|
Volume
IV TESTIMONY
OF GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.
Governor, this Commission has met today for the purpose of taking the
testimony of you and Mrs. Connally concerning the sad affair that you were part
of. If you will raise your right hand, please, and be sworn. Do you solemnly
swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the
truth, the whole truth, and. nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Governor CONNALLY. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, Governor.
Mr. Specter will conduct the examination.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?
Governor CONNALLY. John Bowden Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your official position with the State of
Governor CONNALLY. I am now Governor of the State of
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to be in the automobile which carried
President John F. Kennedy through Dallas,
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly, please, the circumstances leading
up to the President's planning a trip to
Governor CONNALLY. You want to go back to--how far back do you want to
129 Page
130 go,
a few days immediately prior to the trip or a month before, or all of the
circumstances surrounding it?
Mr. SPECTER. Well, just a very brief picture leading up to the trip,
Governor, starting with whatever point you think would be most appropriate to
give some outline of the origin of the trip.
Governor CONNALLY. Well, it had been thought that
he should come to
So I came up, I have forgotten the exact date, around the middle of
October and talked to him about it, discussed the details, asked him what he
would like to do.
He said he would like to do whatever he could do that was agreeable with
me; it was agreeable with me that he more or less trust me to plan the trip for
him, to tell him where he would like to go.
About that time some thought was being given to having four fundraising
dinners. His attitude on that was he
wouldn't prefer that. He felt that
the appearances would not be too good, that he would much prefer to have one if
we were going to have any. I told
him this was entirely consistent with my own thoughts.
We ought not to have more than one fundraising dinner.
If we did, it ought to be in
He, on his own, had made a commitment to go to the dinner for Congressman
Albert Thomas, which was being given the night of the 21st in Houston, so
shortly, really before he got there, and when I say shortly I would say 2 weeks
before he came, the plans were altered a little bit in that he landed originally
in San Antonio in the afternoon about 1:30 of the afternoon of the 21st.
From there we went to
After that we flew to
Mr. SPECTER. In what vehicle did you fly from
Governor CONNALLY. In Air Force 1.
Mr. SPECTER. And approximately what time did you arrive at
Governor CONNALLY. I would say about 11:50, 12:00, shortly before noon.
I believe the luncheon was planned for 12:30, and we were running on
schedule. I believe it was 11:50.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for us briefly the ceremonies at Love
Field on the arrival of the President?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, we, as usual, the President had a receiving line
there. I conducted Mrs. Kennedy
through the receiving line and introduced her to about 15 or 17 people who were
there as an official welcoming committee.
The President came right behind, was introduced to them, and then he and
Mrs. Kennedy both went over to the railing and spoke to a number of people who
were standing around, who visited for 5 or 10 minutes, and then we got into the
car as we had customarily done at each of the stops, and Mrs. Connally and I got
on the jump seats, and with the President and Mrs. Kennedy on the back seat, and
took off for the long motorcade downtown.
Mr. SPECTER. I will now hand you a photograph which I have marked
"Commission Exhibit 697," Governor Connally, and ask you if that
accurately depicts the occupants of the car as you were starting that motorcade
trip through Dallas?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it does.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the identities of the men who are riding in the
front seat of the car?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes. Roy
Kellerman is on the right front. He
is a Secret Service agent, and Bill--I can't remember the other's name----
Mr. SPECTER. Greer.
130 Page
131
I hand you another photograph here, Governor, marked as "Commission
Exhibit 698," and ask you if that is a picture of the President's
automobile during its ride through the downtown area of
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I assume it is.
This is certainly the President's automobile, and this is the precise
position that each of us occupied in the ride through
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I move at this time the admission
into evidence of Exhibits 697 and 698?
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.
(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 697 and 698 were received in
evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. What was the relative height of the Jump seats, Governor,
with respect to the seat of the President and Mrs. Kennedy immediately to your
rear?
Governor CONNALLY. They were somewhat lower.
The back seat of that particular
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know for certain whether or not the movable back seat
was elevated at the time?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I could not be sure of it, although I know there
were---there was a time or two when he did elevate it, and I think beyond
question on most of the ride in San Antonio, Forth Worth, Houston, and Dallas,
it was elevated. For a while
the reason I know is--I sat on the back seat with him during part of the
ride, particularly in
Mr. SPECTER. Was the portion elevated, that where only the President sat?
Governor CONNALLY. No: the entire back seat.
Mr. SPECTER. Describe in a general way the size and reaction of the crowd
on the motorcade route, if you would, please, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. When we got into
Part way downtown, in the thinly populated areas of
But as we, of course, approached downtown, the downtown area of
The further you went the more enthusiastic the response was, and the
reception. It was a tremendous reception, to the point where just as we turned
on
So I would say the reception that he got in Dallas was equal to, if not
more, enthusiastic than those he had received in Fort Worth, San Antonio, and
Houston.
131 Page
132
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conversations which stand out in your
mind on the portion of the motorcade trip through
Governor CONNALLY. No; actually we had more or less. desultory
conversation as we rode along. The crowds were thick all the way down on both
sides, and all of us were, particularly the President and Mrs. Kennedy were,
acknowledging the crowds. They
would turn frequently, smiling, waving to the people, and the opportunity for
conversation was limited. So there was no particularly significant conversation
or conversations Which took place. It
was, as I say, pretty desultory conversation.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the automobile stop at any point during this procession?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it did. There were at least two occasions on
which the automobile stopped in
At another point along the route, a Sister, a Catholic nun, was there,
obviously from a Catholic school, with a bunch of little children, and he
stopped and spoke to her and to the children; and I think there was one other
stop on the way downtown, but I don't recall the precise occasion.
But I know there were two, but I think there was still another one.
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other events prior to the time of the shooting
itself which stand out in your mind on the motorcade trip through
Governor CONNALLY. No; not that have any particular significance.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the comment which Mrs. Connally had made to President
Kennedy which you just described, where on the motor trip was that comment made,
if you recall?
Governor CONNALLY. This was just before we turned on
Mr. SPECTER. Onto
Governor CONNALLY. Onto Houston, right by the courthouse before we turned
left onto Elm Street, almost at the end of the motorcade, and almost, I would
say, perhaps a minute before the fatal shooting.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the condition of the crowd at that juncture of the
motorcade, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. At that particular juncture, when she made this
remark, the crowd was still very thick and very enthusiastic.
It began to thin immediately after we turned onto
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difficulty in hearing such a conversational
comment?
Governor CONNALLY. No, no; we could talk without any, and hear very
clearly, without any difficulty, without any particular strain.
We didn't do it again because in trying to carry on a conversation it
would be apparent to those who were the spectators on the sidewalk, and we
didn't want to leave the impression we were not interested in them, and so we
just didn't carry on a conversation, but we could do so without any trouble.
Mr. SPECTER. As the automobile turned left onto Elm from
Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200
feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the
Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and,
as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we
were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned
on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot.
I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right
132 Page
133 shoulder,
so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual
except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner
of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I
identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed
my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn.
I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span
between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in
the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time.
Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line,
I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot.
I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the
thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three
people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the
rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I
had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in
fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been
fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I
just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of
course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all
the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded,
and I heard the shot very clearly. I
heard it hit him. I heard the shot
hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit
anybody but the President. I heard
it hit. It was a very loud noise,
just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the
interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I
immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one
chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not
see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots,
but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.
I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no."
And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----
Mr. SPECTER. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. Mrs. Connally. When
she pulled me over into her lap, she could tell I was still breathing and
moving, and she said, "Don't worry, Be quiet.
You are going to be all right."
She Just kept telling me I was going to be all right.
After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver,
"Bill, get out of line." And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was
moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said,
"Get us to a hospital quick." I
assumed he was saying this to the patrolman, the motorcycle police who were
leading us.
At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the
line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we got to
the hospital.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked
Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza depicting the
intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would take a look at that
photograph and mark for us, if you would, with one of the red pencils at your
right, the position of the President's automobile as nearly as you can where it
was at the time the shooting first started.
Governor CONNALLY. I would say it would be about where this truck is
here. It looks like a truck. I would
say about in that neighborhood.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that
you made there?
133 Page
134
Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot.
Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the
first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as
the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to
say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds.
It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was
firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the
shots; a very short period of time.
Mr. SPECTER. What was your impression then as to the source of the shot?
Governor CONNALLY. From back over my right shoulder which, again, was
where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as coming
back over my right-shoulder.
Mr. SPECTER. At an elevation?
Governor CONNALLY. At an elevation. I
would have guessed at an elevation.
Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me.
Governor CONNALLY. Well, that
is all.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an
impression as to the source of the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. The same.
I would say the same.
Mr. SPECTER. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that
time?
Governor CONNALLY. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and it
is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say in that
range.
Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of
the shooting or immediately prior thereto?
Governor CONNALLY. He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.
Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I have to--I would say it was after the third
shot when she said, "They have killed my husband."
Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have
got his brains in my hand."
Mr. SPECTER. Did that constitute everything that she said at that time?
Governor CONNALLY. That is all I heard her say.
Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Connally say anything further at this time?
Governor CONNALLY. All she said to me was, after I was hit when she
pulled me over in her lap, she said, "Be quiet, you are going to be all
right. Be still, you are going to be
all right." She just kept repeating that.
Mr. SPECTER. Was anything further stated by Special Agent Roy Kellerman
other than that which you have already testified about?
Governor CONNALLY. No; those are the only two remarks that I heard him
make.
Mr. SPECTER. Was any statement made by Special Agent William Greer at or
about the time of the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not hear Bill say anything.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after the
shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the
shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her.
This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with
them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot
first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of
course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look
into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never
completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing
started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over
into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I
could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into
the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.
134 Page
135
Mr. SPECTER. When you turned to your right. Governor Connally,
immediately after you heard the first shot. what did you see on that occasion?
Governor CONNALLY. Nothing of any significance except just people out on
the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw
men, women, and children.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any estimate as to the distance which the
President's automobile traveled during the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I hadn't thought about it, but I would suppose in
10 to 12 seconds, I suppose you travel a couple of hundred feet.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike the
windshield?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike the
metal chrome?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you experience any sensation of being struck any place
other than that which you have described on your chest?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. What other wounds, if any, did you sustain?
Governor CONNALLY. A fractured wrist and a wound in the thigh, just above
the knee.
Mr. SPECTER. What thigh?
Governor CONNALLY. Left thigh; just above the knee.
Mr. SPECTER. Where on the wrist were you injured, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. I don't know how you describe it.
Mr. SPECTER. About how many inches up from the wrist joint?
Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the
inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out almost in the
center of the wrist on the underside.
Mr. SPECTER. About an inch from the base of the palm?
Governor CONNALLY. About an inch from the base of the palm, a little less
than an inch, three-quarters of an inch.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you conscious of receiving that wound on the wrist at
the time you sustained it?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; I was not.
Mr. SPECTER. When did you first know you were wounded in the right wrist?
