Richard Russell and the Warren Report
- Fred Litwin
- 21 hours ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 1 hour ago
A standard line from conspiracy theorists is that Warren Commission member Richard Russell was a skeptic of the Warren Report.
This week, as the 60th anniversary of the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy nears, JFK Facts presents original archival audio in which Warren Commission member Senator Richard Russell tells President Lyndon Johnson that he did not believe the commission’s “single bullet theory,” and did not rule out a possible conspiracy.
The phone call between Johnson and Russell shows how frustrated Russell had grown with the Commission and the failure of his effort to include a dissent on the commission’s forensic findings. Johnson said privately he didn’t believe in the single-bullet theory either, but publicly, he would endorse the commission’s findings. Johnson wanted to get the Warren Commission investigation over and done with. By the end of the call, Johnson directed the conversation to a new subject: escalating the war in Vietnam.
Richard Russell, despite his misgivings, signed the Warren Report. But his issues with the Report points to one of its weaknesses -- the failure to adequately explain the single-bullet theory.
Had the Commission included proper trajectory diagrams showing the positioning of Kennedy and Connally, Russell might have been convinced. Had he noticed Connally's lapel flip, he might have been even more comfortable. And had the Warren Commission properly isolated the key frames from the Zapruder film, he might have noticed both Kennedy and Connally reacting to the same bullet.
Frames Z223 - Z224: The Connally lapel flip.
Frames Z225 - Z226: Kennedy and Connally react at the same time.
The entire single-bullet sequence:
And lastly, had he understood that Connally thought the single-bullet theory was compatible with his recollection, he might have felt differently.
Have a look at what Connally said during the CBS News Inquiry on the Warren Report in 1967: (51:50)
John Connally: "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened, and what occurred, with respect to the one-bullet theory is that it had to be the second bullet that might have hit us both.
Interviewer: Do you believe Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?
John Connally: That's possible. That's possible. Now the best witness I know doesn't believe that.
The documentary interviews Nellie Connally who believes that Connally and JFK were hit by separate bullets. John Connally returns at 53:34:
John Connally: Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion. The first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me. Now, so far as I'm concerned, all I can say, with any finality, is that if there is, if the single bullet theory is correct, then it had to be the second bullet that hit President Kennedy and me.
Walter Cronkite: The Governor insists that he heard a shot before he was struck, and that therefore he could not have been struck by the first bullet as the Warren Commission supposes.
Despite his misgivings, Russell thought the Warren Report was "pretty good."
Here is an excerpt from a telephone call between Russell and President Johnson from September 18, 1964: (page 250 in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes by Max Holland)
Russell: Well, they were tryin' to prove that [the] same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally ... went through him and through his hand, [and] his bone, into his leg and everything else. Just a lot of stuff there ... I hadn't ... couldn't didn't hear all the evidence, and cross-examine all of 'em. But I did read the record. So I just, ah ... I don't know, I was the only fella [commissioner] there that even ... practically, that suggested any change whatever in what the staff had got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got a pretty good report.
Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?
Russell: Well, it don't make much difference. But they said they believe ... that the Commission believe[s] that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it.
Note that Russell tells Johnson that "we got a pretty good report." Russell never deviated from his belief that Oswald killed JFK. Indeed the Warren Report notes that "there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository."
Money Quote:
There are several bits of evidence that have raised questions in my mind that are not answered by any evidence the Commission could procure. Among these are the extent of Oswald’s associations with the large number of Cuban nationals who were students in the educational institutions in Minsk during his residence there; the nature and extent of his relationship with foreign nationals who may have had a purpose in wishing to kill the President of the United States; the scope and number of communications he may have had with such persons after his return to the United States, and a detailed account of all of Oswald’s movements, contacts and associations on his secret visit to Mexico a few weeks before the assassination of the President. The inability to gather all evidence in these areas as well as a number of suspicious circumstances, deduced from the record as made, to my mind preclude the conclusive determination that Oswald and Oswald alone, without the knowledge, encouragement or assistance of any other person, planned and perpetrated the assassination.
Does Morley and other conspiracy theorists support what Russell has written? That perhaps Oswald, the sole shooter, might have had encouragement or assistance? Somehow, I think the answer is no.
Vincent Bugliosi, in his book Reclaiming History, notes that Richard Russell had the worst attendance record of any Warren Commissioner: (page 3580)
Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official, he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did not. As indicated earlier in the text, his attendance at the hearings where ninety-four witnesses testified before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only attending the testimony of six witnesses (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p. xxx).
Russell talked to the press in 1970:
Money Quote:
Russell appeared to agree with the commission's conclusions that Oswald was the man who fired the shots at Kennedy, and that he acted alone. "I think that any other commission you might appoint today would arrive at that conclusion," he said.
A bad transcription of the Russell-Johnson phone call has led some to believe that Warren threatened Russell to sign the Warren Report.
The first minutes of this telephone conversation between Johnson and his mentor, Senator Richard B. Russell, concern the latter's participation on the Warren Commission, which was created to investigate the Kennedy assassination. That very day, after 10 arduous months, the panel had put the finishing touches on what would become known as the Warren Report. Johnson asked Russell if the commission's findings were unanimous. Russell replied, according to Beschloss's transcript, “Yes, sir. I tried my best to get in a dissent, but they'd come 'round and trade me out of it by giving me a little old threat.”
The implication is that the senior senator from Georgia, one of Washington's most powerful men, signed the Warren Report under duress; that he was in fundamental disagreement with one or more of the commission's key findings, but bowed to an unspecified threat.
There's something wrong here. A Southern Democrat and staunch opponent of civil rights, Russell detested Chief Justice Earl Warren and the kind of jurisprudence the Warren Supreme Court practiced. In fact, Russell protested long and vigorously when Johnson informed the Georgian, on November 29, 1963, that he had been appointed to serve on the commission. It wasn't because Russell thought the duty unimportant; it was primarily because he didn't want to work with Warren on any matter. But Johnson insisted. “I don't give a damn if you have to serve with a Republican; if you have to serve with a Communist; if you have to serve with a Negro; if you have to serve with a thug,” he stated. So Russell did serve. Still, the notion that a grudging participant like Russell would ever bow to a threat from a panel headed by Warren is astounding.
Listening to the tape, it becomes clear that Beschloss's transcription is incorrect. What Russell actually said is: “I tried my best to get in a dissent, but they'd come 'round and trade me out of it by giving me a little old thread of it.”
Suddenly, the conversation makes sense. Russell came to the commission's last meeting on September 18 determined to register his opinion on two pivotal issues: whether a foreign conspiracy existed, and the sequence of the bullets that struck Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally in Dallas's Dealey Plaza. Far from threatening the Georgian, Warren had labored that day to oblige him.
The chief justice believed it was inordinately important for the commission to deliver a unanimous decision to the American people. If complete agreement proved elusive, Russell, of all the members, could not be the lone dissenter. Russell was to conservative opinion what Warren was to liberal: a standard bearer and powerful influence. So along with the other panel members, Warren kept massaging the final language until it incorporated Russell's views. Finally, the senator could only assent.
Presenting Richard Russell as a dissenter to the Warren Report is a big disingenuous. A little more diligence by the Warren Commission might have answered his questions. And his objections to the single-bullet theory have now all been answered.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts
Alfredda Scobey worked for Richard Russell and conspiracy theorists misinterpret what she has written and said.
James DiEugenio doesn't understand her 1965 article.
Senator John Sherman Cooper is also presented as a dissenter, but that would not really be fair.