RESOLVED: President Kennedy was killed as the result of a
[Continuation of my transcription of a radio debate which took
place in the Fall of 1993 between Peter Dale Scott and Gerald
Posner. Today, Mr. Scott gives his rebuttal to Mr. Posner's
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Posner. Mr. Scott, you have 6 minutes
PETER DALE SCOTT: Our audience has just heard the kind of people
that Mr. Posner believes in: The KGB and (I'll come back to this
later) Marina Oswald.
Marina Oswald, for whom, by the way, I have great compassion at
that time, was being so obviously coerced by the very people who
were interviewing her at that time, that she changed her stories
repeatedly at that time. It was quite obvious she was trying to
tell what the government wanted her to tell in order to avoid
being deported. The Warren Commission knew this, and wrote a memo
in February of 1964 saying, "Marina has repeatedly lied on
matters of serious concern to this commission." And it's very
revealing, I think, that when they knew this in February, when
they came to write their report in June and July, they had such
trouble linking Oswald to the gun and to the act of shooting
*anyone* -- let alone General Walker -- that they had to rely on
the testimony of a liar. And uh so, unfortunately, does Mr.
Mr. Posner believes in the KGB. Let me tell you, the readers,
that he believes even more in the CIA. And, in fact, [he] tells
us that he got certain things from the CIA. He says, for example,
Mr. George De Mohrenschildt (a friend of Oswald's with obvious
intelligence background -- although he had other aspects to his
background as well), he says, "had no intelligence connection to
the CIA." How do we know? Mr. Posner says, "Because the CIA has
told us so."
But if Mr. Posner would do what I do, which is to look at the
documents, he would see that despite what he [De Mohrenschildt]
told people, when he left Dallas in '63, he went to Washington.
He took part in a meeting with CIA agents and more importantly,
Army Intelligence agents, before going to Haiti as a business...
whatever it was... but certainly *about* Haiti. Since then, a CIA
contract agent has said it was about the overthrow of the
government in Haiti. And this is the sort of thing you won't find
in Mr. Posner's book.
I object very much to that long quote from my book, which was
about how many *enemies* Kennedy had in 1963. I certainly did not
say that they all killed the President. I said on the contrary
that... You know, so many people think that I'm saying the
President was killed because of his Vietnam policy. And I was
trying, on the contrary, to "open it out," to say that there were
many coalitions that were angry with Kennedy in 1963 -- the joint
chiefs and the military being an important one. But organized
crime, the teamsters, (and you've heard the list) also... But I'm
certainly not saying that they all killed the President. I'm
saying don't *misread* me to think that I have named the killers.
And I said, in fact, at the beginning of the book, Mr. Posner (if
you'd started on page 1), that I do *not* in this book try to say
who the killers are!
So now, finally, General Walker... I have written about General
Walker in all of my preceding books. And the bullets that you and
I have both talked about -- which were too mangled to be
identified in April when it was shot at General Walker, but
somehow has become identifiable in November of 1963 and was
identified as having been shot from Lee Harvey Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano [Italian rifle]. You didn't mention, Mr.
Posner, that (I hope I get this the right way around), that in
April it had been identified as copper-jacketed but by the time
it was November it was now steel-jacketed. So that that bullet is
just one example of the kind of things that "happened" to
evidence that were kept in the hands of the Dallas police or
later, in the FBI, and which are, for me, a major part of the
case that this was a conspiracy involving people both outside the
government shooting the President, and also people inside the
government guaranteeing an absolutely sure-fire case. That the
truth would be so explosive and the "phase 1" stories, as I call
them, of communist conspiracy would be so threatening for an
unnecessary war, that all kinds of people would be coerced to
accept what I call the "phase 2" story -- that Oswald acted
alone. A story equally false, but not as likely to lead to the
death, unnecessary death, of thousands of lives.
So, it is true that you focus on the life of Oswald. I believe if
you were to write a book about the murder of Trotsky, you would
probably write a whole book about the character and the
personality defects of the gunman who killed Trotsky! But surely
it's important to go *back* from the case and look at the links
between that gunman and Stalin back in Moscow.
And I'm not, I think by nature, someone who begins with a
conspiracy theory. But having looked for so long at the Kennedy
assassination -- and particularly at the anomalies in the
relationship between Oswald and the FBI, between Ruby and the
Dallas police, and then the concerted effort to say that these
people were "loners" when if we know *anything*, that's exactly
what they weren't. That we absolutely are forced to look beyond
the personality of Oswald in this case, and try to fit
together... And it's more than a conspiracy. It isn't a lot of
people who could have been identified, it's a...
[Moderator interrupts and tells Mr. Scott that his 6 minutes have
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Posner, you have 6 minutes
for your rebuttal.
(to be continued)