Governor CONNALLY. When I came to in the hospital on Saturday, the next
morning, and I looked up and my arm was tied up in a hospital bed, and I said,
"What is wrong with my arm?" And they told me then that I had a
shattered wrist, and that is when I also found out I had a wound in the thigh.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the nature of the wound in the thigh?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, just a raw, open wound, looked like a fairly
deep penetration.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 inches?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I would say about an inch, an inch and a quarter
long is all; fairly wide, I would say a quarter of an inch wide, maybe more, a
third of an inch wide, and about an inch and a quarter, an inch and a half long.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you conscious that you had been wounded on the left
thigh at the time it occurred?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you first notice that in the hospital on the following
day also?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest,
Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably
have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first
place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any
rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound
of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had
reached
135 Page
136 that
far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start
to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first
bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet,
which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.
I didn't hear but two shots. I think
I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second
shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling
faster than the sound. I was hit by
the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state
of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I
was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through
the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot.
Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot
was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of
it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not
have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the exit wound on the front side of
your chest, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. I would say, if the Committee would be interested, I
would just as soon you look at it. Is
there any objection to any of you looking at it?
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Governor CONNALLY. You can tell yourself.
I would say, to describe it for the record, however, that it, the bullet,
went in my back just below the right shoulder blade, at just about the point
that the right arm joins the shoulder, right in that groove, and exited about 2
inches toward the center of the body from the right nipple of my chest.
I can identify these for you.
The bullet went in here see
if I properly describe that--about the juncture of the right arm and the
shoulder.
Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show that the Governor has removed his shirt
and we can view the wound on the back which he is pointing toward.
Governor CONNALLY. The other two are tubes that were inserted in my back
by the doctors.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw is present and he can, perhaps, describe with
identifiable precision where the wounds are.
Dr. SHAW. There is the wound of the drain that has been specifically
described. It was not as large as
the scar indicated because in cleaning up the ragged edges of the wound, some of
the skin was excised in order to make a cleaner incision. This scar--- -
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the location, Doctor, of that wound on the
Governor's back?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is on the
right shoulder, I will feel it, just lateral to the shoulder blade, the edge of
which is about 2 centimeters from the wound, and just above and slightly medial
to the crease formed by the axilla or the armpit, the arm against the chest
wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What other scars are shown there on the Governor's back?
Dr. SHAW. The other scars are surgically induced.
This is the incision that was made to drain the depth of the subscapular
space.
Mr. SPECTER. And there you are indicating an incision at what location,
please?
Dr. SHAW. Just at the angle of the shoulder blade.
Here is the angle of the shoulder blade.
These incisions were never closed by suture.
These incisions were left open and they healed by what we call secondary
intention, because in this case there was what we call a Penrose drain, which is
a soft-rubber drain going up into the depths of the shoulder to allow any
material to drain. This was to
prevent infection. The other small
opening was the one in which the tube was placed through the eighth interspace.
136 Page
137
Mr. SPECTER. Indicate its location, please, Doctor, on his back.
Dr. SHAW. This is lower on the right back in what we refer to as the
posterior axillary line, roughly this line.
Mr. SPECTER. There you are drawing a vertical, virtually vertical line?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is on the
right back, but getting close to the lateral portion of the chest.
This also was a stab wound which was never sutured. There was a rubber
drain through this that led to what we call a water seal bottle to allow for
drainage of the inside of the chest.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating again the second medically inflicted wound.
Dr. SHAW. Yes; that is right.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now, Doctor, describe the location of the wound of
exit on the Governor's chest, please?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. The wound of
exit was beneath and medial to the nipple. Here was this V that I was
indicating. It is almost opposite
that At the time of the wound there
was a ragged oval hole here at least 5 centimeters in diameter, but the skin
edges were. excised, and here again this scar does not look quite as nice as it
does during the more lateral portion of the surgically induced incision, because
this skin was brought together under a little tension, and there is a little
separation there.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the entire scar there, Doctor, for the
record, please?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. The entire
surgical incision runs from the anterior portion of the chest just lateral to
the, we call it, the condral arch, the V formed by the condral arch, and then
extends laterally below the nipple, running up, curving up, into the posterior
axillary portion or the posterior lateral wall of the chest.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the total length of the scar, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. Twenty centimeters,
about.
Mr. DULLES. Where was the center of the bullet wound itself in that scar
about?
Dr. SHAW. Here.
Mr. DULLES. There?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. All of the
rest of this incision was necessary to gain access to the depths of the wound
for the debridement, for removing all of the destroyed tissue because of the
passage of the bullet.
Mr. DULLES. Would you give us in your hand the area of declination from
the entry to the----
Dr. SHAW. This way.
Mr, DULLES. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the
horizontal, and I would say--you don't have a caliper there, do you?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Dr. SHAW. I was going to guess somewhere between 25° and 30°.
Mr. DULLES. Sorry to ask these questions.
Governor CONNALLY. That is fine. I
think it is an excellent question.
Dr. SHAW. Well, this puts it right at 25°.
Mr. SPECTER. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring it?
Dr. SHAW. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the
posterior wound over the anterior wound.
The CHAIRMAN. The course being downward back to front?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. Back to front.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Dr. SHAW. At the time of the initial examination, as I described, this
portion of the Governor's chest was mobile, it was moving in and out because of
the softening of the chest, and that was the reason I didn't want the skin
incision to be directly over that, because to get better healing it is better to
have a firm pad of tissue rather than having the incision directly over the
softened area.
Mr. DULLES. Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were
seated now the way he was in the chair?
Dr. SHAW. That is a good question. Of course, we don't know exactly
whether
137 Page
138 he
was back or tipped forward. But I
don't think there is going to be much difference.
Mr. DULLES. Were you seated in about that way, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles, I would say I was in about this position
when I was hit, with my face approximately looking toward you, 20° off of
center.
Dr. SHAW. Yes; I got 27°. That
didn't make much difference.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that reading taken then while the Governor is in a seated
position, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. Yes, seated; yes.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
How would his hand have been under those circumstances, Doctor, for the
bullet to hit his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. I think it fits very well, really, remembering at the other
end the trajectory is right here, and there would be no problem to pose his
hands in that fashion, and if you will note, you can see it best from over here
really, because you did see that the point of entry, and you can visualize his
thigh, there is no problem to visualize the trajectory.
Mr. DULLES. Would you be naturally holding your hand in that position?
Dr. GREGORY. It could be any place.
Governor CONNALLY. It could be anywhere on that line, Mr. Dulles. Mr.
Chief Justice, you see this is the leg.
Dr. SHAW. Of course, the wound is much smaller than this.
Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show the Governor has displayed the left
thigh showing the scar caused by the entry of the missile in the left thigh.
Dr. Gregory, will you describe the locale of that?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes. This scar,
excisional scar, is a better term, if I may just interject that----
Mr. SPECTER. Please do.
Dr. GREGORY. The excisional scar to the Governor's thigh is located at a
point approximately 10 or 12 centimeters above the adductor tubercule of the
femur, placing it at the juncture of the middle and distal third of his thigh.
Mr. SPECTER. In lay language, Doctor, about how far is that up from the
knee area?
Dr. GREGORY. Five inches, 6 inches.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, can you recreate the position that you
were sitting in in the automobile, as best you can recollect, at the time you
think you were struck?
Governor CONNALLY. I think, having turned to look over my right shoulder,
then revolving to look over my left shoulder, I threw my right wrist over on my
left leg.
Mr. SPECTER. And in the position you are seated now, with your right
wrist on your left leg, with your little finger being an inch or two from your
knee?
Governor CONNALLY. From the knee.
Mr. SPECTER. And, Dr. Gregory, would that be in approximate alinement
which has been characterized on Commission Exhibit----
Dr. GREGORY. I think it fits reasonably well; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In a moment here I can get that exhibit.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question in the meantime?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. You turned to the right, as I recall your testimony, because
you heard the sound coming from the right?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. How did you happen to turn then to the left, do you remember
why that was?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I know exactly.
I turned to the right both to see, because it was an instinctive
movement, because that is where the sound came from, but even more important, I
immediately thought it was a rifleshot, I immediately thought of an
assassination attempt, and I turned to see if I could see the President, to see
if he was all right. Failing to see
him over my right shoulder, I turned to look over my left shoulder.
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Governor CONNALLY. Into the back seat, and I never completed that turn.
I
138 Page
139 got
no more than substantially looking forward, a little bit to the left of forward,
when I got hit.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask one of the doctors a question?
What is the incidence of recovery from a wound of this type?
Dr. GREGORY. I will defer the answer to Dr. Shaw.
From the wrist, excellent so far as recovery is concerned.
Functionally, recovery is going to be good, too, and Dr. Shaw can take on
the other one.
Dr. SHAW. We never had any doubt about the Governor's recovery.
We knew what we had to do and we felt he could recover.
I think I indicated that to Mrs. Connally.
Governor CONNALLY. As soon as you got into the chest and found out what
it was.
Representative BOGGS. But there was a very serious wound, was there not,
Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. It was both a
shocking and painful wound, and the effects of the wound, the immediate effects
of the wound, were very dangerous as far as Governor Connally was concerned,
because he had what we call a sucking wound of the chest.
This would not allow him to breathe.
I think instinctively what happened, while he was riding in the car on
the way to the hospital, he probably had his arm across, and he may have
instinctively closed that sucking area to some extent.
But they had to immediately put an occlusive dressing on it as soon as he
got inside to keep him from sucking air in and out of the right chest.
Representative BOGGS. Had hospitalization been delayed for about another
half hour or so----
Dr. SHAW. That is speculation, but I don't think he could have maintained
breathing, sufficient breathing, for a half hour with that type of wound.
It is a little speculation. It
would depend on how well he could protect himself.
We have had instances where by putting their jackets around them like
this, they could occlude this, and go for a considerable period of time.
Airmen during the war instinctively protected themselves in this way.
Representative BOGGS. You have no doubt about his physical ability to
serve as Governor?
Dr. SHAW. None whatever. [Laughter.]
Senator COOPER. I am just trying to remember whether we asked you,
Doctor, if you probed the wound in the thigh to see how deep it was.
Dr. GREGORY. I did not, Senator. Dr. Tom Shires at our institution
attended that wound, and I have his description to go on, what he found, what he
had written, and his description is that it did not penetrate the thigh very
deeply, just to the muscle, but not beyond that.
Representative BOGGS. Just one other question of the Doctor.
Having looked at the wound, there is no doubt in either of your minds
that that bullet came from the rear, is there?
Dr. GREGORY. There has never been any doubt in my mind about the origin
of the missile; no.
Representative BOGGS. And in yours?
Dr. SHAW. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, this is the exhibit which I was referring
to, being 689. Was that your
approximate position except--that is the alinement with your right hand being on
your left leg as you have just described?
Governor CONNALLY. No; it
looks like my right hand is up on my chest.
