What do you think?
Rate this book
Who killed Kennedy?
Kennedy Assassination
160 pages, Mass Market Paperback
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 28, 2015
Here it is. The very first, in what has become a never ending list of publications of this genre. 'Who Killed Kennedy?' grew from a series of articles that Buchanan wrote after the assassination for a French newspaper L'Expess. (He worked in France because as an American he was unable to work in the U.S. on account of his being a communist.) His report was presented to the Warren Commission, after a meeting with Howard Willens. L'Express also arranged for Buchanan to meet with Edward Kennedy, but the Senator palmed him off to Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. The complete report was published by Secker & Warburg in London in May of 1964, the very first conspiracy book just six months after Dallas and months before the release of the Warren Report. It was largely ignored in the U.S. (Noticing there are no readers or reviewers of this book on Goodreads today, it remains ignored.) I have acquired a first edition hardback copy in good condition.
So...'Who Killed Kennedy?' Just six months after the assassination, Buchanan's two hundred page thesis is almost as rapid as the Dallas Police Department's arrest of Oswald or J. Edgar Hoover's closure of the investigation. There are many facts that this author was not aware of in 1964 and other details that he presents that are just plain wrong, with his theories built on assumptions and logical thinking. Yet, following his lines of common sense, he does arrive at many opinions that remain even today, close to the mark.
He contends that Oswald knew Ruby and the latter paid the four hundred plus dollars that Oswald owed the government for his repatriation expenses after returning from the USSR! Did he obtain this snippet from his meeting with Willens?
Buchanan was also first in suggesting that Tippit was part of the conspiracy, that Oswald had links to U.S. intelligence agencies, that the Military Industrial Complex was the impetus behind the killing and H.L. Hunt managed the Dallas end of the operation.
Working alone, and in Europe, it has to be said that this writer offers a more realistic solution than the entire government commission came up with.
So...'Who Killed Kennedy?' Just six months after the assassination, Buchanan's two hundred page thesis is almost as rapid as the Dallas Police Department's arrest of Oswald or J. Edgar Hoover's closure of the investigation. There are many facts that this author was not aware of in 1964 and other details that he presents that are just plain wrong, with his theories built on assumptions and logical thinking. Yet, following his lines of common sense, he does arrive at many opinions that remain even today, close to the mark.
He contends that Oswald knew Ruby and the latter paid the four hundred plus dollars that Oswald owed the government for his repatriation expenses after returning from the USSR! Did he obtain this snippet from his meeting with Willens?
Buchanan was also first in suggesting that Tippit was part of the conspiracy, that Oswald had links to U.S. intelligence agencies, that the Military Industrial Complex was the impetus behind the killing and H.L. Hunt managed the Dallas end of the operation.
Working alone, and in Europe, it has to be said that this writer offers a more realistic solution than the entire government commission came up with.
May 15, 2024
WERE TEXAS OILMEN BEHIND THE CONSPIRACY TO KILL JFK AND FRAME OSWALD?
