is said, refused to give him anything, apparently after checking with the Russians. After the assassination, the Warren Commission asked the CIA for anything they had on Oswald. What the staff received from the CIA was this photograph of a man the Agency tentatively identified as Lee Oswald going into the Cuban Embassy. It obviously is not Oswald. Director Colby.

During his visit to Mexico in September, 1963, you had Oswald under surveillance at both the Russian and Cuban Embassies?

WILLIAM COLBY: No, no, no. We did not have him under surveillance. We became aware of a contact he made with each of those Embassies.

RATHER: Did you make voice recordings of him?

COLBY: I-- I think there were, yes.

7

RATHER: Why was the Warren Commission given a photograph of another man at the Cuban Embassy, wrongly identified as Lee Harvey Oswald?

COLBY: Well, it wasn't wrongly identified as Lee Harvey Oswald. We knew that he was in these Embassies at a certain day. And we looked at the capability we had to photograph certain things in that-- in the city; and we looked at-- through the photographs, hoping that we could find perhaps a photograph of him as he came in or went out of one of these Embassies. We did focus on one, which we thought might be him, and this was flown up to Dallas, labelled an unidentified white male. That's-- That was the identification of it. But it was flown up in case it could be helpful at that time. But there was not a photograph wrongly labelled. It turned out not to be Mr. Oswald, clearly; and we to this day don't know who he is.

RATHER: Who, critics ask, is this man? Is he a CIA agent posing as Oswald? Where is the photograph of Oswald? David Phillips, who was with the CIA in Mexico City then, and is now retired from the Agency.

Why did you watch Americans going in and out of the Soviet and Cuban missions?

DAVID PHILLIPS: We didn't watch Americans going in and out. We watched these missions on our radar screen, and every once in a while there would be a blip, and the blip would turn out to be an American.

RATHER: You know he was at the Cuban Embassy?

PHILLIPS: I do.

RATHER: No doubt in your mind about that?

PHILLIPS: There's no question in my mind.

RATHER: You believe he was at the Soviet Embassy?

PHILLIPS: I'm not sure about that. I'm-- I'm positive that he made contact with them. They all thought he was so strange that they didn't want to have anything to do with him, and they rebuffed him and told him that they were not interested.

RATHER: How certain are you of this?

PHILLIPS: I'm positive. I know there are a lot of stories about photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald taken in Mexico. None were taken. There were no photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.

RATHER: What about the accusation that is made flatly sometimes that the pictures of Oswald were destroyed?

PHILLIPS: Absolutely untrue. I was there, and I know.

8

RATHER: So, that is what we know - all we know - about Lee Oswald and the Central Intelligence Agency. Not much. Despite the official denials which have been consistent for 12 years, it remains very difficult to believe that the CIA did not have more to do with Oswald than the Agency ever has admitted. The Warren Commission decided it could not ascribe any single motive or group of motives to Oswald; they thought his principal motive may have been alienation from, and hatred for, a society in which he could not find a meaningful place. In protest, they thought, he decided to kill the President. Their conclusion made no mention whatever of a possible motive in revenge for the CIA attacks on Castro, revenge possibly inspired by Cuba or by Oswald's own sympathy for the Castro cause. Not surprising, since the Commission never was told about the attempts on Castro. If the CIA had done its duty and told the Commission about those attempts, far more might now be known about why Oswald, and how Oswald, became involved in this crime.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

RATHER: What about the FBI and Oswald? It has been suggested that Oswald might have been a secret agent in Russia working, not for the CIA, but for the FBI. It is well-known that those two agencies, plus the DIA (Defense Department intelligence), vie for positions in the intelligence world, and that each is jealous of its turf. FBI agents often appear in foreign capitals and U.S. Embassies, going about whatever is their business.

In any event, we know that Oswald was, probably correctly and routinely, interviewed by the FBI on his return; but he had a lot more to do with the Bureau than just that. In April, 1963, Oswald was working in New Orleans, while Marina and their child were living with a friend, Ruth Paine, in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. It was in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 that Oswald resurfaced as a controversial figure, and he did this at both extremes of the political spectrum.

