Reasonable Doubt: The single bullet theory

Assignment

Select one claim that was discussed in the movie, and analyze that claim usingToulmin’s framework.

For example:Identify and discuss the strength or correctness of the claim that:

1. Governor Connolly was shot by a second bullet;2. The mafia shot JFK;3. Castro was responsible for JFK’s assassination;4. The CIA arranged for JFK’s assassination;5. The Pentagon ordered JFK’s execution;6. Cuban anti-communists arranged for JFK’s death;7. The Soviet Union’ KGB engineered JFK’s assassination.8. Select any other claim from the information provided.

Identify and explain clearly the parts of the argument, and evaluate the strengthof the argument as a whole.

You do not need to believe the argument. You are evaluating its strength.

Your evaluation should be around two pages long, so select a claim that is not solarge as to require a book-length essay to explain.

Include a cover page, outline, body, and a works cited page. Use either MLA orAPA format.

The film is titled Reasonable Doubt: The single bullet theory and theassassination of John F. Kennedy, written by Chip and Mike Selby, and producedand directed by Chip Selby. CS Films, Inc., 1988.

THE SAULT STAR — SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1993 AS

Who shot JFK?T3UNI)R.EDS OF BOOKS and articlesI lexamining John Kennedy’s assassination have raised doubts about theWarren Commission’s official versionthat Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,

They have put forward numerous theories to explain the killing, most ofwhich have been debunked by variousfederal investigations.

Here are the main six conspiracy thearies and the official response to each:

THE MAFIAConspiracy theory: Angry at a

Kennedy administration crackdown onorganized crime after the Mafia helped’JFK get elected in 1960, mob bosses putout a contract on the president’s life. Avariation holds that the mob was angrythat JFK did not make a serious effort tooverthrow Fidel Castro and restore their’lucrative Cuban casino and drug busi- -,

nesses. -

Official version: FBI wiretaps of lead-.ing mobsters uncovered no plot againstJFK. Also, most experts believe Oswald,too unstable to interest the Mafia as ahitman.

CASTROConspiracy theory: The Cuban leader

had JFK killed to avenge numerous U.S.attempts to oust him, including thebotched Bay of Pigs invasion.

Official version: Castro had to knowthat if he was linked to the assassination, it would be followed by a majorU.S. invasion he could not stop.

The CIA

THE PENTAGONConspiracy theory: Concerned that

JFK was ready to end American involv&Iment in Vieam, the military establIsh-.’ment had him killed. Some theorists, -

including Elm-maker Oliver Stone, alsoinvolve L.vndon Johnson in the plot.

Official version: No concrete evidence the president was considering aVietham pullout, nor that LilT wasinvolved in the conspfracy

CUBAN ANTI-COMMUNISTSConspiracy theory: The Cuban ex

patriates who survived the Bay of Pigs,invasion, believing JFK et them up andthen abandoned them, joined with thsaffected CIA agents to get revenge. -.

Official version: The main perpetrator’of this theon was discredited by a congressional investigation.

SOVIET UNIONConspiracy theory: N&ita

Khrushchev, at the height of the ColdWar and recently humiliated by theCuban missile crisis, ordered the KCB’to kill JFK. The KGB recruited Oswald,who lived in Russia for several years, todo the job.

Official version: Recently declassifiedSoviet documents suggest the KGB,while aware of Oswald, made no effortto enlist him as an assassin. Indeed,they indicate he was to be avoided atall costs.”

Conspiracy theory: The CIA, worriedabout JFK’s threats to disband theagency after the Bay of Pigs fiasco,ordered his death.

Official version: While assassination,was nothing new for CIA, there is nosolid evidence of any agency treason -

against JFK.

o JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?

Introduction

Who killed JFK? The question has generated its own mini-industry — hundreds of

books, innumerable “theories,” two major government inquiries, countless

documentaries, and several films. New terms and expressions such as ‘grassy knoll,

‘magic bullet, “lone nut,” “patsy,” “Dealey Plaza,’ ‘best evidence,” and ‘six seconds

in Dallas” have come into common usage. Evidence has been analysed and reanalysed;

witnesses questioned and requestioned. A consensus on the answer to the question still

evades us. No generally accepted “truth’ has yet to emerge, and some say it never will.