Author Thomas G. Buchanan wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ of this 1964 book, “The major part of the report you are about to read … was filed in Washington in March, 1964, with the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy… This action was taken at the request of a staff member of that Commission, Howard P. Willens. Discussion of the case with a Commission representative followed an interview of more than an hour with … [the then-] Deputy Attorney General of the United States… This interview was arranged by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the President’s younger brother.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “If the suspect [Oswald] in this case had lived, the prosecutor would have had to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a Russian-trained, pro-Castro and pro-Communist assassin felt that the death of Kennedy would benefit the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution. Could a prosecutor prove it? Nowhere but in the United States could such a charge be made without provoking general derision. The most anti-Communist of Europe and realize the death of Kennedy was more mourned in Moscow than in any other foreign capital, if only for the fact that leaders of the Soviet Union staked their whole political careers upon the chance of a détente with the United States…” (Pg. 14)
He asserts, “I believe it can be confidently stated that, if Oswald had been brought to trial, not just in Dallas, but in any other city in America, he could have been convicted---but on one condition. Oswald would have been convicted only if he had been innocent. But what if he were guilty? What if Oswald knew exactly how the crime had happened? That would be more risky.” (Pg. 21)
He states, “To those citizens who, in their innocence, believe Jack Ruby’s version of the motives that impelled him, I can only urge them to return to reading comic books, for history will merely bore them. It is history which we must now consult, however, for the argument advanced by those who think Oswald was crazy is essentially that in all previous assassinations which have taken place in the United States, the President’s assassin was a madman.” (Pg. 25)
He contends, “If Lee Harvey Oswald were alive today… no one would be calling him insane except, perhaps, his own defense attorney…The same people who are now insisting he was crazy would have been the first… to demand that he be punished as a same man for premeditated murder… And when an investigating agency declares that it can find no motive for the President’s assassination but the murderer’s insanity, it does not mean that no such motive can be found. It means, perhaps, that the investigation was a failure. We have earned the right, now, to demand of any explanation of the President’s assassination that it be consistent… The contention that the flaws in an hypothesis can be explained by blandly stating that the individual responsible for the assassination was himself irrational can be rejected.” (Pg. 58-59)
He argues, “The shots came from two directions: their trajectory refutes the speculation that one shot hit both men; and no single marksman could have fired so quickly. There are … compelling reasons to reject the thesis that a lone assassin, posted on the sixth floor, killed the President unaided. There is evidence, moreover, that Les Oswald was not either of the two assassins, He did not possess the skill to fire the weapon with the accuracy that was demonstrated.” (Pg. 76) Later, he adds, “It is doubtful if a single man exists who could have fired this weapon with the skill required. But if the feat is possible it is, in the opinion of the experts, a superlative performance which requires one of the world’s best marksmen. (Pg. 80)
He explains, “Oswald’s total innocence is not, as yet, excluded. Two men… came into the sixth-floor stockroom of the book depository … There is no proof that Lee Oswald was there, although I am very much inclined to think he was. Of the various eyewitnesses who said they saw a figure on the sixth floor … there is not one who was positively able to identify Les Oswald. But if facts not heretofore disclosed confirm his presence, it is clear … that his role was that of an accomplice. Who was the assassin?... this man was probably in a profession where he was …engaged in frequent target practice. We may also say that the profession fiving him free access to the building at this time… would be that of a policeman.” (Pg. 87-88)
He suggests, “It seems clear that if someone in the Police Department gave the order to arrest Les Oswald, or a man with an identical description, prior to the Tippit murder, this policeman knew Oswald’s role in the conspiracy already---and such knowledge was available to no one at that time except his fellow plotters. If this is the case, then the police official with this guilty knowledge is Accomplice Five, and … he is the most important.” (Pg. 100)
After Oswald’s arrest, “It must… have become apparent to him that his friends had double-crossed him, and each hour that he lived thereafter, the conspirators whom he was able to identify knew that their own lives were increasingly in danger. Oswald, by this time, was openly insisting on his right to see a lawyer… Yet, for two days of persistent questioning, this right… was relentlessly denied him. It would not be possible to keep this up much longer.” (Pg. 108)
He argues, “It would be a brave man… who would go into the state of Texas and proclaim himself to be a Marxist, which is what Lee Oswald did---a brave man, and a most imprudent one, unless he had somebody to protect him. And of all the cities in the state of Texas, the last place a radical would go to, looking for a job, was Dallas, unless he already had a job. That is the clue for which we have been looking. Oswald was not, at this time, what he professed to be---a Marxist---and there is good reason to suppose he never was.” (Pg. 119-120)
He suggests, “But there is a new trend dominant in Texas since the end of World War II: expansion into other industries than oil… What are the elements in Dallas which might lead to trouble for the two great industries---oil and defense---on which the area’s economy depends? … For the oilmen, the response is clear---it would be anyone who contemplated a reduction of their tax exemption… Who, then, was the chief threat to the Dallas oilmen? It must be apparent that their greatest enemy, in their opinion, was the President himself.” (Pg. 140-142) He adds, “That financial backing could be found in Dallas for the President’s assassination is a possibility which cannot be excluded.” (Pg. 147)
He concludes, “Have you any evidence of this conspiracy? I have been asked. I have. It is the evidence presented by the President’s Commission. For to prove conspiracy in this assassination, it is not essential to find witnesses who saw two men fire rifles. It suffices to provide the proof that one man could not have accomplished the assassination without help. I base my case upon the [Warren Commission Report]… I do not believe this case is closed. I do not think it will be, until some more satisfying answer has been given to the question which aroused the world: Why was the President of the United States assassinated? I believe we do his memory no service in pretending no one but a lonely madman could have wished him dead… It must never be forgotten that he went to Dallas to combat these men, to tell the people of that city, of the nation and the world beyond that peace was not a sign of weakness.” (Pg. 159-160)
This early book will appeal to JFK ‘conspiracy’ fans.
