Jackie Killed JFK?

Saying Jackie shot JFK since 2010!

Blog

BOOK REVIEW: "JACQUELINE ACCUSED" by R. Stanley Jackson

Posted by jackiekilledjfk on January 24, 2013 at 8:30 PM

A promise kept: my long-awaited book review of Rich (R. Stanley) Jackson's book, "Jacqueline Accused," in which he claims Jackie acted alone in the slaying of her husband, JFK, and that the only conspiracy was that of those who planned and executed the subsequent cover-up that hid her guilt from public view and prevented her from facing the legal consequences of her crime.


BOOK REVIEW of “JACQUELINE ACCUSED”

A Reinterpretation of the Events in Dealey Plaza

22 November 1963

Author:  R. Stanley Jackson

 

 

My thanks to Rich Jackson for his kindness in presenting me with a free copy of his beautifully jacketed and bound hardcover book for my enjoyment and review.

 

I’d like to begin by saying that Mr. Jackson writes in a style that is at once elegant and efficient which makes reading his work enjoyable and engaging.  Mr. Jackson has spared no effort in his handling of the minute aspects of the medical evidence available in order to attempt to present a convincing case for his hypotheses, which include

 

1.   That the First Lady of the United States in 1963, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (afterwards in this review referred to as Jackie), acted alone in planning and executing the murder of her late husband, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (afterwards in this review referred to as JFK).

 

2.   That Jackie used a small handgun to shoot JFK in the neck resulting in a wound to his trachea.

 

3.   That Jackie then also shot Governor John Connally (afterwards in this review referred to as Connally) when he heard her first shot and turned around.

 

4.   That Jackie delivered the head shot that killed JFK by placing the muzzle of said handgun into his mouth and firing upward.

 

5.   That the driver, Special Agent William Greer, finally became aware of the situation after Jackie jumped onto the trunk of the limousine and was pushed back into her seat by Special Agent Clint Hill.

 

6.   That there was no conspiracy by any other person, group, government or agency in the execution of the crime that ended the life and presidency of JFK.

 

7.   That any cover-up of the crime and its real perpetrator, Jackie, was conceived and executed afterwards by official sources seeking to protect Jackie from the consequences of her criminal actions and the American people from learning the truth.

 

 

Let’s take these points one at a time.


1.  That the First Lady of the United States in 1963, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (afterwards in this review referred to as Jackie), acted alone in planning and executing the murder of her late husband, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (afterwards in this review referred to as JFK).

 

Mr. Jackson, I feel, presents a rather unconvincing case for why Jackie may have felt justified or that it was necessary that she cut her husband’s life abruptly short by murdering him to do it.   He cites examples of JFK’s well-known (now) infidelities with other women and other “tensions” in the marriage.  He points out that Jackie did participate in some drug (amphetamine) use to the point of addiction to alleviate her frequent migraines, stress, and what Mr. Jackson labels as “abuse” from her husband.  These and the further motivation of her despondency from having lost two children to death are portrayed as having driven Jackie to decide tomurder her husband JFK in Texas.   Mr. Jackson hypothesizes that Aristotle Onassis, during her trip to Greece without her husband in the months preceding the murder, played a part in providing her with “ample encouragement and almost certainly the means.”

I say “unconvincing” because many women experience similar trials in their married lives but do not resort to killing their husbands because of it.  Jackie had a life of luxury, prestige and glamour that she would have been jeopardizing had she been arrested and prosecuted for her crime – and even risking it somewhat even if she was not caught because she would no longer be First Lady with all the benefits that supplied.  She was a highly intelligent woman who would have understood the risk of committing violent murder in front of hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were recording the event with movie and still cameras.   She would also have taken into account the close proximity of the Secret Service and of Connally and his wife.  As frustrated as she may have been with the negative aspects of her marriage, I highly doubt she would have chosen to solve them by removing her children’s father from their lives as she was above all, a mother.  I’m not saying it’s impossible she may have committed this crime of her own volition, but I am arguing that I feel it is improbable that she would.