And now the debate has been resurrected and intensified by Oliver Stone’s S-K) million jmovie JFK, which, many say, deftly mixes truth, fiction, fact, and fantasy.

November 22, 1963, Dallas, Texas, 12:30 p.m. The moment is frozen in time. Any

person who was older than ten at the time remembers not only the shock of hearing of

the assassination but exactly what he or she was doing at the tithe, John F. Kennedy

was the youngest and first American president born in this century, the embodiment of

the idealized “Camelot,” of liberalism, and of the New Frontier. He was visiting the

city of Dallas in order to mend political fences prior to launching his 1964 re-election

campaign. The rifle shots fatally wounded Kennedy and injured Texas Governor Jolm

Connally. This historical certainty however soon gave way to a multitude of hypotheses,

theories, official reports, and elaborate scenarios purporting to explain the how and why

of the assassination.Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, appointed a commission of seven credible

public figures to delve into the assassination. Unbeknownst to the public at the time,

Chief Justice Earl Warren broke a 3-3 tie vote on the Commission’s findings and the

Commission that bears his name concluded that one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, fired

three shots from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book

Depository Building, killing John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The three dissenters never wrote

a minority report.The strongest visual evidence is the now famous eight-millimetre home movie

footage of the actual assassination taken by a man named Abraham Zaprnder. This piece

of evidence, other eyewitness accounts, and conflicting accounts of what happened after

the assassination have led many people to raise disturbing questions and to propose

various “conspiracy theories,’ chief among them, that of Jim Garrison, the District

Attorney for the city of New Orleans and the protagonist in Oliver Stone’s movie. What

was Oswald’s motive? Did Oswald kill Dallas police officer J. 0. Tippit? How was

local nightclub owner Jack Ruby able to gain access to the basement of the Dallas police

headquarters, where he murdered Oswald on live television? What about the alleged

murder weapon, a forty-year-old Italian rifle, which was labelled ‘a humanitarian

weapon” because of its notorious inaccuracy? What about the timing of the shots —

three shots within 5.6 seconds at a moving target? In fact, how many shots were fired?

What about the violent snapping of the President’s head backward and to the left?

Didn’t the latter indicate that a shot must have come from the front and to the right,

from the so-called “grassy knoll”? What about the smoke on the knoll reported by

several witnesses? What about the mysterious men with rifles some people say they saw

behind the picket fence at the top of the knoll? What about the unannounced and

March 1992 — 48 —CBC-W News in Review

unnecessary last second change in the motorcade route — the right turn onto Houston

and the left onto Elm? What about the questions surrounding the autopsy of the

fl I President? What happened to the lead motorcyclist? What about the man opening an

umbrella on a sunny day? What about Lee Bowers, Officer Billy Harkness, Dorothy

Kilgallen, and the more than 130 witnesses who supposedly had important evidence who

died or disappeared under seemingly mysterious circumstances. These and other

unanswered questions eventually preoccupied numerous individuals and an American

public traumatized by the assassination and its implications. The depth of uncertainty

created fertile ground for speculation and a legitimate need for further explanations.

A 1979 House subcommittee, whose mandate was to investigate assassinations,

reviewed all the evidence of the Kennedy assassination, eye-witness accounts and

ballistic, acoustic, and medical facts. The subcommittee concluded that a fourth shot had

indeed come from behind the grassy knoll. The conclusion that there had been four

shots and the timing of them meant that more than one person was involved, and thus a

conspiracy was highly likely. Subsequent studies, however, using evidence released

through the Freedom of Information Act and computer-enhanced evidence, have

confirmed as well as contradicted the subcommittee’s finding.

According to proponents of conspiracy theories — theories based on circumstantial

evidence — there are a number of possible perpetrators. Motivation is an important

component of the hypotheses, as are the resources required to engineer the original

assassination and the presumed cover-up. Numerous candidates have been suggested: the

military-industrial complex, which includes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, and

big business, which profits from a foreign policy supporting international conflict. Also

suggested were the FBI, the CIA, pro-Castro Cubans, anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia,

and even other politicians.

Thirty years later, however, all we still know for sure is that John F. Kennedy was

assassinated by gunfire in Dallas, Texas. And yet a desire for greater “truth” persists.