For a couple of months, he worked here at Reily and Company on the top floor, oiling its coffee roasting machinery. But soon he began to slip away during working hours, spending his time at the Crescent City Garage next door, reading gun magazines, discussing weapons with the garage's owner. On July 19th, 1963, Oswald was fired. Then on August 5th, he entered this store on Decatur Street in New Orleans, offering his military skills to an anti-Castro organization. He spoke to the owner, Carlos Bringuiers, a Cuban refugee, a leader in the New Orleans anti-Castro movement. He returned the following day with his guidebook for Marines to verify his military background and competency. Then three days later, Oswald's politics appeared to take a swing in the opposite direction. He was observed here on Canal Street handing out pro-Castro leaflets. Bringuiers confronted him. The police arrived. Oswald's first arrest followed.

9

CARLOS BRINGUIERS: I was surprised to find out that the man-- with the sign in the front telling "Viva Fidel" and "Hands Off Cuba" was this same man, Lee Harvey Oswald, who four days before had been in my store asking to have an opportunity to train Cubans to fight against Castro.

RATHER: That arrest seemed to be routine. The charge: disturbing the peace. But then something curious occurred: Oswald requested to see an FBI agent. Special agent John Quigley came to see him, and interviewed Oswald at length. Oswald pleaded guilty to the charge against him. He paid a $10 fine, and left jail. A few days later, he was back handing out pro-Castro leaflets, this time with another man whom he had hired to assist him. He was a celebrity of sorts, receiving teleivion coverage, being interviewed about politics and foreign affairs.

QUESTION: You're a Marxist?

LEE OSWALD: Well, I have studied Marxist philosophy, yes, sir, and also other philosophers.

QUESTION: But are you a Marxist? I think you did admit on an earlier radio interview that you-- that you consider yourself a Marxist.

OSWALD: Well, I would very definitely say that I am-- I am a Marxist, that is correct. But that-- that does not mean, however, that I am a-- a Communist.

QUESTION: What is the difference between the two?

OSWALD: Well, there's a great deal of difference. Several American parties and several countries are based on Marxism, such as Guyana, Ghana. Certain countries have characteristics of a socialist system, such-as Great Britain with its socialized medicine. These, then, are the differences between an outright Communist country and countries which adhere to leftist or Marxist principles.

QUESTION: In your work with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, what are you advocating?

OSWALD: We advocate restoration of diplomatic, trade and tourist relations with Cuba.

RATHER: On August 21st, a radio debate on Cuba took place at WDSU radio. Among the participants were Oswald, Bringuiers, and Edward Butler, Executive Director of the Information Council of the Americas, a self-styled anti-Communist organization headquartered in New Orleans. Edward Butler is still the acting head of that anti-Communist organization.

10

EDWARD BUTLER: When I met Oswald, he was very, very articulate, very much together, and very, very competent as a propagandist. It kind of goes against the public image that most people have of Oswald as a-- a very inarticulate, incapable kind of non compos mentis character. He wasn't that at all. He knew what he was saying and knew what he was doing, and did it quite well, for a 24-year-old.

RATHER: But Oswald seems to have had other links besides the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, whose New Orleans Chairman and sole member he then was. The owner of the Habana Bar, Orest Pena, told Bruce Hall that he has a different version of Oswald than the one Edward Butler retains.

BRUCE HALL: Did any of the people you saw having-- meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald, were any of these FBI agents?

OREST PENA: Yes.

HALL: Who?

PENA: Warren C. deBrueys.

HALL: Warren deBrueys is an FBI agent, and you saw him with Lee Harvey Oswald?

PENA: Yes, I knew Warren C. deBrueys very well, because I used to work for him.

HALL: What did you do with Warren deBrueys?

PENA: I was an informer for the FBI about the people in New Orleans.