 

2.   That Jackie used a small handgun to shoot JFK in the neck resulting in a wound to his trachea.

 

This one I am not disputing as vehemently as some others for it may be possible that Jackie took care of inflicting this wound in some way; but I find it improbable because it would be difficult for her to administer such a missile without attracting the attention of the many bystanders that were present at the time the wound was inflicted.  This takes place on the Zapruder film when the limo was ostensibly obscured by the Stemmons freeway sign; but there were plenty of other witnesses who took photos and also testified; and no one came forward to say that Jackie leaned over in front of JFK to the extent necessary to put a hole in the very front of his neck.   If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you see that Jackie is about as far away from JFK as she can get on the rear seat just as the car disappears behind the sign and she still is when it emerges.   Also, I doubt that JFK would not have resisted her efforts in some way, as he was fully capable of doing so at that time.  If Jackie did in some way cause the distress to his neck area that he so clearly exhibits in subsequent frames of the Zapruder film and on the Altgens photo, I’d be more amenable to the theory that she administered some type of paralyzing agent to his thigh or somewhere equally not as noticeable and that it caused his throat to constrict.

 

3.  That Jackie then also shot Governor John Connally (afterwards in this review referred to as Connally) when he heard her first shot and turned around.

 

After reviewing the Zapruder film again, I would have to admit that there may have been time for Jackie to squeeze off a shot to hit Connally between him looking at her and her taking her fatal headshot to JFK.  I wouldn’t rule it out, therefore, as being impossible; but I feel it is highly improbable that Jackie would have reacted that quickly to his possibly seeing her holding the gun.   More than that, I feel it is nearly unbelievable that Connally and/or his wife Nellie would not have reported to the authorities that Jackie was the one who shot him!   At the time, Connally was more of a protégé to Lyndon Johnson than to the Kennedy’s  It’s difficult to believe that while slipping in and out of consciousness as he claims he did after the wounding, that Connally would attempt to withhold that information from those who attended to him.  The same goes for Nellie; what motive would she possibly have for keeping secret the fact that the First Lady of the United States shot her husband (unless she was unaware of it, which is also difficult to believe given her close proximity)?  It is possible that elements in the U.S. government ordered the Connally’s silence regarding Jackie’s guilt; but if the crime was a complete surprise to the Connally’s, I highly doubt they would have had the presence of mind to keep quiet about it from the very start!  I will concede that there is a very small chance that the Connally’s did not know who shot the Governor or the President and therefore did not name any suspects.

More believable, to me, at least, is the scenario that all of the occupants of the Presidential limo, save JFK, were participants in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK in Dallas on November 22, 1963.  The limo had reached the spot on Elm Street that had been pre-designated as the “kill zone” (and even marked with yellow borders of yellow paint on the curb!); and that is why Connally turned in his seat to ascertain that JFK had been rendered helpless by the shot to his throat and to give Jackie the order to take her head shot.   Having reached the kill zone, several other carefully placed snipers were ready to shoot also (in the event that Jackie lost her nerve or did not execute her shot expertly enough to mortally wound her husband).  If Connally was wounded by gunshot – and there are some researchers who express doubt he was and propose that he may have faked his wounding in order to give credence to the official accusation against Lee Harvey Oswald and to distract attention at the crime scene away from Jackie – it was from a sniper (or snipers) located above and behind the limousine’s position as the purported trajectory of his wounds would indicate. It may have taken two separate shots to cause the reported wounds to several areas of Connally’s body.    Here’s a common sense article on the issue.   Connally was known to be more aligned with the right-wing faction of Texas politics, as was LBJ, (and both were concerned with oil profits) so it is not difficult to imagine that he might be more than willing to participate in the elimination of what he may have seen as an obstacle to his particular political goals.   