Fuelling and heightening the public’s need to know more are numerous ‘conspiracy

book? and most recently a powerful and controversial film, Oliver Stone’s JFK. But

what’s fact and what’s not? Where do we draw the line between dramatic licence and

the erroneous interpretation of history? How might the viewer be seduced into believing

as true something that is not proven true, by a powerful and artistically convincing

medium such as the big budget Hollywood movie JFK? Does the desire for truth, the

average person’s propensity for skepticism or need for well-defined beliefs and the role

of art in revealing universal truth validate a film such as JFK? Is the film a legitimate

medium for working out the inconsistencies in the “American Dream,” the loss of faith

on the pan of the American public, and their passion for truth? Can the average person

put such a film in the perspective it deserves? Do young people who are pan of a

media-intense generation have the skills to separate fact from fiction? Can we teach

them not to leap to conclusions?

A Special Note to Teachers

The video contains actual footage from the Zapmder mm. The graphic nature of

this footage could be upsetting to some students. Teachers are strongly advised to

preview the video and to consider carefully the age group for which it is

ap prbpdate.

CBC-W News in Review —49—March 1992

4...

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?This, That, and the Other Thing: Determining Facts

Divide a sheet of paper into the following three columns:

a What really happened.

• What may have happened.

• What positively did not happen.

Then carefully view “JFK: What’s Fact, What’s Not?” You may do this several times ifnecessary. After viewing, list in the appropriate columns the significant information thatyou have seen and heard. Finally, compare your lists with those of other members ofthe class. Assess the differences, if any, and account for them.

March 1992 . — SO — CBC-7V News in Review

DUPUCATIBLE

EXAMINING CLAIMS OF EVIDENCEBlacks Lait’ Dictionan: a basic reference for attorneys, has a definition for the term evidence. Part ofit reads as follows: “That which.., makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the .. point in issue, either onone side or the other.” Evidence may be offered in the form of othcial records, maps. drawings.objects. or testimony by witnesses,

Items A and B on this page are forms of evidence. They deal with questions surrounding PresidentKennedy’s assassination. Examine both careftill Then answer the questions at the bottom of the page.

ITEM B. In Dealev PIna, President Kennedy wasmurdered, and Governor Connally was wounded. TheWarren Commission concluded that only one shooterwas involved. To reach that conclusion, members hadto accept that one of the bullets, which was found almostintact, tore through both Kennedy and Connally in themanner shown in this drawing. The drawing is anartist’s version of the Commission’s finding, whichdid not include a diagram.

THINK IT THROUGH1. Put yourself in the place of an offIcial whose task is to

identify and bring JFK’s assassin(s) to justice. Look at ItemsA and Band decide: (a) What questions would you startwith? (h) What problems might either piece of evidenceoffer you? (c) What kinds of additional evidence would youlook Rn’? State your answers briefly.

2. In 1964. the Warren Commission concluded that onlyone assassin. Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for thedeath of President Kennedy. In 1979. the House SelectCommittee on Assassinations concluded that JFK “wasprobably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy’ Reflect orthese two findings. Then write a brief essay on whether ornot the U.S. government should open the investigation again

JFKThE Sfl)Ri mw tnVI an .w w

ITEM A. Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963. aprocession of carp entered Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas.Within seconds, two occupants in one of these cars—U.S. President John Kenneth’ and Texas Governor JohnConnally—were shot. The map below shows the routeof the motorcade. The Warren Commission. whichinvestigated the attack, concluded that all shots camefrom Point I on this map.

O Texas ScñoolBook Deaositcry

O Dallas Countycriminal countbuilding

0 Grassy knoll

O Bullet entersupper right partof JFK’s back

O Site ofpresident’s car01 time ofOssossir.a:ion

O Bullet hale onJFK’s tie knot

0 Railroadtracks

G Bullet entry holenear Connally’sright ormpit

fl RailroadaverDass tripIeunderpass)

Motorcaderoute

0 Bullet exit woundthroughConnally’s finnrib

O Bullet entry andexit wounds onConnally’s rightwrist

O Bullet entry onConnally’s leftthigh

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?• Fact or Fiction?

