Reasonable Doubt: The single bullet theory
Assignment
Select one claim that was discussed in the movie, and analyze that claim using Toulmin’s framework.
For example: Identifyand discuss the strength or correctness of the claim that: 1. Governor Connolly was shot by a second bullet; 2. The mafia shot JFK; 3. Castro was responsible for JFK’s assassination; 4. The CIA arranged for JFK’s assassination; 5. The Pentagon ordered JFK’s execution; 6. Cuban anti-communists arranged for JFK’s death; 7. The Soviet Union’ KGB engineered JFK’s assassination. 8. Select any other claim from the information provided.
Identifyand explain clearly the parts of the argument, and evaluate the strength of the argument as a whole.
You do not need to believe the argument. You are evaluating its strength.
Your evaluation should be around two pages long, so select a claim that is not so large as to require a book-length essay to explain.
Include a cover page, outline, body, and a works cited page. Use either MLAor APA format.
The film is titled Reasonable Doubt: The single bullet theory and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, written by Chip and MikeSelby, and produced and directed by Chip Selby. CS Films, Inc., 1988. THE SAULTSTAR — SATURDAY,NOVEMBER20, 1993 AS
Whoshot JFK? T3UNI)R.EDS OF BOOKSand articles I lexamining John Kennedy’sassassi nation have raised doubts about the Warren Commission’s official version THEPENTAGON that LeeHarvey Oswald acted alone, Conspiracy theory: Concerned that They have put forward numerous the JFKwas ready to end American involv&I establIsh-.’ ories to explain the killing, most of ment in Vieam, the military debunked by various ment had him killed. Some theorists, - which have been including Elm-maker Oliver Stone, also federal investigations. involve L.vndonJohnson in the plot. Here are the main six conspiracy the Officialversion: No concrete evi aries and the official response to each: dence the president was considering a Vietham pullout, nor that LilTwas THEMAFIA involved in the conspfracy Conspiracy theory: Angry at a Kennedy administration crackdown on CUBANANTI-COMMUNISTS the Mafia helped’ organized crime after Conspiracy theory: The Cuban ex get 1960, mob bosses put JFK elected in patriates who survived the Bay of Pigs, out a contract on the president’s life. A invasion, believing was angry JFKet them up and variation holds that the mob then abandoned them, joined with ths make a serious effort to that JFKdid not affected CIAagents to get revenge. -. overthrow Fidel Castro and restore their’ lucrative Cuban casino and drug busi- -, Official version: The main perpetrator’ a nesses. - of this theon was discredited by con gressional investigation. Officialversion: FBIwiretaps of lead-. ing mobsters uncovered no plot against JFK.Also, most experts believe Oswald, SOVIETUNION too unstable to interest the Mafia as a hitman. Conspiracy theory: N&ita Khrushchev, at the height of the Cold War and recently humiliated by the CASTRO Cuban missile crisis, ordered the KCB’ JFK.The KGBrecruited Oswald, Conspiracy theory: The Cuban leader to kill who lived in Russia for several years, to had JFKkilled to avenge numerous U.S. the job. attempts to oust him, including the do botched Bay of Pigs invasion. Officialversion: Recently declassified Soviet documents suggestthe KGB, Official version: Castro had to know while aware of Oswald, made no effort that if he was linked to the assassina to enlist him as an assassin. Indeed, tion, it would be followed by a major they indicate he was to be avoided at U.S. invasion he could not stop. all costs.”
The CIA Conspiracy theory: The CIA,worried about JFK’sthreats to disband the agency after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, ordered his death. Officialversion: While assassination, was nothing new for CIA,there is no solid evidence of any agency treason - against JFK. o
JFK: Introduction
Who
books,
documentaries,
witnesses in evades ‘magic
And movie
person
the was
city the campaign.
Connally.
of theories,
public Chief
Commission three Depository a
footage of the various
Attorney was Dallas” headquarters, local murder
weapon”
What three
Didn’t
several from behind
March minority
the November
assassination
idealized
evidence, Lyndon killed now of the
The
assassination
JFK,
innumerable Oswald’s
shots us.
bullet, Justice assassination. who
Dallas nightclub figures WHAT’S
shots
youngest the
about
questioned of 1992 strongest the
the “conspiracy official
have weapon, the
witnesses? No JFK?