In any case, the facts point to a scenario where even those persons in near proximity to the crime scene (the limo) were hand picked by the conspirators and given prior knowledge and their cooperation solicited before the event.  This would include the dignitaries and Secret Service agents in the follow up cars as well as the Dallas motorcycle policemen flanking both cars.   I believe steps were taken by complicit members of security personnel, from both governmental and local agencies, to ensure that a minimum number of unapproved witnesses were present at the designated kill zone area.  This was partially achieved by the late-notice change in the parade route.   To insinuate, as Mr. Jackson does, that Jackie could have fired three shots sitting in the rear of that limousine without even one witness coming forward and reporting it to the authorities or the press immediately afterward is disingenuous at best.    Those that conspired to assassinate JFK laid the groundwork for the necessary cover up before the crime was committed.   The mere fact that the Connally’s were in the Presidential limo that day is proof they were voluntary participants in the planned assassination.   Governor Connally’s wounding was probably an unplanned glitch in the plot; but in any case, it proved helpful to the Warren Commission’s agenda to “prove” that the bullets came from the rear, namely, from the Texas School Book Depository.   The Connally’s probably considered the bullet wounds a small price to pay to rid themselves of the troubling presence to their political and economic goals:  JFK.

 

4.   That Jackie delivered the head shot that killed JFK by placing the muzzle of said handgun into his mouth and firing upward.

 

Mr. Jackson goes to great lengths to elaborate on his theory that claims that the fatal headshot to JFK was administered by Jackie inserting the barrel of the gun into JFK’s mouth and firing upward into his brain.  Perhaps this theory was necessitated by the dilemma of how to explain the absence of a bullet wound to the left side of JFK’s head.   On my "Left Head Wound" page on this JackieKilledJFK website, I give the reader a list of witnesses that viewed the body of JFK at Parkland Hospital who claim they did see such a left head wound so I personally see little reason to come up with another explanation for the track of the bullet that Jackie fired. 


Mr. Jackson’s handling of the so-called medical evidence is masterful and comprehensive; and undoubtedly quite convincing to the average reader.  I myself have long been convinced that the conspirators utilized at least one other cadaver besides that of JFK to produce their autopsy results and photographs (See:  Officer Tippit's Role); therefore, the medical “evidence” is completely untrustworthy as a means of discovery of the facts of the case.   Once the body of JFK left public view, i.e., the motorcade and Parkland Hospital, and became the property of the U.S.Government and under its complete authority, nothing that was published as relevant to the medical evidence pertaining to the case can be viewed as trustworthy.   I realize and appreciate the efforts of the author of the volume in question; but his efforts can only be viewed as a complete and total waste of time on his part; and as a result, the reader’s also.  There is no visual evidence contained on the Zapruder film or other videos and/or stills made while JFK was in public view that would prove or even bolster Mr. Jackson’s theory.   All that’s left to say about the theory that Jackie Kennedy utilized JFK’s mouth as a point of entry for her bullet that day is that it is remotely possible, but remains unlikely in that there is no visual record or report by a witness or witnesses that the mouth of JFK showed any sign of a gunshot entering therein, such as gunpowder residue, blood, or chipped or broken teeth.   Admittedly, it is possible that the shot could have been fired into his mouth without causing broken teeth or even blood emerging onto his face, but gunpowder residue may have been visible to the naked eye.   It’s also difficult to believe that JFK would have been cooperative enough to allow a gun to be inserted between his lips while he was in such obvious distress.   I admit it’s possible, but improbable.


5.   That the driver, Special Agent William Greer, finally became aware of the situation after Jackie jumped onto the trunk of the limousine and was pushed back into her seat by Special Agent Clint Hill.

 

Mr. Jackson is a nicer person than I am as he completely exonerates the Secret Service agents of any complicity in the murder of JFK (but not in the cover up).   It’s my contention, as I noted above, that every single person in close contact with the crime scene, with the obvious exception of the victim himself, JFK, had foreknowledge of, and most likely had aided the preparation for, the execution and subsequent cover up of the crime.   I agree with the JFK assassination researchers who believe that Special Agent Greer not only slowed the limousine down to facilitate the murder but probably went so far as to stop the car entirely. It can be noted on the Zapruder film stills that the limousine was located between two pre-painted yellow curb markings  (#297 & #356) when the shot(s) that killed JFK were fired.  (See all frames.)  

