An In-Depth Review of Gus
Russo’s Live By the Sword
By W. Tracy Parnell ã 2000
As
a believer in the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was intrigued by the thesis of Live
By the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK (Bancroft
Press, Baltimore-ISBN 1-890862-01-0). That thesis, stated simply, is that the
Kennedy brothers’ “secret war” on Castro (during which they tried to remove him
from power through invasion, counterinsurgency, and even assassination)
backfired resulting in JFK’s death at the hand of Oswald. This concept, while
not new, does go a long way toward providing the long sought motive for
Oswald’s actions and at the same time reinforces his guilt.
The
author, Gus Russo, is a long time JFK assassination researcher who worked on the
highly regarded 1993 PBS Frontline documentary on the life of the
enigmatic “Marxist Marine” (Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald). Russo admits to
being schooled in the assassination by early Warren Commission critics such as
Mark Lane. This could explain his disturbing tendency to lend legitimacy to
otherwise unsupported observations by a few of the “thousands” of persons whose
interviews he accessed (and conducted) for this book. One has the sensation
when reading certain passages that it could be authored by Jim Marrs after
undergoing a conversion at the hands of Gerald Posner. This certainly does not
destroy the value of the book but it does diminish it. In fact, for most
serious researchers, Live By the Sword is bound to be something of a
mixed bag.
The
book’s prose is generally very well-written. However, I did notice several
typos that may be more the fault of the editors at Bancroft Press than Russo.
There is a 32-page photo section near the center of the book that includes some
never before published items. Live By the Sword features an “Additional
Materials” section that includes three appendices, a bibliography, and 70 pages
of endnotes which contain citations and the type of supplemental information
sometimes found in footnotes. Russo divides his work into five “Books”. These
are Kennedy, Oswald, New Orleans, The Fall of Camelot, and A Coverup.
Note: Russo mentions a companion
volume called Live By the Sword: Supplements and Key Documents.
Unfortunately, this project has apparently been shelved for unknown reasons.
In
this section of his book, Russo first provides the reader with a brief history
of 20th century relations between the United States and Cuba. He
traces the beginnings of the “Secret War” to the Eisenhower administration and
then Vice President Richard Nixon in particular. According to Russo, the
Kennedy administration inherited the idea of removing Castro and far from
reversing the policy, they escalated it. When the “Bay of Pigs” invasion by US
backed Cuban exiles failed, John Kennedy implemented “Operation Mongoose” with
his brother Robert ostensibly in charge. The goal of the operation was the
removal of Castro with any means justifying the end. Efforts to remove him
began in January 1961 and would continue until the last day of the
administration. It is also in this section that Russo begins
to chip away at the Camelot myth and to show the Kennedy brothers to be more
calculating cold warriors than reformers interested in shattering the CIA into
a thousand pieces.
Overall,
Russo does a good job in this biographical section of explaining who Oswald was
and what factors may have motivated him. However, perhaps because I have
studied Oswald’s life in some detail, it was here that I first noticed some of
the previously mentioned problems with Russo’s work. The first inkling of
trouble comes on page 88 when Russo refers to Ed Butler as, “the host of a New
Orleans radio show on which Oswald appeared”. Butler was actually the Executive
Director of the Information Council of the Americas (INCA) an anti-Communist
organization. He indeed appeared on the show with Oswald, but I checked several
sources and they agree that William Stuckey was the host of the program not
Butler. Russo compounds the damage by repeating the same mistake twice on page
450.
Another
case in point are the observations of Allen Campbell who was in the Bethlehem
Children’s Home with Oswald. According to Campbell, the priest who headed the
orphanage raped girls at the home after they achieved the age of 16. Campbell
states that terrified of being killed, the girls asked some of the boys (one of
whom was Oswald) to watch while the rapes occurred. “It was the only defense
mechanism these girls had”, according to Campbell. It seems amazing that anyone
suffering the indignity of being raped would want their peers to witness such
an act. One also has to wonder what these boys could do about it if the priest
did try to do further harm since they were presumably too physically small to
intercede. If they could tell someone who could stop the priest from murder,
why not tell about the rapes as well? On page 103 when discussing the issue of
Oswald’s suitability for intelligence work, Russo quotes Campbell again, “Lee
was the biggest geek in the whole world”. According to the Warren Report, Lee
entered the home in December 1942 at the age of three and left in January 1944
at the age of five. I have never heard a three to five year old boy described
as a “geek”. Such a characterization would be appropriate for an adolescent but
not a preschooler. Campbell’s
observations should have been scrutinized more closely by Russo in my opinion.