But I don't know. I can't say
with any degree of certainty where my right hand was, frankly.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally----
Governor CONNALLY. It could have been up on my chest, it could have been
suspended in the air, it could have been down on my leg, it could have been
anywhere. I just don't remember.
I obviously, I suppose, like anyone else, wound up the next day realizing
I was hit in three places, and I was not conscious of having been hit but by one
bullet, so I tried to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by
the same bullet, and I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the
chest first.
139 Page
140
I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my right
hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of the wrist, the
underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have happened that way at all.
Mr. SPECTER. Were your knees higher on the jump seat than they would be
on a normal chair such as you are sitting on?
Governor CONNALLY. I would say it was not unlike this, with the exception
the knees might be slightly higher, perhaps a half an inch to an inch higher.
Mr. DULLES. In this photograph. you happen to have your right arm on the
side of the car. I don't know
whether you recall that. That is
Commission Exhibit 698. That just
happened to be one pose at one particular time?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I don't think there is any question, Mr. Dulles,
at various times we were turned in every direction.
We had arms extended out of the car, on the side.
Mr. DULLES. That was taken earlier, I believe.
Was that on
Representative BOGGS. I wonder if I might ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.
Representative BOGGS. This is a little bit off the subject, but it is
pretty well established that the Governor was shot and he has recovered.
Do you have any reason to believe there was any conspiracy afoot for
somebody to assassinate you?
Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.
Representative BOGGS. Had you ever received any threat from Lee Harvey
Oswald of any kind?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Representative BOGGS. Did you know him?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Representative BOGGS. Had you ever seen him?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Representative BOGGS. Have you ever had any belief of, subsequent to the
assassination of President Kennedy and your own injury, that there was a
conspiracy here of any kind?
Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.
Representative BOGGS. What is your theory about what happened?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, it is pure theory based on nothing more than
what information is available to everyone, and probably less is available to me,
certainly less than is available to you here on this Commission.
But I think you had an individual here with a completely warped, demented
mind who, for whatever reason, wanted to do two things: First, to vent his
anger, his hate, against many people and many things in a dramatic fashion that
would carve for him, in however infamous a fashion, a niche in the history books
of this country. And I think he
deliberately set out to do just what he did, and that is the only thing that I
can think of.
You ask me my theory, and that is my theory, and certainly not
substantiated by any facts.
Representative BOGGS. Going on again, Governor, and again using the word
"theory," do you have any reason to believe that there was any
connection between Oswald and Ruby?
Governor CONNALLY. I have no reason to believe that there was; no,
Congressman. By the same token, if
you ask me do I have any reason not to believe it, I would have to answer the
same, I don't know.
Representative BOGGS. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. I just don't have any knowledge or any information
about the background of either, and I am just not in a position to say.
Mr. DULLES. You recall your correspondence with Oswald in connection with
Marine matters, when he thought you were still Secretary of the Navy?
Governor CONNALLY. After this
was all over, I do, Mr. Dulles. As I
recall, he wrote me a letter asking that his dishonorable discharge be
corrected. But at the time he wrote
the letter, if he had any reason about it at all, or shortly thereafter, he
would have recognized that I had resigned as Secretary of the Navy a month
before I got the letter, so it would really take a peculiar mind,
140 Page
141 it
seems to me, to harbor any grudge as a result of that when I had resigned as
Secretary prior to the receipt of the letter.
Mr. DULLES. I think I can say without violating any confidence, that
there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was--in fact, Marina, the
wife, testified, in fact, to the contrary. There
was no animus against you on the part of Oswald, as you----
Governor CONNALLY. I have wondered, of course, in my own mind as to
whether or not there could have conceivably been anything, and the only--I
suppose like any person at that particular moment, I represented authority to
him. Perhaps he was in a rebellious
spirit enough to where I was as much a target as anyone else.
But that is the only conceivable basis on which I can assume that he was
deliberately trying to hit me.
Representative BOGGS. You have no doubt about the fact that he was
deliberately trying to hit you?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman.
I am not at all sure he was shooting at me.
I think I could with some logic argue either way.
The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is
simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of
the three times he fired. He
obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at
least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously
his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy.
His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect
that it might have on the President. His
second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to
him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his
position in the back seat just enough to expose my back.
I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where
he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the
President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the moving pictures, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I have, Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any point of exit on your thigh wound?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. (to Dr. Gregory.) Would
you give the precise condition of the right wrist, and cover the thigh, too?
Dr. GREGORY. The present state of the wound on his wrist indicates that
the linear scar made in the course of the excision is well healed; that its
upper limb is about----
Governor CONNALLY. I thinks he wants you to describe the position of it.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; the position.
Dr. GREGORY. I was about to do that.
The upper limb of it is about 5 centimeters above the wrist joint, and
curves around toward the thumb distally to about a centimeter above the wrist
joint.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the total length of that?
Dr. GREGORY. The length of that excisional scar is about 4 centimeters,
an inch and a half.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the wound appearing to be on the palmer side?
Dr. GREGORY. The wound on the palmer side of the wrist is now converted
to a well-healed linear scar approximately one- haft inch in length, and located
about three-quarters of an inch above the distal flexion crease.
Representative BOGGS. What is the prognosis for complete return of
function there?
Dr. GREGORY. Very good, Congressman; very good.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I now show you the black jacket and ask
you if you can identify what that jacket is, whose it is?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is mine.
Mr. SPECTER. When did you last wear that jacket?
Governor CONNALLY. On November 22 I was wearing this, the day of the
shooting.
141 Page
142
Mr. SPECTER. I show you Commission Exhibit 683 and ask you if that is a
photograph of the front side of the jacket, as it appears at the moment?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 684, and ask if that is a photograph of
the rear side of the jacket?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a shirt and ask you if you can identify this
as having been the shirt you wore on the day of the assassination?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is the shirt I had on.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 685 and ask if that is a picture of the
rear side of the shirt?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. Exhibit 686 is shown to you, and I ask you if that is a
photo~ graph of the front side of the shirt?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you a pair of black trousers. and ask you if you can
identify them?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; these are the trousers to the coat we looked
at a moment ago. They were the
trousers I was wearing on the day of the shooting.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you a photograph and ask you, which is Exhibit 687,
if that is a photograph of the front of the trousers?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 688 and ask you if that depicts the rear
of the trousers?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it does.
Mr. SPECTER. I show you a tie, and ask you if you can identify that?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is the tie I was wearing on the day of
the shooting.
Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 700
and ask if that is a picture of the tie?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the permanent home of these clothes at the present
time when they are not on Commission business?
Governor CONNALLY. They, the Archives of the State of
Mr. SPECTER. At this juncture, Mr. Chief Justice, I move for the
admission in evidence of Commission Exhibits 699 and 700.
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.
(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 699 and 700 for identification
were received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Governor
Connally, in 1963 we were informed that Lee Harvey Oswald paid a visit to
Austin, Tex., and is supposed to also have visited your office. Do you have any
knowledge of such a visit?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. What date did you give?
Mr. SPECTER. 1963.
Representative BOGGS. What date in 1963?
Mr. SPECTER. We do not have the exact date on that.
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a minute.
Would your office records indicate such a visit?
Governor CONNALLY. It might or might not, Congressman. We have----
Representative BOGGS. That is what I would think.
Governor CONNALLY. We have there a reception room that is open from about
9:30 to 12 and from 2 to 4 every day, and depending on the time of the year
there are literally hundreds of people who come in there.
There would be as high as 80 at a time that come in groups, and a
tour--this is a very large reception room which, frankly, we can't use for any
other purpose because it is so useful for tourists, and they literally come in
by the hundreds, and some days we will have a thousand people in that room on
any given day. So for
142 Page
143 me
to say he never was in there, I couldn't do that; and he might well have been
there, and no record of it in the office.
We make no attempt to keep a record of all the people who come in.
If they come in small groups or if they have appointments with me, or one
of my assistants, yes, we do. We
keep records of people who come in and want to leave a card or leave word that
they dropped by. But I have no
knowledge that he ever came by.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, on your recitation of the events on the
day of the assassination, you had come to the point where the shooting was
concluded and the automobile had started to accelerate toward the hospital.
What recollection do you have, if any, of the events on the way to the
hospital from the assassination scene?
Governor CONNALLY. None really. I
think at that point I had lost consciousness because I don't have any
recollection, Mr. Specter, of anything that occurred on the way to the hospital.
It was a very short period of time, but I don't remember it.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any recollection of your arrival at the hospital
itself, at the
Governor CONNALLY. Yes. I
think when the car stopped the driver was obviously driving at a very rapid rate
of speed, and apparently, as he threw on the brakes of the car, it brought me
back to consciousness.
Again, a strange thing---strange things run through your mind and,
perhaps, not so strange under the circumstances, but I immediately--the only
thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat next to the door,
that everyone concerned, was going to be concerned with the President; that I
had to get out of the way so they could get to the President.
So although I was reclining, and again Mrs. Connally holding me, I
suddenly lurched out of her arms and tried to stand upright to get myself out of
the car.
I got--I don't really know how far I got. They tell me I got almost
upright, and then just collapsed again, and someone then picked me up and put me
on a stretcher. I again was very
conscious because this was the first time that I had any real sensation of pain,
and at this point the pain in the chest was excruciating, and I kept repeating
just over and over, "My God, it hurts, it hurts," and it was hurting,
it was excruciating at that point.
I was conscious then off and on during the time I was in the emergency
room. I don't recall that I remember everything, but I remember quite a bit.
I remember being wheeled down the passageway, I remember doctors and
various people talking in the emergency room, I remember them asking me a number
of questions, too, which I answered, but that was about it.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on
the emergency stretcher at
Governor CONNALLY. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, other than that which you have already
testified to, do you know of any events or occurrences either before the trip or
with the President in Texas during his trip, or after his trip, which could shed
any light on the assassination itself?
Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know of any conversations involving anyone at all,
either before the trip, during the trip, or after the trip, other than those
which you have already related, which would shed any light on the facts
surrounding the assassination?
Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add which you think would be helpful
to the Commission in any way?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; Mr. Specter, I don't.
I want to express my gratitude to the Commission for hearing me so
patiently, but I only wish I could have added something more that would be
helpful to the Commission on arriving at the many answers to so many of these
difficult problems, but I don't.
I can only say that it has taken some little time to describe the events
and what happened. It is rather
amazing in retrospect when you think really
143 Page
144 what
a short period of time it took for it to occur, in a matter of seconds, and if
my memory is somewhat vague about precisely which way I was looking or where my
hand or arm was, I can only say I hope it is understandable in the light of the
fact that this was a very sudden thing. It
was a very shocking thing.
I have often wondered myself why I never had the presence of mind
enough--- I obviously did say something; I said, "Oh, no, no, no," and
then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
I don't know why I didn't say, "Get down in the car," but I
didn't. You just never know why you
react the way you do and Why you don't do some things you ought to do.
