The accident theory of JFK's shooting

Submitted by James Guest (Australia), Nov 22, 2013 at 14:14

Daniel: we met when I drove you to dinner with C and MI V on one of your journeys in which you may have met Paul Monk, former spook and authority on China inter alia. He wrote an op-ed which was very dismissive of the idea recently resurrected in book and film that the bullet which killed JFK was accidentally fired from the gun held by a Secret Service driver who wasn't driving but standing in for hung over gun carrying Secret Service types in the car immediately behind JFK's. But the TV film I saw was very convincing if one believed the evidence about the nature of the bullets (Oswald's second passed straight through Kennedy and a bit of Connally whereas the one that hit his head was obviously a fragmenting type of bullet) and the loss/destruction/suppression of photographs and other material relating to the injuries. The fact that three bullet casings were found where Oswald had been was explained by saying the first was simply one which ensured that pulling the trigger wouldn't actually fire anything until the shooter was ready to fire live ammunition. It was ejected before the first fireable bullet was placed, by bolt action, into the breach.

This may all be nonsense but it made perfect sense, and, equally to the point, it made perfect sense of the very natural coverup by the Secret Service, maybe the FBI and CIA, maybe by Bobby Kennedy, certainly by the counsel to the Warren Commission, maybe by the Commission itself. After all there was no great public interest in having the real truth (if that was the truth) made public rather than the single shooter no conspiracy verdict of the Warren Commission. The Secret Service incompetence and ill-discipline, unfortunately believable, didn't need to be put on public display.

So, would you please give your opinion Daniel.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".