Author Thomas G. Buchanan wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ of this 1964 book, “The major part of the report you are about to read … was filed in Washington in March, 1964, with the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy… This action was taken at the request of a staff member of that Commission, Howard P. Willens. Discussion of the case with a Commission representative followed an interview of more than an hour with … [the then-] Deputy Attorney General of the United States… This interview was arranged by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the President’s younger brother.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “If the suspect [Oswald] in this case had lived, the prosecutor would have had to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a Russian-trained, pro-Castro and pro-Communist assassin felt that the death of Kennedy would benefit the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution. Could a prosecutor prove it? Nowhere but in the United States could such a charge be made without provoking general derision. The most anti-Communist of Europe and realize the death of Kennedy was more mourned in Moscow than in any other foreign capital, if only for the fact that leaders of the Soviet Union staked their whole political careers upon the chance of a détente with the United States…” (Pg. 14)
He asserts, “I believe it can be confidently stated that, if Oswald had been brought to trial, not just in Dallas, but in any other city in America, he could have been convicted---but on one condition. Oswald would have been convicted only if he had been innocent. But what if he were guilty? What if Oswald knew exactly how the crime had happened? That would be more risky.” (Pg. 21)
He states, “To those citizens who, in their innocence, believe Jack Ruby’s version of the motives that impelled him, I can only urge them to return to reading comic books, for history will merely bore them. It is history which we must now consult, however, for the argument advanced by those who think Oswald was crazy is essentially that in all previous assassinations which have taken place in the United States, the President’s assassin was a madman.” (Pg. 25)
He contends, “If Lee Harvey Oswald were alive today… no one would be calling him insane except, perhaps, his own defense attorney…The same people who are now insisting he was crazy would have been the first… to demand that he be punished as a same man for premeditated murder… And when an investigating agency declares that it can find no motive for the President’s assassination but the murderer’s insanity, it does not mean that no such motive can be found. It means, perhaps, that the investigation was a failure. We have earned the right, now, to demand of any explanation of the President’s assassination that it be consistent… The contention that the flaws in an hypothesis can be explained by blandly stating that the individual responsible for the assassination was himself irrational can be rejected.” (Pg. 58-59)
He argues, “The shots came from two directions: their trajectory refutes the speculation that one shot hit both men; and no single marksman could have fired so quickly. There are … compelling reasons to reject the thesis that a lone assassin, posted on the sixth floor, killed the President unaided. There is evidence, moreover, that Les Oswald was not either of the two assassins, He did not possess the skill to fire the weapon with the accuracy that was demonstrated.” (Pg. 76) Later, he adds, “It is doubtful if a single man exists who could have fired this weapon with the skill required. But if the feat is possible it is, in the opinion of the experts, a superlative performance which requires one of the world’s best marksmen. (Pg. 80)
He explains, “Oswald’s total innocence is not, as yet, excluded. Two men… came into the sixth-floor stockroom of the book depository … There is no proof that Lee Oswald was there, although I am very much inclined to think he was. Of the various eyewitnesses who said they saw a figure on the sixth floor … there is not one who was positively able to identify Les Oswald. But if facts not heretofore disclosed confirm his presence, it is clear … that his role was that of an accomplice. Who was the assassin?... this man was probably in a profession where he was …engaged in frequent target practice. We may also say that the profession fiving him free access to the building at this time… would be that of a policeman.” (Pg. 87-88)