But I am again grateful to this Commission as a participant in this
tragedy and as a citizen of this country, and I want to express, I think in
behalf of millions of people, our gratitude for the time and energy and the
dedication that this Commission has devoted to trying to supply the answers that
people, I am sure, will be discussing for generations to come.
I know it has been a difficult, long, laborious task for you, but I know
that generations of the future Americans will be grateful for your efforts.
Representative BOGGS. Governor, I would like to say that we have had fine
cooperation from all of your
Governor CONNALLY. Well, we are delighted, and I am very happy that the
attorney general is here with us today.
Senator COOPER. May I ask one question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Cooper.
Senator COOPER. Governor, at the time you all passed the
Governor CONNALLY. Just vaguely, Senator.
Senator COOPER. But now when you heard the shot, you turned to your right
because you thought, as you said, that the shot came from that direction.
As you turned, was that in the direction of the
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it was.
Senator COOPER. Do you remember an overpass in front of you.
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. As you moved down?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Were you aware at all of any sounds of rifleshots from
the direction of the overpass, from the embankment?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; I don't believe there were such.
Senator COOPER. Well, you know, there have been stories.
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; but 1 don't believe that.
Senator COOPER. I wanted to ask you if you were very conscious of the
fact--you were conscious of a shot behind you, you were not aware of any shot
from the embankment or overpass. The answer is what?
Governor CONNALLY. I am not aware of any shots from the overpass,
Senator. Senator, I might repeat my testimony with emphasis to this extent, that
I have all my life been familiar with the sound of a rifleshot, and the sound I
heard I thought was a rifleshot, at the time I heard it I didn't think it was a
firecracker, or blowout or anything else. I thought it was a rifleshot. I have
hunted enough to think that my perception with respect to directions is very,
very good, and this shot I heard came from back over my right shoulder, which
was in the direction of the School Book Depository, no question about it.
I heard no other. The first
and third shots came from there. I
heard no other sounds that would indicate to me there was any commotion or
disturbance of shots or anything else on the overpass.
Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you
had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?
Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that
I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just
with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder
blade.
144 Page
145
Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?
Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot.
There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning
sensation. There was nothing more
than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if
someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up
fist just below the shoulder blade.
Senator COOPER. That is all.
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor.
With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this
morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film
when I was in the hospital in
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides,
Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the
slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this
morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit
in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that
bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under
our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the
turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for
whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my
testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.
Mr. SPECTER. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
Mr. DULLES. I have one or two. Governor,
were you consulted at all about the security arrangements in connection with the
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; not really; no, sir; and. let me add we
normally are not.
Mr. DULLES. I realize that.
Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles, the Secret Service, as you know, comes in,
they work with both our department of public safety and the various city police,
and the various localities in which we are going.
So far as I know, there was complete cooperation on the part of everyone
concerned, but I was not consulted.
Mr. DULLES. I think you mentioned that there was a slight change in plans
before the arrival in
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I don't know whether it--I don't think it
affects the testimony at all. I was merely trying to relate some of the problems
that had gone into planning a Presidential trip into four cities.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. And trying to arrange this all initially within about
a 12-hour period which had been expanded into a little more than that because
the President finally agreed to come the day before, and come into
Mr. DULLES. That was the change you had in mind?
Governor CONNALLY. This was the change. This gave us much more latitude
because it permitted us to go into
Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to recall in general when the decision was
reached that the visit would include a trip to
Governor CONNALLY. I think it was always a part.
Mr. DULLES. Of the planning?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I think it was always a part. There was
consideration given, if you had to leave out some place, let us leave out
145 Page
146 leave
out this one or that one, but there was no question, I don't think, in anyone's
mind if we made more than one stop in the big cities that we were going to try
to make them all, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth.
Mr. DULLES. You do not recall seeing anyone approach the car outside of
those who were in the procession just prior to the shooting, anyone from the
sidewalk or along the street there, in the park, which was on one side?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; I sure don't.
Mr. DULLES. You and one other happen to be the only witnesses who have
indicated that they recognized it as being a rifleshot. The other witness, like
you, was a huntsman. Most of the
witnesses have indicated they thought it was a backfire; the first shot was a
backfire or a firecracker.
Can you distinguish, what is there that distinguishes a rifleshot from a
backfire or a firecracker? Can you tell, or is it just instinct?
Governor CONNALLY. I am not sure I could accurately describe it.
I don't know that I have ever attempted to. I would say a firecracker or
a blowout has more of a hollow, bursting kind of sound, as if you popped a
balloon, or something of this sort. A rifleshot, on the other hand, to me has
more of a ring, kind of an echo to it, more of a metallic sound to it.
It is a more penetrating sound than a firecracker or a blowout.
It carries----
Mr. DULLES. That gives me what I had in mind.
I realize that. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We are very appreciative of the help
you have given us.
Senator COOPER. May I ask just one question?
The CHAIRMAN. We hate to have you review all of this sordid thing again.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a rather general question? I would like to ask,
in view of all the discussion which has been had, was there any official
discussion of any kind before this trip of which you were aware that there might
be some act of violence against the President?
Governor CONNALLY. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. Thank you.
Governor CONNALLY. No; let me say that there have been several news
stories----
Senator COOPER. Yes, I know.
Governor CONNALLY. That purportedly quoted me about not wanting the
President to ride in a motorcade or caravan in
The reason I didn't want him to do it at the time it came up was simply
we were running out of time, and that, I thought, we were working him much too
hard. This again was before the change, moving
But once we got
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor.
Governor CONNALLY. Thank you, sir.
Why JFK went to Texas
Hello and welcome. As you may recall I gave a presentation on this topic last year. That presentation was interrupted by Jim Fetzer who had to interview Madeline Brown because of a scheduling conflict with Ms. Brown with either the 6th Floor Museum or The Conspiracy Museum, then I returned to finish. I allowed that though I was irritated by it. I thought it naturally weakened the presentation. To my surprise I heard stories that many of you were impressed with my presentation, though at the time I didn't feel as though many of you were. That's not a slight to the audience, it's naturally jarring to go from one presentation on one topic to as John Cleese might say, "And now for something completely different..." So, I'm pleased to be back talking on this and hopefully you'll like this presentation as much if not more than last year's. This is a large topic covering many characters. I was inspired to research this based upon a presentation George Michael Evica gave at an A.S.K. conference, I think, in `93. Several presentations went on at the same time. I went to one with Tom Wilson, and Mr. Evica gave his in another room. Fortunately, it was audiotaped so I got to listen to it later and I was greatly impressed with it, though I knew there was more to it. Recently more information has been added to this topic. Doug Horne wrote, a memo on this. There is much more to the story and I do go further. I am hoping to turn this into a book, someday. I've never written a book and am far from completing this or giving it to a publisher so don't anticipate it happening soon. Due to time I want to focus on a few items of interest relating to this story. I would advise you to listen to the tape of last years presentation as I really want to start a timeline here starting in October. I'm going to summarize a little bit to get us up to October. Initially, JFK decides to go to Texas in the fall of 1963 to attend a dinner given in honor of Congressman Albert Thomas. I think there is universal agreement on that. However, it's still unknown exactly when the idea originated to have this dinner for Thomas and when the invitation was given to JFK. I went to the JFK Library and researched the Jerry Bruno papers. Jerry Bruno was JFK's advance man. He wrote a small book called "The Advanceman". That book, Mr. Bruno, and of course his papers at the JFK Library are essential for an understanding of this topic. We first hear about JFK coming to Texas in an April 23rd announcement by LBJ given in Dallas for the Second Annual NASA Manned Space Flight Conference. "The April 24th, 1963 edition of the Dallas Times Herald is headlined, "LBJ sees Kennedy Dallas Visit - One Day Texas Tour Eyed." And if you know the Adel Edison's story interesting things are already afoot by April 23. This LBJ announcement leads me to believe that the Thomas dinner was already discussed, and agreed upon by some before April 23rd. However, I am so far unable to find any material about a Thomas dinner before April 23rd. In the Jerry Bruno papers at the JFK Library, in the "Correspondence File" there is a written invitation sent to The White House on September 17, 1963 from Jack Valenti, a close LBJ aide, to President Kennedy. The letter states, "More than 1,000 men and women will gather in the Grand Ballroom of the Rice Motel in Houston to express their gratitude for his 26 years of service to this area and to the nation -- and to show their pleasure in Congressman Thomas' decision to stay in office and not retire."[1] There is another letters of note in this correspondence file. One is from Conway C. Craig. He writes to President Kennedy on June 12, 1963. "In April Lyndon telephoned me and asked what I thought about the two of you visiting San Antonio on a fund raising trip. He went ahead and stated he was afraid you would not be able to come to San Antonio because you were planning on spending only one day in Texas which would include Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston."(emphasis added)[2] This letter does not specify when in April, and may pre-date the April 23rd announcement. While preparing this presentation and looking at this Valenti letter again I figured something important out. I'm looking for the wrong thing. I was and still am looking for all the information I can get as to when this dinner was first thought of, discussed, planned etc., right up until the moment it happened without really realizing an important context. The dinner is a celebration, a victory party for getting Thomas to stay in office. The machinations, if you will, are not so much with the dinner, and getting Kennedy to come to it though there is stuff there, but in keeping Thomas in office. This was a victory because another Congressman was also vacating his seat, there was to be a run-off election held in Austin Dec. 17th for the seat being vacated by Rep. Homer Thornberry. So it's Thomas' announcement to retire and the campaign to get him to change his mind that is important. That's why they are having a dinner for him. That's pre-April 23rd, 1963 information. And now once they are having a dinner for him that dinner is used to get JFK to Texas, then that one day-one purpose visit get's extended and we first hear talk of extending the visit with this April 23 announcement of LBJ's in the April 24th edition of the Dallas Times Herald. (See CE 1972. This is really part of an investigation of the false LHO threat to Nixon. But I don't have time to go into that.) So who is Albert Thomas? He is the head of the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives. He got Kennedy's Space Program going. Thomas is why the NASA mission control is in Houston. He is a liberal and adored by Kennedy. And the feeling was reciprocated. Thomas was also dying of terminal cancer, by 1963 he had undergone 4 operations.