The most disturbing
passage from this part of the book comes not from the main text but in the
endnotes (# 19 of Chapter 4) when Russo flatly states, “There is some evidence
that Lee might also have suffered brain damage”. He cites an incident that
allegedly occurred when Lee was five in which a chest of drawers fell from a
moving van onto the youngster. Russo then makes the startling statement, “He
was unconscious for eight days”. I have never heard of this incident or
anything like it in my years of research dating back to 1984. I contacted
several well-known assassination researchers and none of them had heard of it
either.
I
think it is fair to say that if someone is “unconscious for eight days” that
would be akin to being in a coma. I am quite sure that if Oswald had ever been
in a coma, the Warren Commission (and the HSCA and the FBI and hundreds of
independent researchers) would have thoroughly investigated such a potentially
life altering event. The source of this “information” is Secret Service agent
Mike Howard who apparently was repeating (and perhaps embellishing) something
Robert Oswald told him. Until such a time that independent collaboration for
this incident can be produced, it must go in the same file as “The Three
Tramps” and “The Umbrella Man”. That Russo would use such a story (even in an
endnote) without confirmation may, in the minds of many researchers, call into
question the quality of his sources and the methodology used for the entire
project.
On
the bright side, Russo fares better during much of this part of his work. He
makes excellent use of interviews conducted in Russia for the Frontline
special to reveal Oswald during this crucial time. Similarly, his assertions
that Oswald was debriefed by the CIA and that Oswald showed significant
interest in Cuba while a Marine are compelling and interesting.
In
this section of the book, Russo lays the groundwork for his contention that the
activities of RFK’s New Orleans agents inspired Oswald (perhaps with Cuban
instigation) to kill the President.
Russo
discusses what he considers the true role of Guy Banister in the “Big Easy”
quagmire. He argues very plausibly that, while on opposite sides of the
political spectrum, Banister shared with the Kennedy brothers a desire to
unseat Castro. Russo also cites evidence that Banister was shocked by JFK’s
death and closed his office out of respect – a far cry from the
characterization seen in Stone’s JFK.
Similarly, Russo sees
David Ferrie not as a co-conspirator involved in the assassination, but as a
major player in the New Orleans anti-Castro movement allied with the Kennedy
administration. Since Ferrie worked for Banister’s detective agency and shared
his anti-Castro views, it was only natural that they would become allied in
activities supporting the Cuban exiles. Sergio Arcacha Smith, a prominent exile
leader whose office was in the same building as Banister’s, was befriended by
Ferrie and they became important cogs in the anti-Castro machine. The glue
binding these three individuals, according to Russo, was Robert Kennedy who
knew of and sanctioned their anti-Castro activities. A cover-up of the
Banister-Ferrie-Smith operations in New Orleans did occur. Its purpose,
however, was to conceal the extent of the Kennedy administration’s involvement
in the overthrow of Castro rather than cover-up any evidence of a plot to kill
JFK.
While
providing no direct evidence, Russo makes the case that Oswald may have become
aware of the plots against Castro either by infiltrating anti-Castro groups or
through contacts with Cuban agents. He outlines Oswald’s well known pro-Castro
stance in the summer of 1963 and gives his own interpretation of events from
this crucial time. Obviously if Oswald had become aware of a government
sanctioned anti-Castro program and been motivated by it, this could explain
RFK’s seeming disinterest in the Warren Commission investigation and his
general silence on the question of his brother’s death. He would have known
that Oswald had killed his brother and why. Unfortunately, as stated
previously, Russo can provide no hard facts in support of any of this.
Oswald’s infamous visit to
Mexico City begins this fourth major division of the book. Russo uses six
“stories” to convey the plethora of possibilities surrounding this journey.
Again, as in the previous section of the book, Russo can provide no real
evidence to support these allegations and seems to be unsure himself which are
true. These range from the familiar (Oswald and Sylvia Duran at a twist party)
to the more dubious (Castro knew of Oswald’s plan to kill JFK).