Mr. Jackson gives the Secret Service agents present the benefit of the doubt in regard to the murder of the President; but, admittedly, he does assign some of the blame for the subsequent cover up that ensued in that he relates how Agents Kellerman and O’Donnell battled the local coroner over possession of the President’s body for autopsy purposes, which insinuates that even then they were concerned about protecting Jackie from criminal prosecution, or at the least, preserving the evidence for the governmental authorities to determine what should be done.


In order to undergird his premise that Jackie acted alone in the murder of JFK, it is necessary for Mr. Jackson to portray every other person with a vested interest in the case with an excuse or alibi to disassociate him or her from any guilt in the plot to murder her husband.   This acrobatic attempt to whitewash any hint of a conspiracy beforehand is not necessary, however, regarding actions taken afterward to protect the First Lady from detection and prosecution or to protect the security of the United States of America.   As I’ve stated before, it boggles the imagination to suggest that, when confronted with evidence that Jackie Kennedy acted alone in disposing of her husband, JFK, all involved parties to the aftermath of the crime immediately joined forces in a stated – or unstated – pact to protect her from the consequences of those alleged actions!

 

6.   That there was no conspiracy by any other person, group, government or agency in the execution of the crime that ended the life and presidency of JFK.

 

Let’s just say that Mr. Jackson did not even attempt to address the evidence of conspiracy that has been unearthed and presented by a myriad of capable JFK assassination researchers!   Even the simple fact that within minutes of the assassination, police “discovered” the alleged “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository!   A suspect – Lee Harvey Oswald – was named and quickly taken into custody.   I am personally convinced of Mr. Oswald’s innocence in the execution of this crime, but the very fact that the sniper’s nest clearly existed to be publicly discovered immediately after the assassination, and a rifle taken into evidence, is convincing proof that someone had enough foreknowledge of the murder to set it up that day – and I doubt that it was Jackie!  Again, it is remotely possible that the existence of the so-called sniper’s nest was quickly fabricated and set up in order to begin the process of covering up what Jackie had done unexpectedly, but it defies logic to believe so.   J. D. Tippit is mentioned only twice in Mr. Jackson’s book; and then, only to compare his head wounds with JFK’s!   No speculation is given as to the connections this crime had to the JFK assassination scenario.  Does he believe Tippit had to die to bolster the government’s case against Lee Harvey Oswald, or was his death just an unfortunate coincidence?  Questions such as these would have been interesting for the author to address; but he avoids them in favor of a minute examination of medical evidence that was, in all probability, fabricated and/or manipulated to bolster the official story.

 

If you are even reading this book review, you are probably more aware than the average person of the preponderance of evidence available to indicate a massive conspiracy conceived and executed by certain elements in the political, criminal, and national and international intelligence communities in order to achieve and protect their own selfish interests.


It just occurred to me that even the author admits a prior conspiracy in that he writes, “Mr. Onassis had provided her with ample encouragement and almost certainly the means.”  (Page lxxxv, Prelude)   Mr. Jackson apparently believes Aristotle Onassis was privy to Jackie’s intentions and aided her with both moral support and the necessary equipment, which would constitute a conspiracy of at least two individuals:  Jackie andOnassis.   Perhaps Mr. Jackson believes Onassis aided Jackie in these areas without knowing specifically what her exact intentions were, and if this is the case, I withdraw that contention.


Space does not permit me to catalog all the evidence that has been discovered and published to date that points to a conspiracy that includes, but is not limited to, involvement by federal, state, local and even foreign government officials, Mafia and other criminal elements, private citizens with various motives such as anti-Communist leanings, an interest in oil and other commodity profits, and those involved with various intelligence agencies, national and international.   If Mr. Jackson were to write another book discussing these evidences in detail and explaining why they are of no merit in investigating the crime of the murder of President John F. Kennedy, I would be most interested in reading it!  The present book under discussion does not address this subject in any satisfying manner; therefore, it is not a comprehensive treatise on the subject at hand but seeks to present an over-simplified explanation of an extremely complex matter.  