[3] He was thinking of retiring from politics. Kennedy liked him and needed him, badly, especially in the election year of 1964. The LBJ April 23rd announcement of a "summertime" visit by Kennedy is supposedly to coincide with LBJ's birthday. However, LBJ knows JFK's schedule and knows that JFK cannot make it. So this trick can now make the trip seem as if it is being planned or in the planning stages by Johnson and Connally, when it is already set as a one day, one purpose trip. I think we can date the start of the changing of the trip from a one day, one visit, one purpose affair into the 2 day multi-function trip it became on or about April 23rd, 1963 Now, let's start to talk about John Connally. Connally used the campaign to become Governor as an excuse to stall the trip. It is important to understand that according to Connally "the trip" already is the 2-day trip and there is some vague conditionality to it all. Once Connally becomes Governor he complains he needs time to create a staff and pass a budget which he uses as an excuse to continue stalling the trip . This takes up the entire Texas legislative session from January to about June, 1963. Keep in mind this is Connally's version of Kennedy's trip. Kennedy is coming. He is going to Houston on November 21, 1963. Connally does nothing to plan the trip until after the legislative session ends. This is really important as October will show. In an sense, there is no trip for Connally to plan. JFK's coming to Houston for the Thomas dinner is not the trip Connally is talking about. That trip changes into a two day, multi-function trip and it is this metamorphosis that is a cause of misunderstanding and misconception that I hope to set straight. Connally's story is, "I had continued to ignore as best I could, the barrage of hints coming down from Washington that the President wanted a Texas pilgrimage. I was desperately trying to pay for my campaign and to rally support, and the last thing I wanted was a national foray for votes or money."[4] There is no evidence of any "barrage of hints". The last sentence is very telling. Why is Connally against a foray for votes? Hmm. Now we don't really hear anything about a JFK visit to Texas until June 5th and a meeting in El Paso Texas. The Texas state legislature had just recessed. Connally tells James Reston Jr. that Kennedy proposed a summertime visit.[5] Wait a minute. Didn't CE 1972, the April 24th, 1963 edition of the Dallas Times Herald have Johnson proposing the summertime visit? Now it's Kennedy? What is going on here? I point this out because the person who initiates the actions of various Texas planning stories changes. You must pay attention to the passive voice and to pronouns in Texas trip planning stories. Connally and LBJ want you to think the visit is to raise funds for the upcoming election. James Reston Jr. recounts Connally's story, "Maybe Lyndon Johnson's birthday would provide the right pretext for the political fund raising. To the Texans this too was a lousy idea. Johnson said nothing, his eyes hooded and downcast. "Well, Mr. President, I would like to think about that," Connally stalled. "You know my feelings for the Vice President. His birthday is always a time for celebration, but the very people you want to reach aren't likely to be here. Texas gets mighty hot in August. It's the worst month of the year to have a fund raising affair-for anybody. People are not interested in politics during the dog days, and I think it would be a serious mistake to come then."[6] This El Paso meeting is kept secret. It is not reported to the media. Kennedy's appointment book records that the President, Johnson and Connally go to the Cortez Hotel arriving at 6:30 P. M. June 5, 1963 There is then the citation, "No further activity this date."[7] William Manchester writes in his book, "Death of a President" , Connally consented to JFK's Texas trip plans at this June 5th meeting.[8] Yet, Connally tells LIFE magazine; James Reston Jr. in "Lone Star"; and Micky Hershkowitz, Connally's co-author for his autobiography, "In History's Shadow"; a different story, that both Johnson and he are trying to stall or delay the trip. Concede, or stall? Which is it? The Warren Report is almost truthful about this meeting. "The three agreed that the President would come to Texas in late November 1963."[9] The Report refers you to a deposition by Clifton C. Carter which is in volume 7 p.475. Carter is an aide to LBJ. Carter stated, "That the first tentative date was to have the trip coincide with Vice-President Johnson's birthday on August 27, but that was rejected because it was too close to Labor Day."[10] A little different. Carter mentions that he and Fred Korth were present when the three assembled but, "Fred Korth and I left during their discussion of the President's proposed trip."[11] So, if he leaves the room how can he give a deposition stating what the three agreed to? He doesn't know. He wasn't there. Yet, the Warren Commission uses him as though he was and remembered it in his deposition The last sentence of Carter's deposition states, "President Kennedy's other commitments prevented him from coming to Texas any sooner than November 21, which was the date finally set."[12] The first part of the sentence is true. This supports the idea that Kennedy is going to the Thomas dinner which was scheduled for November 21, and that that was known before the El Paso meeting June 5th. It also destroys a large chunk of the Connally-Johnson story of a "conditional" trip with an uncertain date. After the comma in the last sentence of Carter's deposition it sounds like there was some input on the decision of when President Kennedy would be coming from Johnson and Connally. Yet, this is impossible if you are aware of and know about the Thomas dinner. Also, since Carter acknowledges that President Kennedy's other commitments prevent him from coming prior to November 21 it does not make sense that President Kennedy would propose the "summertime" visit to coincide with Johnson's birthday. I have grave doubts that there was ever such a meeting at all, and doubts that if JFK, LBJ and Connally are alone at the Cortez hotel the discussion is not what Connally and LBJ are reporting. After the El Paso meeting there is no talk or planning for the Texas trip until September. So that's June, July, August with nothing happening. In September some things happen. There is pressure to bracket the Thomas dinner with other events in other cities. So much is added on that it would be impossible to do in one day. Mr. Evica calls the period September 13-26 crucial for Connally to win his argument for a two day trip, not a one day visit. It is a very intense period where Connally argues the "fatigue factor". Four cities in one day would be too much for JFK. Connally doesn't want Kennedy to be "fatigued" by meeting the liberals in those other cities. Kennedy wants to meet the people. Connally does not want that, Connally only wants JFK to meet certain select business people. Again there is a Dallas Times Herald newspaper article. This is dated September 13, 1963 This becomes Commission Exhibit 1366. "Still in the talking stage, the presidential trip would be a one day affair, with a breakfast speech in Dallas, a luncheon in Fort Worth, an afternoon coffee in San Antonio and a dinner in Houston." Now notice how little has changed from the April 23 announcement by Johnson. Notice these are Dallas papers. As in the April 23 announcement Dallas is mentioned first, then in the headline, now as the starting point with a breakfast. Notice please where the breakfast is scheduled to be, and where the luncheon is scheduled to be. They'll switch locations and there's a story in that. The "Still in the talking stage," is a cover story. The article says, "No date has been set." Obviously, not true. The "talking stage" refers to getting a two day comitment from the White House not in regards to if the trip will happen at all. Then the article tells us something important, "Reports here, however, indicate that some Texas leaders facing reelection are less than enthusiastic about a presidential visit fearful that it could damage individual races within the state." Now we are starting to get a big clue. Connally is a Texas leader facing reelection. Why? What's going on in Texas? What's the political climate? Now let's get to October. Sometime between September 26 and October 4th a two day trip is agreed to. Connally meets with the Dallas Citizens Council on October 2nd. According to Reston, "Now at the Adolphus Hotel, Connally virtually apologized to the Dallas leadership for the President's insistence on coming to Texas and to Dallas. Since he could not prevent it altogether, he could prevent it from being a liberal love feast. `I don't intend to default to the liberals,' Connally told the group. `I've got to have a non-political body to represent Dallas, and you gentlemen are it by your associations.' "[13] He has got to be kidding. By 1963 the Dallas Citizen's Council has been controlling the city for 40 years. The Dallas Citizens Council has not supported the Democratic ticket for President since F.D.R., and that was FDR's first bid for the White House in 1932! They did not support FDR in '36, '40 or '44. They did not support Kennedy in 1960. Little has happened to them to change their minds to support him now. And what a perverse corupt use of the language too, "Citizen's Council" indeed. They are made up of the head of the Mercantile Bank, the oldest bank in Dallas, and the executives from the two Dallas newspapers. Manchester lists those in attendance of this meeting as J. Eric Jonsson, chairman of the powerful Citizen's Council, Robert Collum, president of the Chamber of Commerce, R. L. Thornton, chairman of the Mercantile National Bank, Joe Dealey, son of Ted Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News and Albert Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald.14 Connally meets with the Texas Congressional delegation on October 3rd where there is a classic confrontation between Connally and Henry Gonzalez. Connally, "Fellows, the reason I'm here is that I'm meeting with the President in a few hours about his trip to Texas. I don't know what to say. They are going to want me to tell them where and when and how to get money in Texas for the party. Now I've made a few calls around and, frankly, the people who are supporting John Kennedy in Texas are not the ones with money."[15] Connally continues, "I think [the trip] is a mistake. You know the people who are for Kennedy are the people without money. I've checked with businessmen, and they aren't about to contribute-" Gonzalez was already mad that San Antonio was only going to get a few hours of Kennedy's time when it was the only major Texas city that went for Kennedy in `60. Gonzalez was a true liberal and hated John Connally's guts. It was mutual between them. Upon hearing this story from Connally he rises to the occasion and says, "Just a minute, Governor, whom did you call in San Antonio because I know some people in San Antonio who support the President. If you've called the one you have been appointing, Governor, they're all Republicans! I'll get you businessmen. You may not like them, though, because they won't support you."[16] Democratic governor John Connally, appointing Republicans? What's this? Governor Connally meets with JFK in Washington, D.C. on October 4th 1963. There are several different versions of this October 4th meeting. Most of these differing version come from Connally. First, the Warren Commission version. "Finally in the fall of 1963 it was decided that he definitely should come, or should come in the fall of last year (`63) as opposed to waiting until this year, (`64) when his appearance might have more political overtones. "So I came up, I have forgotten the exact date (October 4th) around the middle of October and talked to him about it, discussed the details, asked him what he would like to do. "He said he would like to do whatever he could do that was agreeable with me: it was agreeable with me that he more or less trust me to plan the trip for him, to tell him where he would like to go. About that time some thought was being given to having four fund raising dinners. His attitude on that was that he wouldn't prefer that. He felt that the appearance would not be too good, that he would much prefer to have one if we are going to have any. I told him this was entirely consistent with my own thoughts. We ought not to have more than one fund raising dinner. If we did it ought to be in Austin. If we could do it, I would like for him to see and get into as many areas of the state as possible while he was there."[17] Now there are some problems here. Mr. Evica correctly points out that if you know anything about the language when you hear the passive voice begin to suspect what is going on. Notice how Connally is vague about who proposed the fund raising, there is just "some thought" being given to it. Notice how this story is told. Notice how first JFK rejects the four fund raising dinners idea and Connally agrees with JFK's rejection. On the same page Connally admits, "He on his own, had made a commitment to go to the dinner for Congressman Thomas, which was being given the night of the 21st in Houston."