HALL: What happened when the FBI agent, whom you said you had seen with Lee Harvey Oswald, who was also the man you were the informant for, what happened when he came to the bar before you went to the Warren Commission?

PENA: About ten days before I came-- went to the-- to testify at the Warren Commission, could be less than ten days, and he came and he called me from behind the bar and said he wanted to talk to me. He called me on the table. He told me he was very, very nervous, very nervous; and he told me, "If you ever talk anything about me, I will get rid-- rid of your ass." Just in those words.

RATHER: Warren C. deBrueys is now the special agent in charge of the FBI office in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He talked to Bruce Hall.

HALL: Did you know Orest Pena, who was the operator of the Habana Bar in New Orleans?

WARREN C. DeBRUEYS: Yes.

11 HALL: What was your relationship with him?

DeBRUEYS: He was an individual that I recall having contacted, perhaps as many as a dozen times, I suppose, during the early 1960's, prior to the assassination of President Kennedy.

HALL: Orest Pena says that he was, in the literal sense, an informer for the FBI, that he knew you well, because you were his contact man with the FBI; and that on numerous occasions, he saw you and Lee Harvey Oswald together, and in particular, in a Greek restaurant in New Orleans in the French Quarter. What is your response to that?

DeBRUEYS: My response to that is he is wrong in his statements. I have never seen Lee Harvey Oswald at any time in my life personally, or-- nor have I talked to him by telephone knowingly. I've had absolutely no contact, no personal knowledge, first-hand contact with Lee Harvey Oswald, nor do I have any secondary contact with him.

HALL: Was Lee Harvey Oswald an informant of the FBI?

DeBRUEYS: He was not my informant, and I have no information whatsoever that he had ever been an informant for the FBI.

HALL: Did you ever use the phrase "to get your ass", or threaten Orest Pena in any way in connection with his Warren Commission testimony?

DeBRUEYS: I certainly don't recall ever having made that statement to Orest Pena. My recollec-- recollection is that I treated him with a great deal of patience and with due respect. There would have been no reason whatsoever for me to have made such a statement.

RATHER: William Walter was an FBI security code clerk in the New Orleans office of the FBI from 1961 until 1966. He told me about Oswald and the FBI.

Do you think Oswald was, by your definition, and by the Bureau's definition, an informant?

WILLIAM WALTER: Yes, I'm sure he was.

RATHER: And you are certain, on the basis of what you did in the normal course of your duties, that Oswald's name was, on the New Orleans FBI office Security Index File?

WALTER: I'm positive.

DeBRUEYS: I would say that's a falsehood. Had he and had I had him as a subject of my investigation logical. that I would have been aware of that fact, references in the File, and for many other reasons is a falsehood.

been an informant, , it would have been because of cross-

. And I say that

12

HALL: Mr. Walters also says that Oswald's name was on the Security Index File. Could Oswald's name have been on the Security Index File, and what was the Security Index File?

DeBRUEYS: I have no idea at this time whether his name was on any type of special index. And as relates to what you term a "Security Index File", I'd rather not get into the discussion of administrative techniques employed within the office, and respectfully decline to answer that question.

RATHER: On November 1st, 1963, FBI agent James P. Hosty visited the Paine home seeking Oswald's whereabouts. Hosty's name and telephone number were found in Oswald's notebook when he was arrested after the Kennedy murder. The FBI failed to tell the Warren Commission that after Hosty's visit to Marina Oswald, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas and left a note threatening to blow up that office and Dallas police headquarters if the FBI did not stop bothering Oswald's wife. That is what the FBI now acknowledges was in the note. The Bureau says the note has been destroyed. The Warren Commission was told nothing about that note. The note apparently failed to alert the FBI to any special precautions in connection with the forthcoming Presidential visit, and the FBI did not tell the Secret Service about that note.

James Adams, Associate Deputy Director of the FBI, told the House Judiciary Committee about the matter on October 1st.