Also examined here is the
two-track policy of the Kennedy administration toward Cuba. Track one was to
induce Castro to make peace with the US on their terms. Track two was the one
to which the most energy and resources was devoted -simply assassinate Castro and invade Cuba (although the US
backed Bay of Pigs invasion had failed, a second invasion was being planned for
late ’63 or early ’64). In support of the latter goal came Cuban Army major
Rolando Cubela (AM/LASH) who made an offer through the CIA to kill Castro in
conjunction with a coup d’etat. The bottom line, according to Russo, was that
RFK was aware of AM/LASH and at the very least let the project go forward.
Mafia plots against Castro initiated earlier by the administration also
continued to move forward in support of track two.
Russo believes Castro
became aware of the plots against his life and subsequently issued an ultimatum
through a September 1963 speech. Castro said at that time, “… if U.S. leaders
are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not
be safe”. It is widely believed Oswald
read coverage of the speech in the New Orleans papers. If he did, he could have
perceived it as a call from Castro for action. This alone could have provided
sufficient motivation for him to kill JFK.
Russo
devotes considerable space in this section to the events surrounding the
shooting at Dealey Plaza. He attempts to break new ground here, especially in
the area of sightings of Oswald before the assassination.
Critics of the Warren
Commission have always pointed to these sightings, including those of Oswald at
shooting ranges, as proof of an Oswald impersonator – a sure indication of
conspiracy. According to witnesses, Oswald was seen at the ranges (notably the
Sports Drome) in the company of another young man who provided transportation
for the pair. “Oswald” had a rifle similar or identical to the 6.5
Manlicher-Carcano used in the assassination. Russo believes that it was indeed
Oswald at the shooting range and cites the fine marksmanship he displayed as
evidence that he was capable of committing the murder. He also believes he
knows the identity of the man who accompanied Oswald as the driver – none other
than Buell Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to the TSBD on November 22.
He bases this belief on the
following factors:
The problems with the theory
of Frazier being the driver are obvious:
Russo fares much better
later in this section with his description of the assassination scene. He
offers his own answer to the question of why Oswald didn’t shoot when JFK was
on Houston Street (I’ll keep you wondering on this one). Suffice it to say that
his conclusions about how the shooting happened will in general please
advocates of the “lone gunman” scenario more than conspiracy believers. I
personally found this part of the book to be one of the more plausible.
Other
subjects of note in “Book IV” are the possibility that LBJ had decided to
voluntarily leave the ticket in 1964 and a discussion of mysterious events
after the assassination.
Book
V : A Coverup
A cover-up did indeed
begin on November 22, 1963, but not the kind usually thought of, according to
the final major segment of the book. The much disputed and suspected autopsy of
the President was botched by many factors, but conspiracy was not among these.
The Kennedy family pressured the autopsy physicians in two ways. First, they
continually asked them to hurry their work (RFK actually showed up in the
morgue) thus insuring an incomplete post-mortem. Secondly, they asked that not
all organs be examined. According to Russo, they were specifically seeking to
hide the fact that JFK suffered from Addison’s disease and chronic Gonorrhea.
As
to the possibility of cover-ups by government agencies, the CIA was primarily
interested in keeping the death plots against Castro secret. An additional
problem for them was the Mexico City incident in which they failed to identify
Oswald at the embassy or knew he had been there and decided to cover it up
(depending on your viewpoint). In any event, they were not high on the idea of
an investigation in this area. As for the FBI, there is evidence that their
investigation became focused on Oswald (Katzenbach memo) and narrow-mindedly
disregarded other evidence.
The
Warren Commission was doomed from the start, in Russo’s view, due to several
factors. First RFK “stacked the deck” by making sure that former CIA chief
Allen Dulles was on the Commission. RFK knew that Dulles would make sure that
the “Secret War” remained secret. Also, FBI Director Hoover led the Commission
to believe that a complete investigation had been conducted which wasn’t the
case. The Commission hurt its own cause by not demanding testimony from key
witnesses, including RFK. Additionally, Russo points out that all but two of
the Commissioners later expressed misgivings about the panel’s results as did
LBJ.
Russo
touches on many other areas in this section, including RFK’s feelings of guilt,
the LBJ-RFK feud, the Garrison investigation, the HSCA, the Rockefeller and
Church Commissions, and even the “missing brain” issue. At the end of “Book V”,
he offers the following “well-supported and critical conclusions”:
Appendices
Appendix A is a summary of
the evidence showing Oswald’s guilt as lone gunman. It is clearly one of the
most complete yet concise documents on this issue seen anywhere. I was more
than ready to give it my stamp of approval and vote for the Pulitzer Prize when
another problem reared its ugly head.
