tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 28, 2013 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
commemorations start this year so it was 50 years ago that the coup happened in saigon that toppled the regime from power so 50 years ago was the turning point into the vietnam war as we know it. that was the decisive moment when america got really involved so i think that we will see more the department of defense is doing a big hoopla and big hoopla shinkman and i think there's going to be a lot of awareness raising. nick terse just wrote that powerful book on vietnam so yeah i think there is more to come. >> hinchey so much. >> nick terse wrote the book this year called -- and it was her research into the american side into their actions in vietnam. >> thank you so much for talking with us and good luck with your book.
>> thank you. [applause] >> on the half of mechanics institute and asia society thank you for coming and we look forward to seeing you at our next [applause] please come up. next on booktv from the 18th annual texas book festival. a discussion with authors on mexico.ere this is about 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, thank you for coming tonight. we're happy to be here. here at the texas bookernoon. festival.ng tonit. a few notes of business they asked me to tell everyone to please turn off your cell phonet so you don't interrupt the inven .
with that, let me get dirty. i am shannon o'neil. i work at the council on foreign relations very focused on next month america more broadly unedited and pleasure tonight at talking with two wonderful gentleman, who have written wonderful books are really impressive impressive books about mexico. the first one on my right is ricardo ainslie. his book is called "the fight to save juarez." this book tells the story of the border city, which many of you know i've had the unfortunate tension in recent years of being not only the most violent place in mexico, but by some accounts the most spineless in the world. he tells the story of this descent into darkness of this border city through the eyes and through the stories of many people in morris, the mayor from
20,722,010. it is a newspaper photographer who patrols the streets and shows up at the house and the grandstands. it is the mistress of a mid-level cartel operator. and finally a human rights activist that is thrown in to those trying to make sense of it and protects the people inside for two people on the criminal side and also those who might be breaking the law from the government side. in this book, which is a highly readable book i recommend to all of you, he really brings out the complexity of the situation there. particularly in a city that usually all you see are very broad and dimming brushstrokes. so this is ricardo spoke. the other book we are here to discuss tonight is called midnight mexico. the author is alfredo corchado. this is his own glory. this is more of a memoir. and it a story of a man who was
born in durango, mexico, was in his childhood in the vegetable and fruit fields of california and who then as an adult and return to next a code of became a very respect even well known foreign correspondent. and in this role, he ended up at laney in his homeland, mexico, to a second homeland here in the united states is a longtime correspondent for the "dallas morning news." it is 25 years, working as a reporter, he covers mexico's political opening. he covered his economic ups and downs. he covered the movement of people, the migration of people from mexico to the united states and what that meant on both sides of the order. he sells a covert increase in the mexico's drug war and a result of that final part of his portfolio, has received several death threats for his deep and
investigative reporting for trying dedication to the story. this is such a compelling book totality of the movie rights have been bought. so i encourage you to buy it now and read it now before the movie comes out cu can compare which one you like better. so now i'm not, let me return to my two authors and turn aside within my purse will question before we get into the room needs in histories and stories in mexico. i will start with you, rico. let's start talking about why you wrote the book, but particularly this book. why did you write this book about juarez? >> thank you, shannon. i'm from mexico. akin to the the united states when i was 17 years old. it has been just witnessing what is happening in mexico over the last decade or so has been really unsettling, deeply
troubling. 10, 15 years ago, no one would have imagined that mexico would you living what it's living today. and so that was really the hypnotist. it is sort of a heartfelt wish to sort of, part of these are really just on and what was going on in mexico because i think it is difficult to kind of cut through the headline to get a three-dimensional picture of the reality of what taking place in communities, cities like juarez and cities on the border. i wanted to a nurse and what was taking place. i wanted to kind of make sense of it. in some way false notion some light on the aspects of this dory that include not only very dark aspects of human nature, but also include people who are really trying to do the right