[18] There it is! So Connally finally acknowledges that JFK on his own, was coming to Texas on Nov. 21 and it was planed long ago. Now there is no mention of the Albert Thomas dinner in the Warren Commission Report on pages 28-29 under the heading "Planning the Texas trip" as there should be. Second version, LIFE magazine November 24, 1967 where Connally is prominently displayed on the cover. The headline, "A Contribution To History, Governor Connally sets the record straight on the fateful visit, WHY KENNEDY WENT TO TEXAS." "How about those fund raising affairs in Texas, John?" "Mr. President, I said, we can have four separate affairs, but I think it would be a very serious mistake." He didn't answer immediately and I went right on. "In the first place I don't think four will raise appreciably more money than one properly organized affair-certainly not enough for the political cost to you. You haven't made a real visit to Texas-except El Paso-since you became President. You've made no speeches and no appearances. If you come down there and try to have fund raising affairs in four cities in one trip, they are going to think that you are trying to rape the state." I used just those words "I'm inclined to agree with you, " the President said. Notice again the passive voice. "Mr. President," I said, "what really do you want to do on this trip?" Connally goes on to say that Kennedy wanted to meet the people that had opposed him so sharply."[19] Now we have a change from Connally's Warren Commission version of the October 4th meeting. Now it is JFK who wants the fund raising, Connally who first objects, then JFK agrees with Connally's objection. Notice the reversal? Connally cleverly alters the story of Kennedy's desire to meet the people to Kennedy wants to meet the people who opposed him, who coincidentally would be the people voting for Connally. Connally tells LIFE magazine, "I had a strong conviction that if the business community of Texas could see President Kennedy in the flesh and talk to him, it would find quickly enough that he was no extremist"[20] This version, as well as most of the whole article, is repeated nearly verbatim in Connally's autobiography "In History's Shadow". 3rd version, this time to James Reston jr. in "Lone Star". "The president still had his heart set on four or five fund raisers. Apparently, Lyndon Johnson had made no effort to dissuade him. Connally was prepared. "Mr. President, I think that is a mistake," he said emphatically. "We want the money, yes, but we also need to position you in such a way that you are going to politically benefit from it, and it doesn't look like all you're interested in is the money of the state. Frankly, if you come down and we try to get on five fund raising events in the principal cities of Texas, people are going to think that all you are interested in is the financial rape of the state."[21] Again, Kennedy is in the passive voice. The dates are set, yet Connally uses the phrase, "if you come down". There is no iffyness about it. Connally also takes great pleasure in using the word "rape" in recounting this story. Johnson is mentioned although in passing. LBJ is now given the role of having to dissuade JFK from the fund raising idea. Does Connally think Johnson is going to take orders from him? Who gave Johnson this role? Connally is getting a little carried away with the passive voice. Connally also uses this false fund raising story to make Kennedy sound like a complete idiot incapable of organizing, hosting, or even showing up at a political event without Connally's expert , professional, political judgment to guide him. Makes you wonder how JFK ever became President in the first place. 4th version, The Connally story of the October 4th meeting changes again in the book "Death of a President" by William Manchester. Remember, according to the last version LBJ was to "dissuade" JFK against the fund raising. "At first the Vice President was an enthusiastic advocate of fund-raising. Recently a Massachusetts banquet had raised $680,000 for the party. His pride in Texas has been challenged, and despite emphatic denials from the White House the rumor persisted that Kennedy would cut him from the `64 ticket. Johnson's own radar had picked up a few alarming blips. Determined to prove that his determination was still strong, he had proposed four Texas banquets where the faithful would demonstrate their loyalty to Kennedy and Johnson by emptying their pockets into next year's war chest."[22] So finally we have someone who proposed the fund raising, Johnson, though we were told it was Kennedy, but Kennedy's "attitude" was against it, according to Connally's original Warren Commission testimony and Connally agreed with JFK's "attitude", but Lyndon at Connally's request was to "dissuade" Kennedy who was for it, so Connally at LBJ's urging had to meet Kennedy on October 4th, after meeting with the Dallas Citizen's Council on the 2nd, and the Texas Congressional delegation in Washington on the 3rd to object to the fund raising plans and Kennedy agreed while Connally was there to originate the idea that Kennedy should come to Texas in the first place. Confused yet? Wait it gets better. Let's give LBJ a chance. According to LBJ in his book, "President Kennedy came to Texas to raise money for the Democratic campaign coffers and to pave the way for a Democratic victory in Texas in 1964. The President hoped to raise several thousand dollars in Texas. President Kennedy also came to Texas to try to shore up our (emphasis added; notice those pesky pronouns) slipping popularity there. A Texas poll, taken a few weeks before his trip, showed that only 38 per cent of the people approved of what he was doing as President. (Notice how our becomes he.) The same poll showed Governor Connally with an 81 per cent approval. The fact is that Governor Connally was more in tune with the prevailing political thinking in Texas."[23] Don't believe it. The liberal wing of the Texas Democratic party was rising in strength. So if anyone was prevailing it was them. Johnson doesn't tell you if the Democratic victory Kennedy is paving the way for is meant to include Johnson and Connally. You are just supposed to believe that the Democrats are one big happy family and a victory for the party is a victory for all. However, wasn't there a feud within the Texas Democratic party? Wasn't this one of the reasons given by Johnson and Connally about why Kennedy had to go to Texas? Johnson continues, "He wanted to come to large Texas cities. The President had originally wanted to come on my birthday August 27. He suggested this date to Governor Connally and me in June 1963 at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, where we met following a visit to the missile range at White Sands, New Mexico. He suggested...we hold a series of four fund raising dinners. Connally opposed that plan. `You won't be able to get a crowd. They will think you only came here to get their money.' Connally suggested a single fund raising dinner in Austin and a series of non-political appearances in the other four cities- `at the proper time' President Kennedy reluctantly agreed to this suggestion and postponed the trip."[24] Bull. The Houston dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas was set for November 21. Cliff Carter has told us that Kennedy cannot come until then. So the second day of a two day trip would have to be November 22. All the talk of postponement is a cover story. Johnson and Connally know that JFK cannot have a two day trip until Nov. 22. This is what they want. Talk of postponement is placed on Connally's shoulders which masks Johnson's involvement in the trip planning. Now it is made to look like Kennedy postponed the trip awaiting Johnson and Connally clearance for "the proper time". The proper time becomes the only time it can be November 22. The whole point of this charade is to get Kennedy to commit to a two day trip. Johnson also wrote, "The following October President Kennedy met with Governor Connally in Washington and they agreed on the November date."[25] The problem with that is they already agreed to it. Didn't anyone in the Kennedy camp say anything about this October 4th meeting? Yes, Evelyn Lincoln did. "Connally came to Washington to see Mr. Kennedy just three days before Bobby Baker resigned. His main purpose was to urge the President to come to Texas to help bring the feuding factions together. "After he left I remember what Mr. Kennedy said, `He sure seemed anxious for me to go to Texas. He attracts some people-money people who would never vote for me, but I have many supporters down there who are bitterly opposed to him. I think in the long run it would be more advantageous to him than for me. The one thing I noticed above everything else was his concern about Lyndon being on the ticket."[26] Governor Connally says repeatedly that the trip dates are still not set as of October 4th, 1963. The House Select Committee on Assassinations was somewhat on the ball here. Buried in volume 11 in an appendix called "Politics and Presidential Protection: the Motorcade" on page 510 is the following, "The specific dates of the trip had been resolved prior to this October meeting." This is very important because Connally said otherwise to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In fact, the HSCA acknowledged that Connally lied under oath to them! "Although in testimony Connally stated he had no specific recollection of having known prior to October that November 21 and 22 were the selected dates for the Texas visit, he did acknowledge that he must have known."[27] Neat way to get away with perjury, don't you think? And for the HSCA to acknowledge that someone lied to them under oath. The October 4th meeting is where "officially" Connally originates the idea for JFK to come to Texas. Anyone have a problem with that? Remember the dates, April 23 LBJ's announcement, which appears in The Dallas Times Herald newspaper on April 24th, which is written up in an FBI report which becomes CE 1972, the June 5th El Paso meeting, September 13 and 26, more newspaper accounts which become CE 1367 and CE 1368, Connally's meeting with the Dallas citizens council on October 1, 1963, and with the Texas congressional delegation on October 2nd, 1963, yet, Connally would have the world believe that he originated the idea for JFK to come to Texas on October 4th, 1963 and since the date/dates, is/are tentative to please come to Texas, Mr. President. Now something that has to be stressed is that LBJ throughout this whole history of the "official" story of why JFK came to Texas acts like he is left out of the Texas trip planning. Reston writes, "When his (Connally's) meeting with the President was scheduled two weeks before, the White House had specifically requested Connally to keep it confidential from Lyndon Johnson. That had surprised the Governor, and he was doubly surprised when Johnson was absent from the Oval office. "That evening, Connally went out to the Elms in northwest Washington to have dinner with the Johnson's, bracing himself. "I suppose you think I don't have any interest in what happens in Texas?" "No, Lyndon," Connally replied stiffly. "I know you are extremely interested in what is happening in Texas." "Why didn't you tell me?" Johnson demanded. "I assumed you knew I was going to see the president,"Connally replied. "After all, its not my prerogative to say who is in that Oval Office. I assumed that if the president wanted you there, you would be there."[28] The same story is told from Kenny O'Donnell's viewpoint in "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye". "Johnson was furious because Connally had not bothered to invite him to that White House meeting with the President."[29] However, there is no mention by O'Donnell that President Kennedy expressly told Connally not to invite Johnson. There is an interesting bit of information in CE 2960. After Connally visits with JFK at the White House, he goes to the Pentagon. I think that is very interesting. This is never mentioned with regard to what happened on October 4th despite the many different versions of the meeting between Connally and JFK on this date. Connally meets with Secretary of Defense McNamara and Deputy Secretary Roswell Gilpatric Even Evica did not catch this. The Dallas Morning News article says Connally, "carried with him data showing a decline in prime military contracts in Texas from 1958 to 1962."