In historical terms, a “fact’ has been defined as “a piece of information that is

commonly accepted as true, in and of itself, requiring no flwther evidence to make it

true.” With this definition in mind and working with a partner, formulate answers to the

following questions:

1. What determines that one piece of information is factual and another is not?

2. At what point does a piece of information become a fact?

3. Is a fact always true? Do facts change over time?

4. Are there differences between facts and evidence? If so, what are they? Which

has greater credibility, facts or evidence? Why? - -.

5. Why is there disagreement over facts?

6. Arrange the following into what, in your opinion, is the correct order. Justi’

your decision. I

I conclude.

I look for evidence.

I notice.

I observe.

I wonder.

I generalize.

I evaluate.

I store knowledge.

CBC-W News in Review —51— March 1992

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?

Fact or Theory?

Fact: anything known to be thie or to have really happened; something that has or had

achial existences. (The Gage Canadian Dictionary)

Theory: an explanation based on thought or speculation, an explanatioh based dn

observation and reasoning. (The Gage Canadian Dictionary)

Below are a series of twenty statements about the Kennedy assassination. Identi& each

as being either a fact, a theory, or something else and, after doing so, compare your list

with that of another member of the class. Note and account for any discrepancies you

find. (Please note that there are details in this exercise that are not contained on the

video.)

1. There were three shots fired in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

2. Lee Haney Oswald fired at the President from the sixth floor southeast window

of the Texas School Book Depository.

3. Lee Haney Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and returned to the United

States under mysterious circumstances.

4. Lee Haney Oswald shot Dallas police officer J. I). Tippit.

5; The fatal shot, given the movement of Kennedy’s head, must have come from the

right front — that is, from the grassy knoll.

• 6. The minimum time required between shots for the rifle used by Oswald was 2.3

• seconds per shot. •.

.

7. Only one out of the five top FBI marksmen was able to fire three shots within the

required 5.6 seconds. When he did, he was unable to hit a stationary target, let

alone a moving target. . . .

8. There was a last-second, unannounced change in the motorcade’s route as it

turned right onto Houston Street and left onto Elm Street. The lead motorcycle

policeman who aused the change has never been identified.

9. Several witnesses saw smoke and men with rifles in the area of the grassy laoll

at the time of the shooting.

10. Acoustical evidnce suggests that shots came from more than one location at the

time of the shooting.

H. The so-called ‘magic bulletTM entered the upper right pan of the President’s back,

March 1992 •

.52

.

CBC-fl News in Review

exited through his neck, entered Governor Connally’s armpit, exited through the

Governor’s fifth rib, smashed his right wrist, entered his left thigh1 and was

found in almost pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkiand Hospital.

12. At the time of the assassination, the telephone system in Washington, D.C., was

hocked out.

13. Because of his connections with the Dallas police force, Jack Ruby was able to

kill Lie Haney Oswald in the basement of the police headquarters.

14. Over 130 people with sirificant information bearing on the case hive either died

under mysterious circumstances or disappeared.

15. The 1979 House subcommittee investigating assassinations concluded that there

was a conspiracy.

16. The single most important document of the assassination is the twenty-two-second

home movie taken by Abraham Zapmder.

17. Jack Ruby hew Lee Haney Oswald.

18. The picture of Lee Haney Oswald holding his rifle was doctored.

19. The autopsy results were rigged to conform with the theory of a lone assassin.

20. Although considerable circumstantial evidence exists for a conspiracy behind the

assassination, there is as yet no hard evidence to support it.

CBCW News in Review •. . —53.— ..

Marc½j9fl

C JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?

Processing Facts

The Kennedy assassination provides an intriguing case for the historical concept of

causation. According to this concept, even when people observe the same event and

examine the same set of presumed facts, they may arrive at significantly different

conclusions. How can this happen? The answer to this perplexing question involves

looking at how people process facts.

Below are a series of ways in which observers process fcts. For each, explain the

process by giving a specific example from the Kennedy assassination.

• classify

• organize

• emphasize

• select

• reject

• draw inferences

• manipulate

• distort

• create

• analyse

March 1992 — 54 —CBC-W News in Review

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?A Frame of Reference

Individuals have perceived the facts of the Kennedy assassination differently becausethey observe or have observed the events from a different position or vantage point,whether it be the actual killing or the subsequent investigations.