thing. i think it is easy, especially from the side of the border to sort of put a cost on everybody in mexico and be somehow either corrupted or colluding or not really involved in their communities in a constructive manner. really that's not accurate. so partly my interest was to ask for a portrait of a city, where yes there's plenty plenty of evil taking place, but there are also good people trying to do good and for their community and for the nation. said i was really the essence of it. >> alfredo, why did you decide to write yours very? >> first of all, thank you for being here. i was at the texas book festival walking around. if ever write this book. i did get the time i would ever write this book. i had no idea how to write a
book. i thought wouldn't it be great to be back someday. the thank you for being here. it's great to be at the texas book festival. i wrote this book because i've had a privileged progress he and the dallas news as a correspondent for them and watching some of the most turbulent times in mexico's 1910 revolution. i wasn't around for the revolution, but it's in contemporary mexico very defining times. last week we released a book in next code and someone jokingly said, you are probably the forrest gump of mexico. it's been the most important times, whether my father was a guest worker of the federal era where we left with the united states. grew up in california. i shannon mentioned, my parents
worked for the cesar chavez union. they have a choice when i worked for "the wall street journal," either straight to find the vacation around a big event next to her was able to recover, and then the fox in 2000. seven penguin contacted me, and they said we'd like for you to write a book about mexico in the last 50 years. i thought of it as a journalistic narratives. but they really wanted much more of a personal narrative. it took a while for me to get comfortable with that area. i guess the last real big event was the return of the once powerful revolution that came back last year. so it all kind of came together
watching mexico defendant mr. s. because of the drug war and trying to figure out what happened to the hope that mexico, what happened -- we were supposed to go onto the first world. so in many ways, writing the book was therapy. tried to explain to myself why my mother's adamantly opposed to me going back to mexico, returning to mexico. so is trying to understand both sides of the border and understand more than anything my home lan, what happened to mexico. >> if you read rico spoke on me will see that while it looks proudly at the hip. , and really focus is on 2007 to 2010. these are the years when the city is really unraveling with the violin. he talks about the event and the people trying to stop it at all different levels.
but it ends in july 10. in fact, the last chapter of it in the epilogue of night is really the mayor has struggled with it and tried his top the violent. him him literally getting in his car after stepping down and having across the border to el paso to the presumably the rest of his life. and unsettling now, question about whether the next mayor who has a much murkier history and somewhat say this aloud if not actively enable some of the bad thing. him coming back as the mayor. so rico, i would be interested in finding out what happened in those three years. so do that. but in the time since the book left over the last three years, what has or hasn't happened? very sick today the disgraced dr. meredith? >> well, first of all we need to think about the dimensions of the violent than juarez.
you have over 11,000 people killed in a city about the size of 1.3 million people or so. that's a tremendous number of deaths. say you have that as the epicenter of the drug were mexico. you've got about 20% of the national fatalities related to the drug war taking place in this one city. the mexican government has deployed about 20% of its forces to the city. so it was a testing ground for the mexican government strategy. the mayor of juarez really thought this and 2010 really leaves in the context in which they are still a tremendous amount of violence. he's replaced by marquis, who had to the predecessor and mayor
also. he just came in and then he won reelection and became mayor again. during the first 10 year, the man he had appointed number two for the police department, for the juarez is full police department was all accounts and close ties to the juarez cartel. in fact, with six months of leaving office, this number two man in the police department as the rest and not half so having attempted to bring the time of the erewhon across the river. so this gives you a sense for -- and he was appointed, so that's one of the telling point about mejia and his admin is to shoot perhaps. so we have another crisis taking place at the same time that this terrible eruption of violence.