While discussing the issue
of tests purporting to duplicate Oswald’s “shooting feat” Russo states, “By far
the most impressive testing was performed in 1994 by independent researcher
Todd Vaughn”. Russo adds, “Todd Vaughn had never received any formal firearms
training, had never been in the military, had never worked a bolt action
weapon, and had never even fired a high-powered rifle before”. To make a long story short, Vaughn was able
to score between 2 and 4 hits over the course of four sets of three shots with
a time of 8.25 seconds or less for three of the four sets. The implication of
all this is, of course, that the “shooting feat” was no feat at all and even a
novice could perform the shots. I wondered what the exact conditions of the
test were. To my knowledge, only the 1967 CBS tests had used moving targets and
could therefore really be considered an accurate representation of the
conditions Oswald faced.
I was able to contact
Vaughn via the Internet (Re: Question for Todd Vaughan (sic),
alt.conspiracy.jfk, January 18, 2000) and asked him to verify the exact test
conditions. He promptly responded with the following revelations:
1. Moving targets were not used.
2. He attempted to simulate moving targets by aiming
below the target, moving toward it, and firing the instant he gained
the target.
3. Far from being a novice, he had hunted all his life
albeit with .22’s and shotguns only.
4. Most disturbing of all, the 60 foot height used in
other tests to simulate Oswald’s height in the TSBD was not used!
I had assumed that the 60
foot height standard had been used and had not even asked about this. At one
point as the thread I started expanded, Vaughn said, (paraphrasing) “These were
the conditions of the test and I never said they were otherwise”. This
indicates to me that Vaughn may have had the veracity of his tests called into
question before as a result of Russo’s lack of full disclosure.
Obviously Vaughn’s tests
(I don’t doubt his sincerity and I certainly don’t blame him for Russo’s
misstatements) were not as “impressive” as the ones performed by CBS news (at
least not in their attention to exact replication of conditions) who used both
moving targets and the proper 60 foot height. This is yet another instance of
Russo’s inclusion of information intended to strengthen a given argument that
instead has the opposite effect.
Appendix B is a welcome
(but too brief) discussion of the topic of eyewitness reliability while “C”
attempts to pinpoint Jack Ruby’s motive for killing Oswald using previously
unreleased material. To Russo’s credit, both are extremely well done.
Conclusions
Supporters of the Warren Commission defend its work
by saying that despite flawed methodology and other gaffes, they were correct
in their basic conclusions. This statement is analogous to my feelings for Gus
Russo and Live By the Sword. He makes some excellent arguments over the
course of the book’s 617 pages, but has failed to tie everything together – an
admittedly difficult if not impossible task. Russo may have hurt his work by
trying to “throw in everything but the kitchen sink” in an effort to prove his
thesis. The sad thing is, he probably didn’t have to. He certainly seems to
have had enough legitimate material (his bibliography covers eleven and a half
pages) to make his case without using some of the more questionable data –
especially certain interviews. This “information overload” may be partly
explained by Russo’s frustration at the failure of the Kennedys to release RFK’s
private papers.
As one who believes Oswald acted alone, I was
certainly ready to embrace Russo’s book with open arms. It is definitely an
appealing hypothesis. If the central thesis were more factually grounded, you
could even think of it as Case Closed with a greater emphasis on motive.
The truth is, history may ultimately prove Russo to be at least partly correct.
However, wanting something to be fact doesn’t make it so – at least not yet.
Gus Russo has not proven his case with Live By the Sword. He comes very
close in some areas but more often than not he leads the reader in a
tantalizing dance only to stop the music. Having said that, I still recommend
the book to any serious assassination researcher. There is plenty of food for thought and enough twists and turns
to offer something for everyone. In fact, Live By the Sword may be
remembered as being the first book on the JFK assassination that tried to be
all things to all people.
Russo will win no new friends among believers in the myth of Camelot. His book shatters that myth and shows John and Robert Kennedy to be what they were –human beings. They were no more or less heroic or villainous than many leaders before or since. They made mistakes (some more serious than others) and enjoyed victories as well. They suffered from vices of the flesh and spirit as well as petty jealousies and burning ambition. This pragmatic interpretation of Camelot is likely to be Russo’s literary gift to the body of JFK assassination research.