This
The for
because
so-called
was which,
the report.
from Johnson,
Building,
debate
latter “Camelot,”
within picket that
“lone generally
other Earl in 22,
the and the
to
come
rifle actual historical
where
motive? The older
but order
owner
reports,
and delve
the
bears violent
city
have 1963,
several
a visual
Warren indicate “theories,” many
nut,” of has eyewitness
and
shots
fence 5.6 exactly
question forty-year-old
into
What “grassy southeast
first theories,’ Kennedy’s
assassination than
killing
its he of to
FACT,
into
accepted led been Jack his
requestioned. seconds Dallas, Did
of
say, evidence New certainty mend snapping common and notorious “patsy,” murdered
fatally
at films. American
broke ten about
that many name
liberalism,
the
what
the Ruby Oswald
knoll”? resurrected
John
has
elaborate
deftly
two
at
Orleans
corner
accounts,
political
assassination.
a
chief Texas,
top
at successor, New
wounded “truth’
the
a the concluded generated people he shot
“Dealey
usage. major is Fitzgerald however
able of WHAT’S Italian 3-3 a taken
inaccuracy?
Oswald
mixes of
president or
time
mysterious kill the What
moving
among the
of terms A
must
and
and the tie scenarios she
to 12:30
fences
has
to now and consensus
the government Dallas and
by President’s
Evidence
remembers
rifle,
gain
vote Kennedy
knoll? truth, Plaza,’ of about
raise the was
— appointed soon its
have on
that and yet
a sixth
them, intensified
target? conflicting Kennedy.
famous Unbeknownst
the p.m.
born
48 man
own
prior protagonist live access on
which What
doing police to
one men expressions
disturbing
— gave fiction, come the purporting
What New
floor
the NOT? emerge,
‘best
on The has that named
television? in mini-industry
and
assassin, to In
smoke head
inquiries, eight-millimetre with not
about a
to this at Commission’s way was the
officer
Frontier.
from launching been
The of about fact, of commission by moment
injured
accounts evidence,”
the the fact,
only
answer
backward century, Jim the rifles Abraham
in
labelled
Oliver to
questions and
to on the three
basement to tithe, such how the analysed
Oliver
the a J. Texas Lee and
the
What the
Garrison,
explain
the
countless
multitude Texas some timing
some
0. He front is
unannounced his —
many as of dissenters to shock
Stone’s
public John fantasy. Harvey
frozen knoll
the
‘a
Tippit? and
of was
Stone’s the Zaprnder.
what School and ‘grassy about hundreds
findings and 1964
say
CBC-W
and and home
people humanitarian of Governor
of seven the embodiment
F. shots
question ‘six
of
reported visiting
to the at
the
to the of it
in
happened S-K) reanalysed;
to
Oswald, how Kennedy re-election
the
hearing
the the How never
Book movie never propose
movie. hypotheses, time. knoll,
seconds District
Dallas the
credible shots
say were and
News
of
million
alleged
This and
left? time,
and
Jolm
the right,
still
was
they
by will.
the
wrote Any
— of
fired?
fired in of why
police What after
piece
Review
saw
j fl
I
unnecessary and President? umbrella
Kilgallen,
unanswered died public created
reviewed ballistic,
shots indeed conspiracy
confirmed through
component evidence
assassination military-industrial big suggested and
Fuelling assassinated
book? what’s
as the medium average of medium
on put media-intense them
A
The the
this A
ap preview
CBC-W
or According
business, true art Thirty
even Special erroneous
the and
prbpdate. 1979 traumatized
such
left
come disappeared
fertile
footage video
not on in the
acoustic, fact
and something all pan and
What
—
the
person’s and
such other onto
for as revealing
were last was House a a questions
years
of News to Freedom
the
the
there from
and sunny
film most
Note timing the of by well ground and
contains
heightening which working
the leap
to
second
happened Elm? as highly interpretation could evidence
video politicians.
the generation the
gunfire
more in what’s proponents later,
in and by the subcommittee, behind hypotheses,
the are as
recently
complex, to under
propensity
to Review day?
that
FBI, American of
universal the
profits
eventually contradicted for What the of
Teachers presumed
big conclusions? a be medical and change likely.
than
out them actual however,
number is Information perspective
not?
in speculation assassination What
of seemingly to
upsetting the the
budget
the not
to the a about Dallas,
have
the from the 130
which meant
of powerful grassy CIA, Where of Subsequent
consider
in public’s for truth as footage public, proven
facts. about inconsistencies
Kennedy conspiracy lead cover-up. preoccupied
witnesses history? of
the
whose the Hollywood are the all
a
skepticism
the
Texas. pro-Castro possible
includes that foreign validate mysterious to
knoll. it motorcade motorcyclist? we Act and skills do The
Lee questions
the
subcommittee’s
true, and and
deserves?
and some need
from
carefully
more
we mandate
still
and a How resources
assassination,
studies, subcommittee Bowers,
Numerous who
their And its
to The legitimate controversial
theories policy by
draw
perpetrators.
to
a the numerous —49—
students. know
the or movie computer-enhanced
separate
implications. than
in film
Cubans, might
know a surrounding
supposedly
conclusion circumstances. yet route
passion
need Joint
powerful Do
Zapmder was the
the
the however,
supporting
Officer What
one
such for required a
JFK? —
young
“American more the line desire need candidates —
for age Chiefs to
finding.
fact
sure
Teachers individuals theories person
anti-Castro eye-witness
concluded
for
as investigate about the film, viewer
well-defined
Motivation
between
group Does
and Billy
for from that are had JFK? The
people
truth? is the using
mm. for to
right
of
international
that
Oliver was further
artistically the numerous engineer These
there important autopsy
greater Staff, based
the depth Harkness,
be Dream,” have fiction?
for Is evidence, are
The evidence turn
Can John dramatic and man
who that
involved,
Cubans, seduced
desire assassinations, accounts the
had which is
Stone’s and strongly
been explanations. on the of beliefs
onto graphic an
the a
an opening
film “truth” of are F.
the
Can uncertainty
fourth
circumstantial been
‘conspiracy evidence Pentagon, convincing other the American
for
the conflict. important average Dorothy Kennedy
suggested:
released have pan Houston original
it licence into the a
and and JFK. we
and
loss
truth,
is legitimate
four advised
persists.
nature
shot
Mafia, an
of
believing
teach
thus
the
of
who
March a
person But
and Also
the was and
had
faith
role
a the
of
to
1992 4...
JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT? This, That, and the Other Thing: Determining Facts
Divide a sheet of paper into the following three columns:
a What really happened.
• What may have happened.
• What positively did not happen.
Then carefully view “JFK: What’s Fact, What’s Not?” You may do this several times if necessary. After viewing, list in the appropriate columns the significant information that you have seen and heard. Finally, compare your lists with those of other members of the class. Assess the differences, if any, and account for them.
in Review March 1992 . — SO — CBC-7V News DUPUCATIBLE
EXAMININGCLAIMSOFEVIDENCE Blacks Lait’ Dictionan: a basic reference for attorneys, has a definition for the term evidence. Part of it reads as follows: “That which.., makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the .. point in issue, either on one side or the other.” Evidence may be offered in the form of othcial records, maps. drawings. objects. or testimony by witnesses, Items A and B on this page are forms of evidence. They deal with questions surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination. Examine both careftill Then answer the questions at the bottom of the page.
ITEMA. Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963. a procession of carp entered Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Within seconds, two occupants in one of these cars— U.S. President John Kenneth’ and Texas Governor John Connally—were shot. The map below shows the route Texas Scñool of the motorcade. The Warren Commission. which O Book Deaositcry investigated the attack, concluded that all shots came Dallas County from Point I on this map. O criminal count building 0 Grassy knoll Site of O president’s car 01 time of Ossossir.a:ion Railroad 0 tracks fl Railroad averDass tripIe underpass) Bullet enters O upper right part Motorcade of JFK’s back route
Bullet hale on O JFK’s tie knot Bullet entry hole G near Connally’s right ormpit
Bullet exit wound 0 through Connally’s finn rib
Bullet entry and O exit wounds on ITEM B. In Dealev PIna, President Kennedy was Connally’s right murdered, and Governor Connally was wounded. The wrist Warren Commission concluded that only one shooter Bullet entry on was involved. To reach that conclusion, members had O Connally’s left to accept that one of the bullets, which was found almost thigh intact, tore through both Kennedy and Connally in the manner shown in this drawing. The drawing is an artist’s version of the Commission’s finding, which did not include a diagram.
THINK IT THROUGH 2. In 1964. the Warren Commission concluded that only 1. Put yourself in the place of an offIcial whose task is to one assassin. Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for the identify and bring JFK’s assassin(s) to justice. Look at Items death of President Kennedy. In 1979. the House Select A and Band decide: (a) What questions would you start Committee on Assassinations concluded that JFK “was with? (h) What problems might either piece of evidence probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy’ Reflect or offer you? (c) What kinds of additional evidence would you these two findings. Then write a brief essay on whether or look Rn’?State your answers briefly. not the U.S. government should open the investigation again JFK
ThESfl)Ri mw tnVI an .ww •
JFK:
Fact
commonly In
true.” following
CBC-W
2.
4. 3.
historical 1.
5.
6.
With
What
At
Is
Are has
Why
your Arrange or I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WHAT’S
conclude.
look
notice.
observe.
wonder.
generalize. a
evaluate.
store
what questions:
News
accepted
greater
fact
Fiction?
there
this
terms,
decision. is
determines
for
there
knowledge.
point
always in
the
definition
differences
evidence.
Review
credibility,
a
following
as
disagreement
does
“fact’
true,
true?
that
FACT,
a
in
has
piece
in
one
between
Do
mind
into
facts
and
been
facts
piece
of
over
what,
and
of
or
WHAT’S
information
defined
facts
change
itself,
evidence?
of
working
facts?
in
information
—51— and
your
requiring
as
over
evidence?
with
“a
opinion,
Why?
become
time?
piece
NOT?
a
is
no
partner,
factual
of
a flwther
If
is
fact?
information
so,
the
and
formulate
what
correct
evidence
another
are
order.
that
they?
answers
to
is
is
make
not?
Justi’
Which
I
March
to - it
the -.
1992 •
•
JFK: Fact
Fact: achial
observation Theory:
Below as with find. video.)
being
2. 1.
3.
4. anything 5;
that existences. 6. (Please 7. or
are March 8. 10. WHAT’S 9. There an H. Lee of
Lee States
either Lee The right of
The seconds Theory?
Only a required alone explanation the There turned and policeman Several at Haney another series Acoustical time Haney The 1992 Haney note known fatal were
minimum Texas the
front under a
reasoning. one
a (The fact,
so-called of was
time right per that moving of shot,
5.6 three
•
witnesses out — Oswald member the
Oswald School to Oswald mysterious twenty
Gage a a who shot. based there FACT,
of evidnce seconds. be onto that
shooting. last-second, of theory, given time
shots
the
target. (The thie the
‘magic
is, Canadian aused Book fired are statements on Houston defected of
shot required shooting. saw
five the fired from or
the or Gage details thought
When circumstances. suggests
at
Dallas to movement Depository. smoke the something bulletTM WHAT’S top class.
unannounced the in the have
Street Canadian to Dictionary) change between
FBI Dealey he in about
President or
grassy the
police
and Note that this really entered did,
speculation,
•.
marksmen
and . Soviet
. of
. else
the . men has . exercise shots Plaza
he and shots knoll. officer Kennedy’s Dictionary)
happened; left
Kennedy
never was from and, change the 52 NOT? with Union account
came
onto on
for
upper
was unable
that J. after
the an
rifles November been
the
Elm in I). and from
explanatioh assassination. able head, sixth something are
for
right doing the rifle
Tippit.
identified. in to returned Street.
not any more
. to motorcade’s the hit floor
used must
pan
fire so,
22, contained
discrepancies a area
than The stationary
that southeast compare of by based three have
to 1963.
of Identi& the
Oswald CBC-fl the
one lead has
the come shots
dn President’s route on
United
or
location
motorcycle your grassy window target,
the
had you each
was within from News
as
list
it
2.3 laoll
at let the in
back,
the
the Review 12.
13.
14.
15.
20. 16. CBCW 17. 18.
19.
exited
Governor’s found
hocked At Because
kill under Over
was The The home Jack
The
The
Although assassination,
the
News
Lie
a
single 1979
picture autopsy
Ruby
130
in
through mysterious
movie
conspiracy. time
Haney
of
almost
in out.
people
House
considerable
Review
his
most
hew
fifth
of
of
taken
results
the his
there connections
Lee
pristine
rib, Oswald
important
subcommittee with
Lee
circumstances
assassination, neck,
•.
by
Haney
is were smashed
Haney
sirificant
Abraham
as
circumstantial
condition
entered
in
yet
rigged
document the with
Oswald
no
. his
Oswald.
basement
investigating
Governor Zapmder. the or the
hard
information to
right
on
disappeared.
—53.— conform
Dallas telephone holding
a
of
evidence
evidence
stretcher wrist,
the
of
Connally’s
police
the
assassination
his
assassinations
with
entered
bearing
system
police
to
exists
rifle
in
force,
support
the
Parkiand ..
was
his
on
in armpit, theory for
headquarters.
Jack Washington,
the
left
doctored. is
a
it.
concluded
conspiracy
the
Hospital.
case
of
thigh1
Ruby
exited
twenty-two-second a
lone hive
was
and
through
D.C.,
that
assassin.
behind
either
was able
Marc½j9fl
there
was
to
the
died
the C
JFK:
Processing
The causation.
examine conclusions.
looking Below
process
•
•
• March
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kennedy
classify are organize
emphasize
select
reject
draw
manipulate
at
distort create by
analyse WHAT’S
the
1992
According
how
a
giving
same
series How
inferences assassination
people
Facts
set
can
a
of
specific
to
of
ways
this
process
this FACT,
presumed
happen?
provides
in
concept,
example
which
facts.
facts,
The
an
WHAT’S
observers
even
from
intriguing
answer
they
when
the
—
may
Kennedy
54
process
to
people
case
—
this
arrive
NOT?
for
perplexing
fcts.
observe
assassination.
at
the
significantly
For
historical
the
each, question
same
CBC-W
concept
explain
different
event
involves
News
and the
of
in
Review JFK:
A Individuals whether they of Working In reference. or CBC-W • • • • • reference.’ observing • • • • might • • •
Frame observe age occupation previous emotional nationality physical radio political television newspaper source other it
WHAT’S News recall in be In of have groups coverage and or your the the
of and in the affiliation location have experience perceived Review coverage analysing state observer actual of of or
Reference reliability discussion, events of the the magazine observed three, of killing of observer
FACT, observer the of of the the historical of suggest the the of observer the consider facts observer or the coverage information observer Kennedy observer the events of ways
WHAT’S facts, subsequent the elements from —55— assassination in Kennedy each which a of such different investigations. us an assassination
NOT? as brings individual from the position following: a with different differently might us or a vantage particular have frame because observed point, of - March “frame — 1992
(EN
March
•
•
•
meaning.
•
assassination.
1992
Below •
Language
JFK: •
3.
interpretation
2. inference
hypothesis
theory
1.
supposition
conjecture
differences
Choose
Kennedy
As
As
are
a
a WHAT’S Working
a
group,
group,
series
a
They
assassination.
spokesperson
as
or
create
define
in of
similarities.
may
the
small
words
•
•
•
•
•
•
seem opinion
guess
a
assumption
FACT,
each
belief Indicator
proof
evidence
sentence
groups,
that
to
very
word
present
are
—
similar
proceed
using
and
frequently
56
WHAT’S
your
—
create
each
or
as
findings
they
word follows:
a
used
•
sentence
•
•
•
•
data may
deduction
conclusion
thesis
speculation
when
with
NOT?
to
be
the
specific
using
discussing
quite
rest
CBC-W
of the
different
reference
the
word.
News
the
class.
__
I
Kennedy
in
in
to
actual
Review
Observe the JFK: WHAT’S FACT, WHAT’S NOT? Toward Truth
Although they may use different terminology, historians and scientists, essentially use the same method to attempt to arrive at the answer to a question.
The Historian (or Social Scientist)
Step One: The Question. The historian poses a critical question about why a certain event occurred.
Step Two: The Hypothesis. The historian formulates a tentative answer to that question which will serve as a guide to further research.
Step Three: Research. The historian researches the relevant facts from primary and secondary sources. —
Step Four: Analysis. The historian processes the facts in a variety of ways. (See the section “Processing Facts” on page 54.)
Step Five: Interpretation. The historian, after drawing a series of inferences from the facts, offers a final conclusion or answer to the original question.
The Scientist (or Applied Scientist)
Step One: Observation and the Database. The scientist observes a particular phenomenon and accesses a database of what is already known about the issue.
Step Two: Hypothesis. From the database, the scientist devises a possible explanation for the observed phenomenon, essentially asking “What it?”.
Step Three: Prediction. From the hypothesis, the scientist devises an experiment or series of experiments to test the hypothesis and predicts the outcome.
Step Four: Experimentation. The scientist performs the experiment and measures the results.
Step Five: Venfication. The scientist verifies if the results of the experiment allows him or her to conclude that the prediction was valid. If the results prove valid, a scientific theory is formulated and becomes part of the existing body of knowledge.
Discussion
1. Suggest how each of the above methods of reasoning could be applied in order to determine the facts of the Kennedy assassination. In your opinion, is one method more effective than the other?
CBC-W News in Review —57 — March 1992 •
•
Ten
March 2.
3.
4.
2.
10. 1.
3.
5. 4.
6.
7.
9. 8.
Principles
Suggest
What film opinion,
Kennedy
Examine
in
Objectivity.
modified Tenra.tiveness.
Consistency. laws Parsimony.
Causality.
Materiality. possible
Relativeness. those
Dynamism.
of
about
Social Continuous
determine influence
1992
determining
sets
about
which
is
which
the
Limitation. how
the of
is
of assassination? the
terms.
or
the
relationships
this
material their
Every
role and
Scientific
have
Conclusions
contradicted
Scientists
either Discovery.
Scientists
following
Preference
depend
The
Kennedy
Scientists
Conclusions
a facts?
limit
conclusions. of
valid
always
phenomenon
assumption
common of
The
world
on
Discuss
the
these
Inquiry
attempt way
expect
ten
assassination
rather
social non-material Scientists
is
think
are
operated
kinds by
until
principles for
to
are
two
sense
the
based
each
is
nature critique
of
material
to than
framework
of results
not
eventually
methods
made new
the
reduce
problems
in in
hope
in only
regarded
absolutes.
—58—
world,
such
to the
evidence. determining
of
or
terms
a
that
from
and
be
that scientific
on
film?
supernatural
their same
could
as
within all
behaviour
dynamic
the
mechanical
of
with
discoverable and
it
as
Oliver
may
view
will way.
the
be facts.
final.
the
which
which
the
inquiry.
used
Kennedy
be
be
of
rather
Stone’s
phenomena
facts
is
factors.
Rather,
understood.
possible
the
explanations,
to
describable
they
scientists
causes.
world
evaluate
How
than
of
JFK.
assassination.
work,
an
they
CBC-W
to
static.
is
in
event
to
go
In
operate
each
can
it,
or
the
and
in
your
on
rather
as
critique
terms
such
be
simplest News
relevant
may
learning
consisting
may
as
than
in
of
also
a
the
Review