that is an economic crisis of enormous magnitude because 50% of the economy is disassembly plants produce for the u.s. auto industry. so in 2008, 2009, 2010, we have an auto industry that these companies were on the verge of bankruptcy. in mexico this leads to catastrophic economic crises. you have 80,000 people lose their jobs in one year in 2010. so you have the violence and you have economic race is. in 2012, almost 800 people are killed in juarez and that's a huge drop. 800 people think it's such a
relief. at the same time, the question is would have been. what accounts for that? if you ask people in the juarez, actors et cetera seven years of this kind of unrelenting violence, or there's a tremendous amount of sin is some about authority, some people tell you is that's why we have a drop in the violence in this community. other people will say look, 11,000 people killed? the profile of the average big to miss 15 to 25-year-old man. so if you fly spent many a night in their community, that they affect the care air. people say it's a change in the economic. the uptake with the u.s. economy picking up and so on. the one thing that is the top
about, which is an important point is in 2010 the mexican government, with some foreign aid what about almost a quarter of a billion dollars in social infrastructure in a city that had been sony click did for so long. you know, many communities had no schools, no paved roads, no electricity. so i think that's another variable in the drop in the violence. it's probably some combination of all those elements. but the fact is juarez has seen the worst. most people most places would be san antonio had 100 people killed in 112. that's a city with a lot of policy is rekeying and so on. that comes as a relief almost in
tax revenues are a. real estate markets area. there's every indication the community is on a rebound. saw those variables probably had a role in that. >> alfredo, let me turn to you. if severus a microcosm microcosm, mexico at the has had big changes in the year since you finished your book. one of the biggest is that it has a new government. as you mention in your remarks, this is a party that ruled mexico for seven years, was finally kicked out in the late name eason 2000, but was elected in what everyone pretty much everyone needs for and fair elections but elected back into mexico's white house. so could you give us a sense of how u.s. and not fair, as someone who follows mexico, as the mexican and american reporter in your role, how do
you see this first year? what has or hasn't happened? >> more than anything as a foreign correspondent, it has meant a real effort on the part of the new government to change the narrative, to change the storyline from just violence to other aspects of mexico, which is very fair. mexico also has some very precise. there's some regions like the central mexico, where you have one thing interesting. you see the types between texas and mexico. the number of times i talked to mexican mainstays who are somewhat linked to the labor market and say i'll ask them.
they say your grand parents, like your fathers, et cetera. they say yes, but more out of curiosity than necessity. that makes you think about the long-term immigration trend. whether americans will someday miss mexicans. so in that sense, for the government to change the narrative, we should try to report other aspects of mexico. but it shouldn't mean one or the other. i don't see how you can change the storyline that 100,000 people died or disappeared in mexico. that's still a very, very important story we must never forget. it's been trying to balance the two. rico's point is a great point. it's quite emblematic of the rest of the country. in some ways it is. if we look at juarez today, if
we see juarez, places like laredo, if we see them as patients, is the patients in remission, her estate recovery in? i would say it is still in remission. i mean, a lot of the same factors there's no better, whether it's poverty, whether it's inequality. conviction rate is is still very low. i'm gratingly optimistic things will continue to get better. i do agree that community has also changed. civil society has. we see a much more, much more engaged civil society. people much more interested in trying to change their authorities for their competence. the role of social media has
been incredibly important over the last two, three years. the other thing that's changed is the mexico relationship with the united states. the u.s.-mexico, interagency relationship. i think during the 12 years of the opposition, the national action party was a much more closer ties between agent to agent. when they came back, there is a sense that maybe the american had come into the kitchen and they were not just helping with the food coming in now, if you want to take but they have essentially become the shots. so there is a way to politely tell them, thank you verse service. thank you for your help, but it's time for us to take over. both sides are trying to find their footing. >> let me pick up on that, especially the relationship with the united states.
you are part of mexico, lived in mexico. you feel a close tie with it. here in texas there's obviously much more back and forth. but if you are going to talk to americans for bradley. i grew up in ohio. i live in new york. what would you say to someone in ohio or new york or south dakota or other places? whitest mexico matters so much? why should they care about this country? >> well, i think there's so many reasons why we need to care or need to because you topple about what's going on. first of all, the obvious as we shared 2000-mile border. secondly, most people inc. that china is the second leading trade partner for the united states. actually, if you look at this in terms of who buys american products, mexico is the second most important trading partner, not china. those are two reasons. then you have the cultural reasons.