In observing and analysing historical facts, each of us brings with us a particular “frameof reference.’

Working in groups of three, suggest ways in which an individual might have observedor might recall the events of the Kennedy assassination from a different frame ofreference. In your discussion, consider elements such as the following:

• age of the observer

• occupation of the observer - —

• previous experience of the observer

• emotional state of the observer

• nationality of the observer

• physical location of the observer

• political affiliation of the observer

• television coverage

• radio coverage

• newspaper or magazine coverage

• source and reliability of information

• other

CBC-W News in Review —55— March 1992

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?Language as the IndicatorBelow are a series of words that are frequently used when discussing the Kennedyassassination. They may seem very similar or they may be quite different in actualmeaning. Working in small groups, proceed as follows:

1. As a group, define each word and create a sentence using the word.2. As a group, create a sentence using each word with specific reference to the

Kennedy assassination.

3. Choose a spokesperson to present your findings to the rest of the class. Observedifferences or similarities.

• conjecture • evidence • speculation• supposition • proof • thesis• theory • belief • conclusion

I• hypothesis • assumption • deduction• inference • guess • data• interpretation • opinion

(EN March 1992— 56 —

CBC-W News in Review

__

JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT?Toward Truth

Although they may use different terminology, historians and scientists, essentially usethe same method to attempt to arrive at the answer to a question.

The Historian (or Social Scientist)

Step One: The Question. The historian poses a critical question about why a certainevent occurred.

Step Two: The Hypothesis. The historian formulates a tentative answer to that questionwhich will serve as a guide to further research.

Step Three: Research. The historian researches the relevant facts from primary andsecondary sources. —

Step Four: Analysis. The historian processes the facts in a variety of ways. (See thesection “Processing Facts” on page 54.)

Step Five: Interpretation. The historian, after drawing a series of inferences from thefacts, offers a final conclusion or answer to the original question.

The Scientist (or Applied Scientist)

Step One: Observation and the Database. The scientist observes a particularphenomenon and accesses a database of what is already known about the issue.

Step Two: Hypothesis. From the database, the scientist devises a possible explanation forthe observed phenomenon, essentially asking “What it?”.

Step Three: Prediction. From the hypothesis, the scientist devises an experiment orseries of experiments to test the hypothesis and predicts the outcome.

Step Four: Experimentation. The scientist performs the experiment and measures theresults.

Step Five: Venfication. The scientist verifies if the results of the experiment allows himor her to conclude that the prediction was valid. If the results prove valid, a scientifictheory is formulated and becomes part of the existing body of knowledge.

Discussion

1. Suggest how each of the above methods of reasoning could be applied in order todetermine the facts of the Kennedy assassination. In your opinion, is one methodmore effective than the other?

CBC-W News in Review —57 — March 1992

2. Suggest how either of these two methods could be used to evaluate or critique a

film about the Kennedy assassination such as Oliver Stone’s JFK. In your

opinion, is this a valid way to critique a film?

3. What is the role of common sense in determining the facts of an event such as the

Kennedy assassination?

4. Examine the following ten principles of scientific inquiry. How is each relevant

in determining facts? Discuss each in terms of the Kennedy assassination.

Ten Principles of Scientific Inquiry

1. Objectivity. Conclusions are based only on the facts.

2. Tenra.tiveness. Conclusions are not regarded as final. Rather, they can be

modified or contradicted by the new evidence.

3. Consistency. The assumption is made that behaviour is describable in terms of

laws which have always operated in the same way.

4. Causality. Every phenomenon results from discoverable causes.

5. Parsimony. Scientists attempt to reduce their view of the world to the simplest

possible terms.

• 6. Materiality. Preference is for material and mechanical explanations, rather than

• those which depend on non-material or supernatural factors.

7. Relativeness. Scientists think of the world, and the phenomena in it, as consisting

of sets of relationships rather than absolutes.

8. Dynamism. Scientists expect nature to be dynamic rather than static.

9. Continuous Discovery. Scientists hope that it will be possible to go on learning

about the material world until eventually all may be understood.

10. Social Limitation. The social framework within which scientists operate may

determine and limit the kinds of problems with which they work, and may also

influence their conclusions.

March 1992 —58— CBC-W News in Review