17

Former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura writes in American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies That the Government Tells Us:

There are two official government reports on the assassination of President Kennedy, and they directly contradict each other. [...] The second was a report fifteen years later by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluding that JFK was "probably" eliminated as part of a conspiracy.

Is that an accurate summary of the report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
  • 32
    I don't have the time to dig into this, but I have a feeling Gov. Ventura's confusion is being caused by the fact that the term "conspiracy" has multiple different definitions. The House Select Committee's definition is most likely the legal one, aka "two or more people acting in concert to commit a crime" whereas Gov. Ventura is using the "US Govt. did it" definition of conspiracy – DenisS Oct 26 '20 at 13:07
  • 2
    If you want real conspiracy, read about his brother's assassination. – paulj Oct 28 '20 at 18:37
  • @OscarBravo "clearly" does not follow from "only plausible." – phoog Oct 29 '20 at 23:21
  • 1
    @DenisS Well given the official account is that Oswald acted alone, that they did come to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy is remarkable. I very much doubt he's confused about this fact. This is a site supposedly for skeptics, and I still have to point this out. – dan-klasson Oct 30 '20 at 19:57

1 Answers1

54

You can read the report of the committee for yourself.

In the summary of findings we do read that

Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President.

Based on this they state

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

However all it means by that is that they believed more than one gunman was involved. (Two people getting together to commit a crime is automatically a 'conspiracy' in law.) The report summary states explicitly that the main organizations accused of conspiring to kill Kennedy were not involved. This includes the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, the Mafia, the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency.

With regard to the Warren Commission, the report states:

The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government. The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 12
    "The report states explicitly that the main organizations accused of conspiring to kill Kennedy were not involved." I think it would be very good for this answer to quote that part(s), since that's exactly the implication the claim makes. –  Oct 26 '20 at 14:26
  • 1
    @fredsbend The report is linked and the statements are in the summary and are easy to find. I'm not going to quote because they refute each allegation in a separate statement and the entire thing would get quite long. – DJClayworth Oct 26 '20 at 16:37
  • 4
    @Caleth yes, a conspiracy could also comprise non-shooter co-conspirators, so the existence of a conspiracy would not imply multiple shooters. But the point is that the existence of a second shooter *does* imply a conspiracy, even if there were only the two shooters with nobody else involved. The first two quotes in this answer, taken by themselves without further context, imply nothing more than the probable existence of a second shooter. I haven't read the report, so I don't know whether this answer mischaracterizes it, but knowing DJClayworth's contributions, I doubt that it does. – phoog Oct 26 '20 at 20:33
  • 3
    Slight nitpick, but it doesn't say as a finding of fact that they were not involved, it says "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it" that they were not involved. This language appears to be deliberate, as it's only used for that section of the summary. – Wossname Oct 27 '20 at 01:34
  • 3
    Committees especially legal ones tend to state their conclusions "based on the evidence available " because that's all they can do. It's an admission that if other evidence were to show up they might have to change their conclusion. – DJClayworth Oct 27 '20 at 02:52
  • 17
    "But the point is that the existence of a second shooter does imply a conspiracy," Either that, or that JFK was unlucky enough that two different people independently decided to try to kill him at the same place and time. – nick012000 Oct 27 '20 at 08:00
  • 3
    It doesn't help that the legal definition of "conspiracy" is significantly different from the way it's used by the general community, particularly conspiracy theorists. Calling a two-man job a conspiracy gives them false legitimacy. – Barmar Oct 27 '20 at 15:41
  • 3
    @Barmar More than that, the legal definition of "conspiracy" doesn't require any actual crime to be committed. If two people *planned* to assassinate JFK but never actually *did it*, it's still technically a conspiracy. – Darrel Hoffman Oct 27 '20 at 15:56
  • 2
    @DJClayworth See, for example, the difference between Summary Finding C1: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." and Summary finding C5: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." C5 is a categorical statement of fact, C1 is a statement of belief. Only statements C1-4 are couched like that. – Wossname Oct 28 '20 at 01:38
  • 2
    @Wossname I missed that. Thank you. – DJClayworth Oct 28 '20 at 15:27
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/115648/discussion-on-answer-by-djclayworth-did-the-house-select-committee-on-assassinat). – tim Oct 29 '20 at 13:25
  • @nick012000 touché – phoog Oct 29 '20 at 23:22
  • 1
    @DarrelHoffman Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime. So is attempted murder. – dan-klasson Oct 30 '20 at 19:59
  • 1
    @dan-klasson Right, what I meant was conspiracy to commit murder is still a *conspiracy*, even if the murder never happens. Still a crime either way, though presumably less of one if it was unsuccessful. – Darrel Hoffman Oct 30 '20 at 20:39
  • 1
    @DarrelHoffman Yeah, I knew what you meant. I just wanted to make it explicit. Always good to be clear. And I totally agree with you. – dan-klasson Oct 30 '20 at 20:41