[30] Did this actually happen? Did these three actually meet? Could someone else or others have been there? Did they talk about anything else? Is it not damn interesting that after this meeting with JFK, the context of which is heavily lied about after the fact, Connally then goes to the Pentagon and meets with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Under Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric and ends the evening meeting with LBJ? I think there is another way of looking at Connally's meeting with LBJ the night of October 4th. I think Connally reported to LBJ. I think it's more of "Everything is going according to plan, sir." I think LBJ is being briefed. I want to explain that. I do not believe this is a assassination conspiracy talk Connally and LBJ have the night of October 4th. It's definitely a political talk about controling JFK for this Texas trip. I think that is obvious and provable. Connally and LBJ's political lives are at stake. It could be an assassination plot discussion, in fact most of these machinations could be seen that way. However, I cannot prove that is the reason for any of the manipulative actions Connally, LBJ and others take. I can prove and reintroduce politics to the story of the Texas trip. The political differences between JFK, LBJ and Connally have been totally whitewashed out of the picture. It is well past the time politics was put back in. The idea that President Kennedy conspired to keep LBJ out of the White House and ignorant of a meeting between himself and Governor Connally is ludicrous. If Connally is originating the idea of JFK coming to Texas at this meeting, and President Kennedy is ignorant of that prior to the meeting, then why are they meeting? And how could JFK think to exclude Johnson if Connally requested the meeting and he (Connally) is there to "originate" the idea of the trip in the first place? It doesn't make sense. It implies JFK requested the meeting. That's highly improbable given Evlyn Lincoln's account of this meeting. Of note is the fact that LBJ meets with Kennedy on October 4th between 6:50 and 7:10 p.m according to Kennedy's appointment book. I hardly think it was anything like, "Oh by the way Lyndon, Connally was here and we discussed the trip." I hardly think LBJ is so out of the loop as he pretends to be. Another take on this is even if JFK really wanted Connally to keep LBJ ignorant of whatever happened at this meeting Connally could certainly tell LBJ at dinner. Also, LBJ is close to Valenti who's the chair of the Thomas dinner committee. So LBJ's got it covered. Both "trips" are created by people damn close to LBJ. The "exclusion" of LBJ is a fiction. LBJ wasn't at the meeting because he didn't want to be. At this time in October there are major concerns by Johnson about staying on the ticket. According to Evelyn Lincoln, that's what JFK and Connally really discussed. There are five scandals going on at the same time, all being investigated concurrently, any one of which threaten to engulf Johnson, Bobby Baker; Billy Sole Estes; The TFX fighter jet defense contract which involves Fred Korth, Secretary of the Navy, who was Connally's successor to that post, Korth resigned because of this scandal; Jack Halfen a mafia bag man working for Carlos Marcello, who gave huge sums to certain Texas politicians, notably Albert Thomas and Senator Lyndon Johnson; and Don Reynolds' knolwedge of judges being bought in Texas and how that directly relates to LBJ All were heating up in October. Bobby Baker resigned on October 1st. Billy Sol Estes amassed a $200 million dollar empire on grain storage contracts and cotton payments. In the early 1960's cotton production was strictly controlled by the Agriculture Dept. in order to reduce surplus crops. Billy Sol used the Agriculture Dept's own regulations against them. There were investigaitons and an Agriculture official, Henry Wallace was killed. The TFX scandal is a major investigation. There are several large volumes on this investigation in any good federal depository library. Jack Halfen, from John Davis' "Mafia Kingfish", "The growth of the Marcello's power in Texas during the late forties and throughout the fifties would not have been possible without the cooperation of important Texas politicians. This cooperation had been secured by Carlos Marcellos' Texas bag man John Halfen whose special job it had been to funnel a percentage of the Marcellos' illegal Texas profits to the political campaigns of such Texas politicios as Houston congressman Albert Thomas...and U.S. Senator Lyndon B. Johnson." Davis comments that there was a thick file on Attorney General RFK's desk detailing the Marcello-Halfen-Johnson connections, as well as Bobby Baker's dealings with organized crime Now remember Connally did nothing to plan the visit while the Texas state legislature was in session? Well, there's a reason for that, something interesting was going on in Texas politics. George H.W. Bush, yes, the former President, filed suit against Crawford Martin, the Secretary of State of the state of Texas, John Connally, and Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of the state of Texas accusing the statute apportioning congressional districts as being unconstitutional. Guess when this suit was filled? April 23rd, 1963. On October 19th a Federal district court found that all of Texas' Congressional Districts were unconstitutional. This changes things dramatically in Texas. All elections were to be held at large. In Federal Supplement 224 on page 499 is George H. W. Bush et. al., Plaintiffs vs. Crawford Martin, Secretary of State of the State of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of the State of Texas, John Connally, Governor of the State of Texas et. al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 63-H-226 United States District Court S.D. Texas Houston Division October 19th, 1963.[31] A three judge panel found "that Texas statute apportioning congressional districts was invidiously discriminatory and unconstitutional and its enforcement would be enjoined," but that was to be postponed to allow defendants to apply for a state of decree from a circuit justice, the Supreme Court, or another justice as other apportionment cases were pending. I want to stress that. "Other apportionment cases were pending," in the federal courts. Keep that in mind as we look at this case. President Kennedy was well aware of how he was short changed in votes across the country and how Rayburn-Johnson-Connally controlled the state of Texas. O'Donnell writes in "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye" on page 2, "That morning when he came aboard Air Force One, he tucked into the edge of the mirror in his dressing room a card with three figures that he would use to needle the Democratic leaders in Texas. The figures reminded him that in 1960 the Kennedy-Johnson margin in Texas over Nixon-Lodge was only 46,233 votes, but Johnson, also running alone in another slot on the ticket for U.S. Senator against Republican John G. Tower, had a plurality of 379,972, while Price Daniel, the Democratic candidate for governor in the same election, won by 1,024,792. The President was going to do some sharp talking in Texas about the big difference between his own vote and those of the other Democratic candidates." Connally did get a stay from Justice Hugo Black of the Supreme court until the Supreme Court could hear the case.[32] The court further found, "invidious discrimination in congressional or legislative apportionments is something more than numerical disparity and the problem is more profound than that of arithmetic."[33] - "Injunctive relief against only portions of unconstitutional Texas statute apportioning state into congressional districts would be unworkable and unjust to alleviate startling discrimination it was necessary to reapportion state as whole."[34] - "There was no basis for courts staying hand of equity to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional congressional apportionment statute on ground that relief could be obtained elsewhere, but having known from April to October that attack was being made and being aware of failure of legislature to take any effective action towards its correction, state-official defendants were not in position to advance as basis for positioning judicial relief appealing defense : Let Us Work This Out."[35] -"...unless state were reapportioned congressional candidates would be elected at large."[36] - "testimony from defendants, "does not reflect any historic, geographic, economic or sociological justifications for the disparity in the population of the respective congressional districts. The disparity is indeed spectacular."[37] - "...simple constitutional fact is that so far as standard of composition of Congress is concerned,...members of Congress are to be elected on basis of population and nothing else."[38] Now according to statistical information stipulated as true and accurate by both parties the disparity, "runs from a low of 216,371 for District 4 to 951,527 for adjoining District 5. Not surprisingly, the marked excesses over the state average (between 415,000 to 435,000) are found primarily in the ever expanding metropolitan areas of (can you guess?) Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Ft. Worth."[39] What a coincidence, those are the cities mentioned by LBJ in his April 23, 1963 announcement and April 23, 1963 is also the day this case was brought to court by George Bush. Charts on p. 505 clearly show the willful dilution and suppression of the people.
District County Metropolitan Area Population 5 Dallas Dallas 951,527 8 Harris Houston 568,193 22 Harris Houston 674,965 12 Tarrant Fort Worth 538,495 20 Bexar San Antonio 687,151
- In this malapportionment, Texas, with its District No. 5 (Dallas metropolitan area), has the distinction of the largest single Congressional District in the Nation. Now, remember, District 4 with a population of only 216,371 is given 1 Congressman. Let's do some math. If we are to use 216,371 as a standard to equal 1 Congressman, giving Connally a dose of his own medicine, then there should be an additional 15 Congressmen from Texas from these 4 major metropolitan areas alone. (3,420, 331 divided by 216,371 = 15.8) If we use the low end of the state average, 415,000 then we get 8 Congressmen. If we use the higher end number, 435,000, then we get 7. There should have been anywhere from 7 to 15 additional congressmen representing the state of Texas in 1960! The apportionment Act under attack by this suit was Art. 197a, Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann,. This Act split former district 8 into district 8 and district 22. This was noted by the court as the only significant change in apportionment addressed by the Act. - "This left Dallas county the target of greatest discrimination, the effect of which has only gotten worse as time, tide, population explosions and shifts go on."[40] "But the disparity is not confined to the cities. Districts 14, 15, and 16 are aggregations of large areas and large numbers of people."[41]
District Population 14 539,262 15 515,716 16 573,438
So, there are is suppressed vote and possible extra congressmen from the country areas too. Now who would these new congressmen be loyal to? To which political party would they come from? Not the conservative Democrats! The conservative Democrats are Connally people who have been repressing the vote Republicans? Maybe. They brought the lawsuit Mostly likely liberal Democrats, they were the ones who were rising in strength. They were the ones whose numbers were denied. They were the ones who could have taken over the state legislature and thus redrawn the districts and their hero JFK was coming to Texas, and they knew JFK was coming to Texas since the day the suit was filled! If the liberal Democrats took control of the state legislature they would not be beholden to the extant congressional districts. They could make as many as they wanted. Another factor was the poll tax. A liberal-labor coalition was working hard to repeal it. "Poll tax repeal had been indorsed by all major political figures of both parties, by most Texas newspapers, by the League of Women voters and other civic groups. Yet, it lost by a margin of almost 3 to 2. "In characteristic fashion, coalition leaders blamed the Connally conservatives for sabotaging poll tax repeals while the conservatives claimed the liberals unwittingly defeated it by advertising it as the key to a liberal takeover. "Now the Democrats have only until the end of January to persuade thousands of potential Kennedy supporters among the Negroes and Mexicans to pay their poll taxes."[42] October brought even more bad news to Connally. Kennedy had given the go ahead to a full investigation into the Bobby Baker affair until it reached its ultimate end. Also on October 19th, the same day a three panel Federal court ruled all Texas Congressional districts were unconstitutional, there was a major dinner for Senator Ralph Yarborough. Those present at this dinner and saluting Yarborough were, Congressman Jack Brooks, Congressman Henry Gonzalez, Senator Olin D. Johnston from South Carolina, Senator Lee Matcalf from Montana, Senator Ernest Gruening from Alaska, Senator Daniel K. Inouye from Hawaii, and Senator Frank Church from Idaho. Letters of appreciation, reproduced in the program, were sent by, Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Senator Hubert Humphrey the Senate's Majority Whip, Senator Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Lester Hill, Chairman of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and a letter from Senator Edward Kennedy. Highlighting the bill was a filmed message from President Kennedy, part of which said, "My fellow Democrats, this is a time when all of us who believe in government for the people, who believe in progress for our country, who believe in a fair chance for all of our citizens, who believe in the growth of Texas, who believe in the development of the United States, who believe in a strong United States as a great bulwark for freedom, who believe in a United States which is second to none in space, on the sea, on the land, a United States that stands for progress-all of those-I think Ralph Yarborough stands with them."[43] Lyndon Johnson did not attend this dinner. Neither did Connally. October 20, 1963 Jerry Bruno learns the President is going to Texas. On October 24, 1963 Jerry Bruno meets with Walter Jenkins, at the request of Kenny O'Donnell. Jenkins is LBJ's administrative assistant. Jenkins was to brief Bruno on the politics of the trip. Bruno writes, "It was like listening to somebody talking all about an incurable disease. What we had was a governor, John Connally, who was the leader of the conservative Texas Democrats: oil money, corporate leaders, some rural "redneck" strength. On the other side was Senator Ralph Yarborough, a Southern liberal, supported by labor (which was liberal in Texas), blacks, Latin Americans, and intellectuals. "They hated each other."[44] O'Donnell described Connally to Bruno, "You're dealing with an arrogant guy here."