Cultural Connection
Page 7
JFK controversy continues
Kennedy expert disputes Stone's version of assassination
DeeDee Carowan
The Pendulum
Two top Kennedy experts will hold a
forum discussion of Oliver Stone's
controversial film JFK on Thursday,
Feb. 20 at 8 p.m. in the Fine Arts
Theatre.
Former "advance man" for Kennedy,
Jerry Bruno set up much of the president's
travels, as well as the fateful trip to
Dallas. Also speaking is L. Richardson
Preyer, chairman of a congressional
subcommittee that reexamined the
Kennedy assassination from 1969 to 1980.
November 22, 1963 is a date that
many Americans will never forget, when
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was
assassinated as his motorcade traveled
through Dallas.
Lee Harvey Oswald was quickly
pegged as the fanatical lone assassin, but
once the smoke cleared, America smelled a
rat. Almost 30 years and some 600 books
of conspiracy theories later, the public is
still looking for the killer of its king.
Renegade director Oliver Stone opened
a new can of worms with JFK. The
n»ovie is based on the investigation of
New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison, who brought the only Kennedy
conspiracy case to trial. The film points
fingers at the CIA, the armed forces, anti-
Castro Cubans, the Mafia, and even Vice
President Lyndon Johnson.
Critics are up in arms about Stone's
blending of original and reproduced
footage, of fact and theory, fearing that the
movie may confuse the less informed
viewer.
The Pendulum recently spoke to L.
Richardson Preyer about the film, its
repercussions and what he believes really
^'appened that day.
Pendulum: How do you feel about
Oliver Stone’s film JFK?
Preyer: It's an exciting film. It
moves along so fast, at such a rush, it
stirs up such a cloud of dust that you don't
^^op lo ask yourself if there's any basis in
fact.
While it's an exciting film, it really
little relation to what actually
happened. If you view it as fiction, that's
You can enjoy it that way. But I
^ink it's pretty clear that Oliver Stone
^eans for it to be taken as the truth. It’s
just a little alarming... that this will be
final image in people's minds about
"'hat happened.
Pendulum: You don't give any
Credence to any of his arguments in the
film?
#1
Photo courtesy of the Times-News.
Onlookers greet J.F.K. and his wife at the airport. He was assassinated later that day.
Preyer: I agree and [the Committee]
agrees with several of the points. One,
that the Warren Commission did a limited
job, that they did a very good job of
pinning it on Oswald, but they didn't look
beyond that.
And we also agree that there was a
second shooter. That was based on
acoustic evidence, backed up by
corroborating circumstances. So we agree
that the Warren Commission didn't go far
enough and that there was a second
shooter, but we disagree with his version
of it. . L ^
As opposed to a first shooter and a
second shooter, he says Oswald didn’t do
it. He also says he didn't kill Officer
Tippett, although the murder of Tippett
had six eyewitnesses. The physical
evidence, the bullet, the ballistic test
shows that Oswald's was the pistol used to
kill him. You just can't deny evidence
pfndulum: Why have the House
Select Committee files been sealed [until
2029] and not been made available to the
^“*^*preyer: We have agreed that we
ouEht to go ahead and release those things.
[Sse select Committee on
Assassinations chairman] Louis Stokes, it
he hasn’t already done it. is going to make
a mouon in Congress to release them.
The reason they were sealed was
because of James Earl Ray in the Martin
Luther King report [also re-investigated].
A number of wimesses would not testify
against Ray unless they were promised
secrecy, promised that their names and
testimonies wouldn't be revealed until after
his death, because they were afraid he
would kill them.
I don't think we’re going to release the
King files, although it may be decided to
release all of them and protect the names.
In the Kennedy case, most of the stuff
there is allegations and charges against
people in very embarrassing activities for
which there is absolutely no evidence.
You know, the kind of thing where
someone calls me and says, '1 know who
killed the President,' so I said, ’Who?’ and
they said, ’Lady Bird Johnson.' So there's
a lot of that kind of stuff with no evidence
to support it
Pendulum: Do you feel that Stone
is leading people astray by the way he has
created the film, especially the younger
generation?
Preyer: I don't think there’s any
doubt about that. For example, making
Jim Garrison the hero is totally false to
the truth. The trial doesn’t present the
actual key wimesses of the trial. He has a
make-believe witness who sums up the
case, which is soitiething that didn't even
happen in the courtroom.
I think it's very clear that the message
he’s sending is that ’This is what
happened.' You don’t get the feeling that
he’s speculating. I think it’s really very
disturbing that this is going to be the
image left in young people's minds, that
this is what happened and that they will
have this fear of the establishment in
control.
In a democracy, you have to have a
certain minimum amount of credibility for
your institutions, like your armed forces,
your law enforcement. In a democracy,
when you plant this idea that evil is being
done by people behind the scenes, it really
breaks down the democratic process.
Pendulum: Stone seems to feel, as
Garrison said in the movie, that a
government you can’t believe in or that
lies to you, which of course is
speculation, isn't worth preserving. He is
very adamant that there is corruption and
that the government is going to continue
to support that there's not.
Preyer: Well, recently there's been
many reasons not to trust the government,
with the Vietnam War. the Iran-Contra
affair. The Thomas confirmation hearings
were a disaster. But on the whole,
through the years, the committee hearing
and confirmation hearings have generally
been implemented well.
There’s nothing behind the scenes
causing these things. It's just terrible
leadership and a bunch of crooks.
And that kind of thing really got
Stone stirred up, and I don't blame him.
Vietnam, Watergate and some other things
provided the motivation and the heat
behind it.
We know who killed the president.
The thing Stone finds hard to accept is
that the standard example of an
assassination in this country is not a
political assassin. Most assassinations in
the rest of the world are political, to
remove somebody from power. But that
is not the pattern in this country. Our
pattern is the lone nut killer.
Garfield’s assassination looked a lot
like this. Like Oswald, [Garfield's
assassin] was a 'loser,' a 'nobody.' But he
got up the courage to assassinate Garfield
by reading radical social papers. He read
those, he got himself good and angry, and
next thing you know, he shot him.
Oswald was a leader of these radical
groups.
Pendulum: What about the
argument that most assassins make a big
show of their attempt and don't deny it,
whereas Oswald said, 'I'm a patsy?'
i : : - S^ JFK, Page 9