JAMES ADAMS: We learned that the agent for whom the note was intended took no action, other than to place it in his work box, where it continued to reside on the day of the assassination.

RATHER: But on November 24th, within hours after Lee Harvey Oswald had been shot to death, agent Hosty said he was sent for by the head of the Dallas FBI office, Gordon Shanklin.

ADAMS: He claimed that upon arriving in the Special Agent in Charge's office, he was instructed by the Special Agent in Charge to destroy both the note and the memorandum regarding it that he had given the Special Agent in Charge on the night of November 22. The agent has told us that he complied with these instructions and destroyed the note and the memorandum.

RATHER: FBI agent Hosty is now assigned to the Buretau in Kansas City. He declined, repeatedly, to be interviewed for this broadcast. And there was another FBI cover-up in Dallas - at least one other known. The then Police Chief, Jesse Curry, told reporters the night of the assassination that the FBI had prior knowledge about Oswald.

QUESTION: With this man's apparent subversive background, was there any surveillance-- were police aware of his presence in Dallas?

13

JESSE CURRY: We and the Police Department here did not know he was in Dallas. I understand the FBI did know that he was in Dallas.

QUESTION: Chief, do you normally-- Chief--

QUESTION: . . .normal practice for the FBI to inform the police, the municipal police?

CURRY: Yes.

QUESTION: Chief, do you have--?

CURRY: We did not have--

QUESTION: You were not informed?

CURRY: We had not been informed of this man.

RATHER: But then, at the request of Gordon Shanklin, the Agent in Charge at Dallas, Curry retracted that statement, saying that he did not know of this - quote - "of my own knowledge." To Morton Dean, Mr. Curry told why that happened.

CURRY: Yeah, I had a phone call very shortly thereafter, and it was from Shanklin, the--

DEAN: Head of the FBI bureau in Dallas?

CURRY: In Dallas, yes. And he seemed very upset, and he told me, or asked me, to go and make a statement retracting my statement that--that the FBI knew that-- that Oswald was in Dallas. And I said, "Well, Shanklin, for your-- for you I will make the statement that, to my personal knowledge, he was not here, but that's as far as I will go. I will not retract the statement." I interpreted it this way: that the FBI is very jealous of its reputation, and J. Edgar Hoover was fanatic about the reputation of the FBI and didn't like to-- to admit that they made any kind of mistakes.

RATHER: We'll be back with more about Oswald and the FBI after this message.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

RATHER: A most serious allegation concerning the FBI - which does not necessarily have anything to do with Oswald - is that a teletype message was sent out of headquarters in Washington five days before the assassination to FBI offices in Mobile, New Orleans and Dallas warning that an attempt might be made to murder President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd. That allegation comes from William Walter. He was an employee of the FBI from 1961 to 1966. He was on overnight duty the night of November 17th. I talked to Mr. Walter in Louisiana, where he is now a bank officer.

3.4

WILLIAM WALTER: Well, on November the 17th - I guess that's five days before the 22nd - I was on duty at the FBI office in New Orleans from twelve midnight until eight in the morning, and that was, as I remember it, a Sunday morning. I received a teletype from FBI Headquarters, Washington. It was a normal movement teletype indicating that the President was going to be in Dallas on the 22nd, and that the FBI in Washington had information that an attempt would be made on President Kennedy's life in Dallas.

RATHER: You're sure of this?

WALTER: I'm positive of that. I have notes that I took back in 1963 that has the exact text of that teletype. There's one page to the teletype, and it's directed to the all-- to all SAC's, meaning all Special Agent in Charges, from the Director, and the title or the caption of the teletype is "Threat to Assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, November 22-23, 1963, Miscellaneous Information Concerning". And the body of the teletype, it says: "Information has been received by the Bureau that a militant revolutionary group may attempt to assassinate President Kennedy on his proposed trip to Dallas, Texas, November 22-23, 1963. All receiving offices should immediately contact all CI's, PCI's logical racial and hate group informants, and determine if any basis for this threat."