He suggests, “It seems clear that if someone in the Police Department gave the order to arrest Les Oswald, or a man with an identical description, prior to the Tippit murder, this policeman knew Oswald’s role in the conspiracy already---and such knowledge was available to no one at that time except his fellow plotters. If this is the case, then the police official with this guilty knowledge is Accomplice Five, and … he is the most important.” (Pg. 100)
After Oswald’s arrest, “It must… have become apparent to him that his friends had double-crossed him, and each hour that he lived thereafter, the conspirators whom he was able to identify knew that their own lives were increasingly in danger. Oswald, by this time, was openly insisting on his right to see a lawyer… Yet, for two days of persistent questioning, this right… was relentlessly denied him. It would not be possible to keep this up much longer.” (Pg. 108)
He argues, “It would be a brave man… who would go into the state of Texas and proclaim himself to be a Marxist, which is what Lee Oswald did---a brave man, and a most imprudent one, unless he had somebody to protect him. And of all the cities in the state of Texas, the last place a radical would go to, looking for a job, was Dallas, unless he already had a job. That is the clue for which we have been looking. Oswald was not, at this time, what he professed to be---a Marxist---and there is good reason to suppose he never was.” (Pg. 119-120)
He suggests, “But there is a new trend dominant in Texas since the end of World War II: expansion into other industries than oil… What are the elements in Dallas which might lead to trouble for the two great industries---oil and defense---on which the area’s economy depends? … For the oilmen, the response is clear---it would be anyone who contemplated a reduction of their tax exemption… Who, then, was the chief threat to the Dallas oilmen? It must be apparent that their greatest enemy, in their opinion, was the President himself.” (Pg. 140-142) He adds, “That financial backing could be found in Dallas for the President’s assassination is a possibility which cannot be excluded.” (Pg. 147)
He concludes, “Have you any evidence of this conspiracy? I have been asked. I have. It is the evidence presented by the President’s Commission. For to prove conspiracy in this assassination, it is not essential to find witnesses who saw two men fire rifles. It suffices to provide the proof that one man could not have accomplished the assassination without help. I base my case upon the [Warren Commission Report]… I do not believe this case is closed. I do not think it will be, until some more satisfying answer has been given to the question which aroused the world: Why was the President of the United States assassinated? I believe we do his memory no service in pretending no one but a lonely madman could have wished him dead… It must never be forgotten that he went to Dallas to combat these men, to tell the people of that city, of the nation and the world beyond that peace was not a sign of weakness.” (Pg. 159-160)
This early book will appeal to JFK ‘conspiracy’ fans.
November 13, 2018
Keď som túto knihu objavil dávno-pradávno v 80. rokoch v antikvariáte, hneď som po nej skočil ... O JFK sa veľmi v tej dobe nehovorilo a bol som prekvapený, že len rok po atentáte vyšla v bleskovom prekladu táto kniha aj u nás. Prekladateľ si síce neodpustil zaliečajúci text na záložke knihy, ale to bola zrejme daň za to, že tá kniha vôbec vyšla. Spomínam si na roky 70-te, keď som sa rodičova asi ako desaťročný pýtal, ako to bolo s tým Kennedym. Mama mi povedala, že je t zahalené rúškou tajomstva, ale v roku 2000 sa majú všetky dokumenty odtajniť. ... Márne som čakal do roku 2000 .... nič sa neodtajnilo. ;)
September 16, 2021
Outdated, but first of its genre, with some relevant insights. Not sure what the truth is, but count me among those who believe we don't know the whole story
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews