C. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, O\ THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAIL- ABLE TO IT, THAT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS PROBABLY AS- SASSINATED, AS A RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE OTHER GUNMAN OR THE EXTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes." (1) That defini- tion is adequate . Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition. If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy, and at least one of them took action in fur- therance of the plan, and it resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President v.ould have been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee recognizes, of course, that while the word "con- spiracy" technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal pur- poses," it also, in fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many peo- ple, and its use has vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication, extent and ultimate purpose of the partner- ship. For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex plot orchestrated by foreign political powers ; it might be the scheme of a group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental policies ; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with no readily discernible motive. Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no mayor societal significance . As the evidence concerning the probability that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy" is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here, as elsewhere, words must be used carefully. lest people be misled.' A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words, a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred. The Warren Commission's conclusion that. Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example, largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant association (Z) be- tween Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evi- dence of conspiracy. (3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy. Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination, there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts. Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's asso- ciates is necessary. The Warren Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant Oswald associ- 1 It might he suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however, raises another objec- tion-the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a lack of candor . There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the plain truth causes discomfort. (95) 96 ates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy. There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agree- ment to the criminal purpose by the associate . It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may con- note widely varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner. (4) It reasoned, there- fore, that since Oswald had no significant associations with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination, there could not have been a conspiracy. (5) With respect to Jack Ruby,2 the Warren Commission similarly found no significant associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who might have been conspirators with him . (8) In particular, it found no connections between Ruby and or- ganized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations, there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the President. (9) The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of con- spiracy in the Kennedy assassination. On the basis of extensive sci- entific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of 1)ealey Plaza wit- nesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy. Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contacts for any evidence of significant associations. Unlike the Warren C-m- mission, it found certain of these contacts to be of investigative sig- nificance. The Commission o-lDparently had looked for evidence of con- spiratorial association. Finding none on the face of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however. con- ducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibil- ity of a benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates, the committee examined the very fact of the con- tact to see if it contained investigative significance . Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took a close look at the associates to deter- mine whether conspiratorial activity in the assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn about the associ- ates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should, therefore, be examined more closely.3 Third, the committee examined groups-political organizations, na- tional governments and so on-that might have had the motive, op- portunity and means to assassinate the President. The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hnothesis of conspiracy and investigated it with reference to known* facts to de- termine if it had any bearing on the assassination. 2 The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jock Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup. education and business activities were considered . While the evidence was sometimes contradictory . the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago . the son of Jewish Immigrants ; that he lived in a home disrupted by dome-tic strife ; (6) that he was troubled psvcholonlcally as a youth and not educated beyond hieh school ; and tbst descriptions of bic temperament ranged from "mild mannered" to "violent ." (7) In 1961. Rnhy was 52 aml unmarred . He rsn a Dallas nightclub bat was not particularly successful in business . His acauaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised hi^, clientele . a The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were unknown to the Warren Commission. 97 The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assas- sinate the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assas- sinate President Kennedy would have been one of major significance . As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the commit- tee did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organi- zations were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved in the assassination. Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination. Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not pre- clude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to sup- port a finding that any individual members were involved. The rami- fications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be signifi- cant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example, had been involved. The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired si- multaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possi- ble that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the other. It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theo- retical possibility is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same place is that they were acting in con- cert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy. The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors (1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. (2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in con- cluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable. (3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associa- tions of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more lim- ited conspiracy could not be ruled out.