 

7.  That any cover-up of the crime and its real perpetrator, Jackie, was conceived and executed afterwards by official sources seeking to protect Jackie from the consequences of her criminal actions and the American people from learning the truth.

 

Mr. Jackson admits a conspiracy after the fact in that various individuals and agencies conspired together to cover up the fact of Jackie’s guilt in the murder of her husband, but he does not give an adequate explanation as to why these individuals and agencies would go to such lengths to do so.   Why would the federal government feel it necessary to protect one bitter woman from the consequences of her actions when it would have been so much easier to just let her take the fall she (would have) deserved?  

 

I agree that Jackie did indeed deliver at least one of the gunshots that felled her husband, Jack; but that it was part of a larger conspiracy wrought by those who wanted him gone for whatever political or personal reasons each had.   I am willing to give Jackie the benefit of the doubt in that she may have been threatened with dire consequences unless she cooperated with the conspirators.  It’s also possible that she was coerced in some way and made an offer that she just “could not refuse.”  In any case, wouldn’t it be easier to prepare a massive cover up and a fake official story beforehand so that it’s ready to fall into place immediately after the crime is committed than to scramble to create a believable storyline conceived on the go, so to speak, as events unfold without warning?


So many of JFK’s plans for the direction in which he intended this nation to go were immediately discontinued and/or changed by his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that suspicion just naturally arises when one asks the age-old question, “Cui bono? (Who benefits?)".   LBJ was about to be prosecuted for fraudulent activity and quite possibly incarcerated as a result, losing all hope of political success in the future.  That fact alone is reason enough to look beyond a scorned wife who nevertheless was enjoying all the perks of wealth, fame, and immense popularity.


To those who would like to have a deeper understanding of the climate of intrigue that existed in Dallas during the summer and fall of 1963, I suggest they acquire a copy of Me & Lee:  How I Loved and Lost Lee HarveyOswald, by Judyth Vary Baker.   The author provides intriguing details of what Lee Harvey Oswald was actually doing that summer and the ties he actually did have to groups conspiring to assassinate John F. Kennedy.


Rich Jackson is an accomplished writer with an engaging style who has some very intriguing insights into the case, especially concerning the medical evidence, which may or may not be accurate concerning the physical body of the late president, JFK.   Considering the fact that once the murder victim’s body was removed from the normal chain of custody and became the sole property of those who had motive to falsify that evidence, it’s impossible to know with any certainty if said medical evidence accurately portrays the murder victim under discussion.  I was very intrigued by Mr. Jackson’s hypothesis that at some point deliberate injury may have been inflicted to the skull of JFK out of a twisted desire to posthumously mutilate the body in addition to an attempt to obscure the real medical evidence of the gunshots.   Personally, I have very little difficulty imagining the individuals I personally suspect as being behind the crime of the assassination of John F. Kennedy inflicting their monstrous and insane hostility upon the lifeless body of their mortal enemy.   This heinous act would be reserved for the real corpse and not for the one or more substitute corpses I believe were used to produce the autopsy materials they desired and used to fool the unwitting public.

 

Thank you, Rich Jackson, for a well written and intriguing exploration of your hypothesis that Jacqueline Kennedy acted of her own volition in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, when she shot her husband, then president of these United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.   Just because I do not accept that hypothesis without certain reservations does not mean I did not enjoy and learn from your masterful volume on your chosen subject.   You have my gratitude for your grace and generosity in gifting me with a copy of your beautifully bound book, which I highly value as a fine addition to my collection of volumes devoted to JFK assassination research.   I look forward to learning of any subsequent materials that you may author in the future.

 

All my best to you in all of your endeavors!

 

JackieKilledJFK (Debo52rah)

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 


Categories: None

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

1 Comment

Reply aldous huxley
11:45 PM on December 3, 2016 
your right , just wrong weapon...the shooting was a plant...

Start a Free Blog at Webs.com