With Wojciech Kostecki, author of the book “Dallas a 4th of a century later”, we talk about the assassination of president John Kennedy, about the way in which the decision-making processes in politics take place, and how to search the truth.
(Interview is simply a edited and completed version of the podcast Are you aware? pt. Who and why killed president John F. Kennedy?).
Wojciech Kostecki
Dr. hab. humanities sciences in the field of politics, erstwhile prof. of Warsaw University and SWPS University. He conducts investigation and publishes on the United States, European integration, safety and conflict issues and policy theory. European Commission expert since 2004 and associate of the Global safety Fellows Initiative. From 2007 to 2011, president of the Group on the Threats of the State and State of the Polish Academy of Sciences investigation Committee. Author of books, among others: “Dallas a 4th century later”, “We will start war on Monday. Cuban rocket crisis", “50 + 1. Kaleidoscope of the States of America”, “Europe After the Cold War. The safety Complex Theory”, “Fear and Power. global safety in the 21st century".
Rafał Górski: I have respective positions at home, mainly in Polish, about what happened on 22 November, 61 years ago. In my opinion, the book seems to analyse these events in the most profound way. What are the largest 3 widespread myths about the assassination of the president of the United States, and what are the corresponding facts?
Let me start with a brief introduction that there have been, as yet, thirteen assassinations against the President, including 3 successful ones. The assassination of John Kennedy was the seventh in turn.
So these myths kind of relate to the phenomenon itself, and partially apply in this peculiar case.
The first story is simply a communicative that sustains the version of a madman, diagnosed or not, or a fanatic who is to be behind the killing. We had many specified cases in the world, whether in Lennon's case or not so long ago, in president Adamowicz's case. And in the case of Kennedy's murder, this communicative is coming back. What are the facts? Well, with each other's book, with each other's material revealed, it's getting harder to keep that version. Although it might be better to say that, in fact, from the beginning, for those who had looked a small closer at the case, it was apparent that 1 shooter could not have done it. Without going into detail, shots fired to Kennedy spread over 3 to 4 seconds. With the firearm that Oswald was expected to fire, you couldn't fire 4 bullets at a time like this, and that's most likely how many they were.
None of the sharpshooters who then tried to do so either. This was besides influenced by the model of the rifle, rather "the ancient". It's besides good to mention that we're inactive not certain what kind of firearm it was. In short, it would be a miracle if 1 man, Oswald, could do it.
The second, alternatively vital story to be recalled here, is repeated themes about the social-political background of events specified as attacks on well-known politicians. besides in the context of the full world, not just the United States. This is about the influence that certain interest groups can have on political decisions in the country. Military-industrial complexes, peculiar services, mafias. An image of the killer sent by the KGB, a professional who performs a perfect crime that can't be traced, can be peculiarly imaginative.
However, in the case of Kennedy's murder, if we would like to start talking about conclusive evidence of specified a "conspiracy", unfortunately, there are no specified evidence. There are quite a few legitimate suspicions, a trail. However, no evidence that would be indisputable in court.
And there's a 3rd story that I think is not enough. The Kennedy family's connections to the criminal world. There are conjectures that Kennedy’s father worked with groups smuggling alcohol into the United States during Prohibition. And that these mob ties were expected to aid John Kennedy become president. Note that about 100,000 votes from Chicago were crucial to his victory, according to this narrative, "bought" for mafia money. The mob may have at any point started asking for a "payment of debt". And let's add, Robert Kennedy, the president's brother, who was the lawyer General, could stand on the road.
By the way, as a social context, it is besides crucial to mention president Kennedy's alleged sex addiction. These matters, due to their intimate character, are not so frequently raised, but increasingly appear in memories. An example of this is simply a brand-new movie about Marilyn Monroe, at least valuable in this respect. possibly these are the threads that should besides be considered.
I'll go back to the second myth. He makes himself apparent by reading books on the subject, including the Lord's, that much evidence, to put it straight, disappeared.
Yes, they're crucial clues, but not for the court, just for investigative journalists. For those who compose books, who prosecute sensationalism. If something so crucial is missing, which could explain the substance to us in a definitive way, it follows that there is simply a group of conspirators who “weakly had their fingers in it”. Only, it looks like the facts won't confirm it.
I'll make that very clear. A twelve people died...
Exactly 32 people.
32 people died in the course of an ongoing investigation or, may be better said, in the course of its failure to carry out those years that have passed since president John Kennedy was killed. People died who could possibly supply us with these conclusive facts and evidence. Why was the president of the United States killed?
(Laughter) That's the question I was afraid of from the beginning. If the answer to that question had been known, the perpetrators would have been identified. That's most likely the most simple regulation in forensics. It says that to identify the perpetrator of a crime, we request to know why it was done. In this situation, we return to our more or little probable assumptions, hypotheses.
I, on the another hand, have no clear answer. I know the concepts that say which of the answers seems most accurate. From what I can tell, there are 4 specified answers to the question why the president of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was killed.
First, 1 should consider who was most disturbed by his person. This subject is devoted to most of the books that address this issue.
Usually, 1 of the answers is the Secret Service. I'd like to make it very clear that this is actually an intelligence service, due to the fact that the CIA is that kind of organization. About a year and a half before the Kennedy assassination, the president stripped her boss, Allen Dulles. After the failure of operations in the Bay of Pigs, or an effort of camouflaged invasion of Cuba, which was carried out in a alternatively inept way. It was prepared by Cuban migrants who fled the regime. Planes were besides prepared to pretend to be Russian MiGi, which was besides rapidly detected. It was a disgrace, besides for the President, who was 1 of the people who wanted to overthrow Fidel Castro's power. Although here it is essential to reserve that in Cuba Castro himself was not considered a Communist, but a nationalist who only made an alliance with the russian Union for pragmatic reasons, due to the fact that there was no specified anticipation with anyone else at the time.
But Kennedy wanted to be a man of peace. erstwhile he agreed to a camouflaged operation in Bay of Pigs, the actual assault on the island by people trained and assisted by the CIA, he wanted a measurable effect in the form of bringing Fidel Castro's power down, but in a way that would not tie him alone to this event. As a man who spoke about building a "world of peace", from Berlin to Asia to America.
Meanwhile, the CIA, which had a sense of the function it played for the United States especially in the 20th century, could not accept the criticism of the President. Of course, this is specifically about Allen Dulles. The president's behaviour was perceived as gross ingratitude. So it is possible that any desire for revenge on Kennedy was born then.