[45] Bruno went to see Yarborough on October 28, 1963. Yarborough, "described how Connally and Johnson were screwing him; worse, he said, they'd be after John Kennedy in a minute if they thought they could get away with it politically."46 Bruno then goes to Texas. He had arranged to meet with Connally's people that night and with Yarborough's people the next morning. However, word of this leaked and both factions showed up to meet Bruno at the airport. Chuck Caldwell, Yarborough's man, is there to meet Bruno. Cliff Carter, Johnson's man, is there to meet Bruno. Bruno rides into town with Carter. According to Bruno's diary, "I got into Carter's car and we drove to the Driskill Hotel in Austin and we were invited up to Johnson's suite for a drink." One of the problems Connally was facing was a gubernatorial primary against Don Yarborough. This Yarborough was a friend of Senator Ralph Yarborough but not related. Connally wanted President Kennedy to stop Don Yarborough from running against him. The next morning the fun really started. October 29, Bruno meets with Hank Brown, president of the AFL/CIO, obviously not a Connally supporter. Brown promised a labor contact in each city and warned that Connally would try to run the show. Bruno meets with people from the State Democratic Committee. These people are, "-solid Connally people- and the proposed schedule they showed me was as if all of Yarborough's supporter's had moved to Alaska. "There were meetings with nobody but the Connally wing. If there was a black spokesman, it was Connally's house black. The same with labor. The same with Latin Americans. And when I said something about that, I got a really heartening answer. `You're coming into Texas,' the spokesman said, `and Connally is the governor.' `Yes,' I said, `but there's somebody above even the governor, and that's the President of the United States.'"[47] Connally was trying to, as Evica noted, present himself as the man for all the people, and Bruno saw right through it. Immediately afterwards Bruno meets with Yarborough's people. Bruno admits he was mostly on their side as the Yarborough people did not want to control events just to get a piece of the action. Bruno ponders, "I think it must have been that meeting, and my sense that I didn't like what the Connally people were going to do, that put my back up for the meeting I then had with Governor Connally."[48] This meeting takes place at the Forty Acres Club in Austin. "It was a really friendly atmosphere. Connally was at the head of a long conference table. He's a tall handsome guy, and he was wearing cowboy boots. He really looked the part. All around him on either side of the table were his aides. And I was sitting there, by myself, bootless, about eight feet shorter than he was. At one point they brought in lunch: a juicy steak for Connally, a sandwich for me. And I'll tell you, if you've spend most of your life working with your hands, you know what they are trying to do with a move like that."[49] Bruno continues, "As we sat there, Connally began outlining the schedule for Kennedy's trip. It was firm, he kept insisting; it was his state and if the President didn't like it, he could stay home. That really made me feel good."[50] In his diary Bruno writes that Connally said, "Either we select the stops and run the trips or the President can stay home. We don't want him."[51] Reston, in "The Lone Star" corroborates, "In their private dinning room, only a few bites into the appetizer, Connally made it manifestly clear that he and only he was going to run this show. He presented Bruno with the president's itinerary as a fait accompli . `It's going to be my way or no way,' Connally announced. `This is it or he can stay home."[52] Bruno replied with his standard answer for dealing with difficult people, "I just want to tell you one thing, Governor, he's the President. I'm here to get everyone's recommendations, and I'll forward them to the White House. But they'll decide."[53] Reston writes that, "Bruno wasn't prepared for quite this level of high-handedness, and he grew more unsettled as he looked over the schedule Connally gave him. It was not well worked out."[54] And Bruno's response, "unhinged Connally. Leaping out of his chair, the governor strode to a telephone in the corner of the room, picked it up, and in a loud voice demanded to be connected with the White House."[55] (emphasis added) Bruno's version; (Connally speaking) "Get me the White House.' Then we all waited. `Get me Kenny O'Donnell.' Then he started talking about the entire schedule: here's what's going to happen in Houston, here's what we'll do in San Antonio. Then we wait. `Fine, fine, I'll get back to you,' Connally said. And he came back to the table and started in, saying, This is what we want him to do."[56] According to Reston, Connally said, "It's all confirmed," he said. "This is the itinerary" Bruno wondered why he had come at all.[57] Bruno writes in his diary that Connally never told O'Donnell that he was in the room at any point during the phone conversation. O'Donnell's response to Connally was, "Wait until Bruno gets there and work out the details."[58] Evica points out that the conversation was faked. It was. Initially, I thought Connally is not really talking to anyone, that the only thing he is hearing is dial tone, that the call itself was faked. I wanted to know if the phone call took place at all. I went to the JFK Library and looked up the Telephone Memorandum File for October 29, 1963. Sure enough at 3:20 P.M. EST Washington, D.C. time, 2:20 P.M. CST Austin, Texas time, there is logged a phone call from Gov. John Connally, Austin, Texas opr21-Gr23191. It is logged as answered at 3:36 P.M., a mere 16 minutes later. Someone moved quickly. It was not the call that was faked. It is the conversation that Connally would make you believe he is having with O'Donnell that is faked. The call was made as I found the documentation for it. What Connally says happened between himself and O'Donnell, namely that O'Donnell confirmed Connally's schedule for President Kennedy, is total bull. Bruno, tragically, writes, "I learned only later-a lot later, when it didn't make any difference-that Kenny had told him the same thing I had, that it was the White House that would make any final decision."[59] Reston writes parenthetically, "In fact, O'Donnell had not confirmed the Connally schedule at all."[60] Why Reston puts that in parenthesis escapes me. It is very important to acknowledge Connally's chicanery. This luncheon episode is crucially important. It proves Governor Connally is calling the shots, placing great political and personal pressure on anyone who wants President Kennedy to plan his own trip. It shows Connally lies. At this luncheon Bruno is led to believe that President Kennedy is to receive an honorary degree at Texas Christian University. This is the most crucial aspect of Connally's manipulation. Reston writes that Connally broached the idea with the TCU president who liked the idea. "It provided a dignified event for Connally's hometown, and it became the raison d' etre for the Ft. Worth stop. Connally had promised the honor to Kennedy at the White House, [on October 4th perhaps?] and Kennedy was pleased, since the conferring of a degree by a bedrock Protestant university would further bury the fears of the South over a Catholic president. To Bruno at lunch, the event was presented as a done deal. As a scheduling matter, this would work well. The degree ceremony was to be in midmorning, and the presidential caravan would motor the thirty miles to Dallas for the President's speech to Dallas businessmen. It was unlikely, under this plan, that there would be time for a motorcade through downtown Dallas, but if there was, it would follow a fairly direct course."[61] Bruno writes in his diary on October 29, 1963, "That the only difference between Connally's proposed stops and the actual schedule was that the President would not be given an honorary degree by Texas Christian University at 9:30 A.M. Nov. 22," and thus the "travel by car from Fort Worth to Dallas" had to be canceled.[62] Do you see how important the planned honorary degree would have been? "As the planning went forward, Bruno got a call from Connally. He's sorry but TCU had decided against conferring the degree."[63] Connally then gives a phony story about university rules and regulations, claiming that the faculty and student senate would have to approve the degree and that there was not enough time for such deliberations. Connally also claimed that the elders and the sticklers within the university administration were concerned that a bad precedent might be set if the rules were skirted just for the President of the United States. Bruno knew better. Connally himself said it was a done deal and offered the degree a month earlier. In his HSCA executive session testimony Bruno states that Walter Jenkins' list of proposed stops included Fort Worth, Texas Christian University.[64] What was the real reason? "Well, he's a Catholic, you know,' Connally told Bruno."[65] Bruno is pissed. There is now no reason to go to Ft. Worth. Connally calls back to announce that the Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce would like to give the President a breakfast. "Instead of a leisurely sleep over in Houston after a testimonial dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas, the President would now have to fly to Ft. Worth near midnight so he could be ready for the hastily pasted-up breakfast. More important, there were now two hours in the late morning that needed to be filled. To kill time rather than save it, it was decided that Kennedy would fly from Ft. Worth to Dallas all the motion to and from airports would consume the dead space in the schedule. From the Dallas airport to the luncheon speech, the motorcade route was redrawn-and lengthened - through Dealey Plaza."[66] (emphasis added) I believe the TCU honorary degree was never meant to be. I believe it's sole purpose was to have it in the schedule only so that it could be yanked and thus creating a hole in the itinerary. This creates a last minute change in the president's schedule and thus nearly guaranteeing a motorcade through downtown Dallas. To me this is the most sinister aspect to Connally's manipulation of the travel plans. The House Select Committee on Assassination in volume 11, in the aptly named "Politics and Presidential Protection: The Motorcade" p. 513-4 writes about the planned Texas Christian University Appearance. This is an appendix staff report called "Politics and Presidential Protection: The Motorcade". In his testimony to the HSCA Governor Connally, "did not specify whose idea it was to have the President appear at Texas Christian University."[67] Connally is lying, again. He is the one who originated the idea. Bruno first learned of the TCU award from Walter Jenkins on October 24.[68] The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Trustees of TCU[69] reference something, "Concerning a special item presented by Chancellor Sadler on the recommendation of the University council, ...that TCU tender its facilities to the governor of Texas and the City of Ft. Worth, either the stadium or the Coliseum as weather might dictate, for the purpose of extending a warm invitation to the President of the United States to speak on the TCU campus during his visit to Texas in November. Motion passed."[70] The HSCA surmised that the minutes suggest Chancellor Sadler originated the idea, "but no specific identification of the original proponents of the TCU appearance is made."[71] Sam P. Woodson jr., who was present at the Nov. 1, 1963 meeting told the HSCA that Governor Connally proposed the idea to Chancellor Sadler. Sadler repeats Connally's excuse about normal procedures, but adds a special twist, "because of the belief that the governor was trying to manipulate the Board at the expense of democratic university procedures it was decided that normal procedures should be maintained...,"[72] and thus the honorary degree idea was rejected. Don't you love this? Connally's manipulation of democratic procedures is the reason why the award was canceled? Connally wanted the award canceled, it's not much of a problem as there is no documentation from TCU that there ever was going to be one anyway, merely a request that "TCU tender its facilities". Connally's whole political career is a study in the manipulation of democratic procedures. Oddly, the same document records that the TCU Board of Trustees holds a special meeting at 3:00 P.M November 22, 1963 wherein there is not one mention that the President of the United States has been assassinated less than 3 hours ago, less than 50 miles away, a President who was supposedly invited to speak on their campus that day. It's just business as usual. The HSCA also saw the importance of the TCU non-event, "It is ironic that if the honorary degree ceremony at TCU had been held, especially with a subsequent reception of some kind, logistical complications might have delayed the President's arrival in Dallas and thereby interfered with the scheduled occurrence of the motorcade. If such a delay had occurred, the opportunity might have been lost for an assassin to take advantage of certain conditions that promoted Kennedy's assassination."[73] (emphasis added) The "certain conditions" were created by John Connally, and LBJ to make themselves look strong and JFK weak to the voters of Texas. I will go much further into this in the book I'm writing. I go much more into detail on Jerry Bruno. I go much further into detail just getting us to October. There is a great deal going on as we get into November, and the machinations over how the Trade mart is selected over objections from Bruno and a Secret Service report. I go into how Bruno is removed, how the Secret Service is manipulated by John Connally as noted by the HSCA and Jerry Bruno and how certain key people are shuffled out of doing their normal responsibilities. I go into Floyd Boring, who is a very interesting figure in regards to what the Secret Service does and does not do. Hopefully, I'll get it finished and published soon.
Return to Main Page
Contact Information tomnln@cox.net
Page Visited
Times |