RATHER: What do those initials in the bottom part of the body of the teletype mean - CI's, PCI's?

WALTER: Well, that's Criminal Informants, Possible Criminal Informants; and of course, logical hate and racial group activities in your area.

RATHER: And then what did you do?

WALTER: I contacted the Special Agent in Charge of the New Orleans office, which was Harry Maynard.

RATHER: Present leadership of the-- of the FBI says they can't find any record of this teletype. Do you believe that?

WALTER: No, I-- I don't believe that.

RATHER: J. Edgar Hoover's successor, Clarence Kelley, told us that the FBI has been unable to find any copy of the teletype message Walter describes, or any other evidence that such a teletype existed at any time. The FBI does not flatly deny that any such teletype ever was sent.

The FBI did receive a warning about a possible assassination plot 13 days before the visit to Dallas. That threat was made in a conversation between a Florida police informer and a white supremacist organizing cells throughout the South. The conversation was recorded by the Miami Police Department, but the threat did not specifically refer to the President's upcoming visit to Florida. At the time, now Judge Seymour Gelber was with the Florida Attorney General's office. He told Bruce Hall what happened.

15

JUDGE SEYMOUR GELBER: They talked about killing the President in a Southern city. They discussed a high-powered rifle. They talked about shooting him from a high vantage point. They talked about the kind of rifle that could be broken down and brought inside a building. And all of the discussion that they were involved in actually and accurately described the manner in which the President eventually was assassinated one week later. We heard this, and we accepted this as a possibility - that this might be a plan that they intended to carry out.

BRUCE HALL: When this material came to your attention, what was done with it?

JUDGE GELBER: The information was immediately transmitted to the FBI and to the Secret Service for whatever action they might deem appropriate.

RATHER: The FBI says Secret Service offices in Miami and Washington were notified of this particular threat. The Secret Service, by law, has primary responsibility for protection of Presidents. The FBI says it was not requested to take any other action concerning the Florida tip.

The FBI has no excuse or explanation for the destruction of Oswald's threatening note in Dallas. Neither the Secret Service nor the Warren Commission nor anyone else was told about that until the information was forced out of the Bureau this year. As a result, it is a matter of record that, in this instance, at least, FBI officials told falsehoods to the Warren Commission. It is also a matter of record that FBI officials violated their own rules which required that Oswald's visit and the text of his note be recorded in the files of the Dallas office, and that they be reported to FBI headquarters to be passed on to the Secret Service. In the course of our own investigation, CBS News has been told repeatedly by Government sources that there remains much the public does not know about how extensively the FBI was connected with Oswald. We have not been able to confirm that. Our conclusion is that the only chance for establishing the complete story of the FBI and Oswald is with a full Congressional investigation. Senator Schweiker's group currently has a preliminary probe underway into the question of an FBI cover-up. There is no solid evidence anywhere that we have been able to find even suggesting FBI involvement in the killing of President Kennedy. Evidence abounds that the FBI mishandled information about Oswald before and after the assassination, and it is a fact that there was a calculated - very likely illegal - cover-up by the FBI.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

RATHER: The Warren Commission reported that it could find no evidence of any plot laid in Cuba responsible for President Kennedy's murder. Premier Fidel Castro told me in Havana last year that he did not

16

instigate any action against Kennedy, that he rather admired President Kennedy in many ways, and thought that if President Kennedy had lived the two nations, Cuba and the United States, might have improved relations. But because Oswald had been associated with pro-Castro and perhaps anti-Castro causes, the suspicion was always there that the murder could have been in some way connected to Cuba.

John Kennedy's first great trial as President was the disastrous invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. He felt that he had been given bad advice by the Central Intelligence Agency, and he angrily threatened to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it." Instead, though, he put his brother, Robert, the Attorney General, in charge of it. According to well-placed sources, Robert Kennedy became extremely interested in anti-Castro activities of the CIA, and those activities were stepped up to what has been described as a small war. We know also that the CIA actually did try to kill Castro with the help of Mafia figures recruited by Robert Maheu, former FBI agent and former executive in charge of the Nevada gambling interests of Howard R. Hughes, Junior. Maheu, after testifying to the Senate Intelligence Committee under a grant of immunity, told reporters about that.

ROBERT MAHEU, JUNIOR: I was approached by my project officer, Mr. James O'Connell--

QUESTION: James who?

MAHEU: James O'Connell (who was then a member of the CIA, and as I. said previously, had been assigned to me as my project officer) asked me if, in connection with a planned invasion in Cuba, I would contact a Mr. John Roselli in Los Angeles, asking if Mr. Roselli would be inclined to help in a program for removing Mr. Castro from the scene or eliminating him in connection with the invasion of Cuba. The discussions that we had with Mr. Roselli and Mr. Giancana were how best to accomplish this and make sure that, when the men landed off the barges, that it would be a successful takeover.

RATHER: The Roselli and Giancana Mr. Maheu refer to were major figures in the national crime syndicate. Roselli operated on the West Coast; Giancana was shot to death in his Chicago home last June. No arrest has been made in that case.

President Kennedy himself once raised the question of assassinating Castro with journalist Tad Szulc, who had worked for many years in Latin America. Szulc told us about it.

TAD SZULC: Well, at one point he said-- you know, he was rocking in--in his chair, and I was sitting on the white sofa, as you remember, in the Oval Office, and then he said, "Listen," he said, "what would you say" - or words to .that effect - "what would you say if I ordered the assassination of Fidel Castro in Cuba?" And I was, to put it mildly, taken aback, having that kind of a question asked by the President of

17 the United States, and I said, "Well" - having recovered, having lit a cigarette - I said, "it seems to me not to be-- morally, it's a disastrous thing. I think it's a terrible mistake, it seems to me as a citizen, for the United States to be involved in assassinations." We were very naive and innocent in those days, were we not? "And second, I think it would be a tactical mistake, even cynical and cowardly, because it-- even if you accomplished it, it would not make any difference, because the regime is well installed," and so on and so on. So he looked at me again, and said, "Well," he said, "I'm very glad that this is the way you feel, because I agree with you completely." And I remembered it very vividly, and of course, I wrote a memo to myself afterwards.

RATHER: In 1967, there were widespread doubts about the Warren Report, but we did not then know that the doubts extended directly into the White House, to President Kennedy's very successor, and were concerned with possible motives of Cuban revenge. Leo Janos served on President Johnson's staff. In July, 1973, he reported a conversation with his former boss at the LBJ ranch. They talked about Oswald. With CBS's Harold Dow, Janos recalls.

LEO JANOS: His-- His opening sentences were that when he took office the situation in the Caribbean was such that he-- he felt we were running a "Murder, Incorporated", and someone asked what he meant. He said, "Well, there were numerous assassination attempts, one of which was-- or two of which were directed against Castro, both of which--"

HAROLD DOW: By the CIA?

JANOS: "--both of which had failed." And then, in the-- in the very next sentence was-- he paused for a moment, and said, "That's why," he said, "I never believed that Oswald acted alone." He said, "I believe that he pulled the trigger, but I never believed he acted alone."

DOW: And he obviously thought that there was some connection--

JANOS: Yes, he did.

DOW: --between the attempt on Castro's life and-- and the assassination?

JANOS: Yes, he did. And that was-- that perhaps what Johnson was really saying or speculating about was an awful, a terrible, irony, that in a sense, perhaps, Bobby Kennedy, who had chaired the committee that over-- oversaw the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and who may very well have been issuing orders to assassinate people, had inadvertently brought about his own brother's-- President Kennedy's demise.

18

RATHER: One of Mr. Johnson's principal associates, Joseph Califano, also recalls the late President's opinions. He did so to David Culhane.

JOSEPH CALIFANO: President Johnson, on more than one occasion, made two points about the Kennedy assassination. One was a very strong suspicion, at some points coming out as a conviction from Johnson, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, that he was either assisted and/or inspired by others. And the second point was - and a point that Johnson also held on some occasions as a strong suspicion, and on other occasions that he'd state as a conviction - that what happened to John Kennedy at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald was a response and--and retaliation for activities that the CIA or other elements of the United States Government were conducting against Castro or the Cuban Government. He used to say that-- that he thought in time, when all the activities of the CIA were flushed out and when-- then-- then maybe the whole story of the Kennedy assassination would be known. RATHER: And we have LBJ speaking for himself. In 1969, Walter Cronkite filmed an interview with President Johnson. They talked about the Kennedy assassination. One portion of the interview was not broadcast at the President's insistence on grounds of national security; but subsequent disclosure of Mr. Johnson's opinions by Califano and others made it no longer necessary to withhold the film. Cronkite asked President Johnson whether he was satisfied that there was no international conspiracy in the assassination.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I can't honestly say that I've ever been completely relieved of the fact that there might have been international connections.

WALTER CRONKITE: You mean you still feel that there might-- might have been?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: Well, I have not completely discounted it.

CRONKITE: Well, that would seem to indicate that you don't have full confidence in the Warren Commission report?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: No. No, I think the Warren Commission's study and-- I think, first of all, is composed of the ablest and most judicious and bipartisan men in this country. Second, I think they had only one objective, and that was the truth. And third, I think they were competent and did the best they could. But I don't think that they or me or anyone else is always absolutely sure of everything that might have motivated Oswald or others that could have been involved. But he was quite a mysterious fellow, and he did have connections that bore examination. And the extent of the influence of those connections on him, I think, history will deal with much more than we're able to now.

19

CRONKITE: How would it come out in history?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I don't know.

RATHER: We don't know how it will come out in history, either. It's hard enough to see where it comes out now. History will be less confused, we believe, if there are full Congressional investigations into what the CIA and FBI didn't tell the Warren Commission, and why; new investigations into the possible roles of Cubans and organized crime figures also in our judgment are warranted.

With this broadcast, we conclude our two-part inquiry into the case of Lee Harvey Oswald and John F. Kennedy - the first of a series on the assassination controversies. We have cast some new light on the event and on the activities of the alleged assassin - and still the case cannot be closed. To discover a conspiracy, and other gunmen, in the murder of John F. Kennedy would have been a journalistic coup almost beyond imagining. We tried to do that in 1967, and could not. We couldn't do it this time, either.

On Oswald's possible motives, which, if known, might possibly establish a connection with a conspiratorial cause, on this perhaps some light could have been shed if the CIA had not withheld information from the Warren Commission - information about its ties to organized crime, and attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, which could conceivably have triggered a similar attack on the American President. The connections, actual and potential, between Oswald and the FBI and the CIA were, we have shown, much more complex than any official account has indicated. And yet, we could find no evidence linking either agency to the actual crime, or linking any foreign government to it, or any other individuals besides Oswald. If there were any conspirators in the shadows behind Oswald, we simply could not find them, hard as we looked.

This conclusion is not likely to alter the fact, shown by our own CBS News poll, that only 15% of Americans believe the official account of the murder as set out in the Warren report. Regrettably, some of our own institutions, the very agencies that should have helped to dispel public doubts, have only fueled those doubts. Conspiracy theories persist partly because there has been a loss of confidence in Government, a loss in public morale. They have attached themselves to each of the succeeding assassinations and one near-assassination of other political leaders - Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Governor George Wallace - cases we will examine in future broadcasts in this series. The shots fired that day in Dallas 12 years ago did more than fatally wound a President. The most grievous wounds remain in the nation's psyche, and the nation is still waiting to be healed. Dan Rather. Good night.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

ANNOUNCER: This has been the second of a series - a CBS REPORTS INQUIRY: "The American Assassins".