everybody knows that there's been a tremendous migration in the united states over the last couple of decades. and so you had these cultural and familial linkages. so there's all kinds of reasons why this is an important relationship and needs to be thought about. but also picking up on the point, i think in about a comment to current mexican ambassador to the united state said, made the statement in may i think. he was at the wilson center. he said in terms of the definition of the relationship between u.s. and mexico, he said in now, it is no longer our top priority to fight the war on drugs. and he said, we do not control all of the variables that are involved in that war. and i think that was really a very clear signal, basically
saying here in the united states we have to deal with the role of our consumption in the problems of mexico is having. and if we don't do with that, it doesn't matter how many people you send to mexico to the overbought for us in the military, whoever you want. at the end of the day, this is not a law-enforcement problem. i think that's another reason why we should care. he has we are part of the relationship that is created this problem in the last this problem to endure and it's not going to end until we deal with that fact. >> so when you are pitching your editorial board, why should the mexico's tory to you so well researched beyond the front page? the same question. >> it's not that difficult if you live in texas.
we did have a bureau at 1.12 people in a bureau. were down to one. i'm at the texas book festival here in aust, not in mexico city. but i challenge all of you to think of what other country impacts them on a daily basis and mexico. whether it's food, culture, music, bloodlines, politics. sometimes when u.s.-mexican when you're talking to them, and they say i don't care why we are not that important to the united states. is that we don't have a bomb but people in the middle east. i want to go back to being a journalist for a second. we also have one of the premier experts. why should mexico matters much
to the united states? >> curious. >> i would say in researching and writing my book and looking very close yet the united states but then also mexico that their shows no other country that affects us as much on a day-to-day basis. so from the food that is on our table to the parts in our cars, to the castling in our tanks come in to the consumers for a product coming to the drug center st., mexico is part of our daily lives. wherever you live in the united states. that is the reality to you may recognize in texas. i'm not one that i hope with more and more people would realize that. i want to ask you one last question. i would open it all to you. i'll turn to you first.
the reuse you this, not about the book is much, but more about you. how has writing this book -- how has it changed your? >> that's really an excellent question, shannon. i think for me the almost two years i spent in juarez to research this book and really seen first hand, not reading accounts even though there's many excellent accounts in the papers and so on, but seen first hand what can hop into a society, to the community, to a city deserted dissents in to this kind of chaos. you just can't imagine living in the city where there was no one to turn to. there was no police you can turn
to. you're at the mercy of the forces that are around here. the forces are efficient on of them are organized crime forces. it doesn't matter. no one else protect it. no one feels that they have a voice. that seemed the day today in juarez, the number of fake guns. i hung out with a lot of juarez, so that meant i had the opportunity to visit a lot of crime scenes have been because these guys all travel with police scanners in their cars and they are just can't see anyone for the friend that people show up half the time. but just to see the carrot or about violent than the impact of the violence is sort of like tearing off the veneer that we had. we think this sort of life that we lead we take for granted. we think it stable, reliable.
i can guarantee you 10 years ago, no one in juarez could have imagined their city would evolve into this chaos. so that's the thing that changed were the most is. into this a bit. i've never seen any thing like it. it was powerful personally because this is the mexico that i love. i still have friends and family. this is not really heartbreaking. i think to me that was the most profound impact upon the sort. >> i think more than anything, it changed me in helping me embrace my fears. in many ways, the book is kind of investigating this stuff for that was made and that is kind of the backdrop of the book. so his numbers and name,
embracing fear. it was appreciating the courage of many of my colleagues and mexico. people don't have the protection. my colleague -- if you think i'm brave, imagine going into these border town. the thing that changed when the mouse was really understanding that in many ways this book is about death. it's about life. it's about hope. it's about the universal search for home. and it's coming to the realization that in the end nearest you some of the darkest moment in mexico. but i also walked away seen the best of mexican, the missing credible, resilient spirit that is they are and understanding that we are there. we are still standing, you're changing, some others have told
me over the past few years, we are building community with the blood of our children. i think in the end it made me understand just the importance of the resilient. while not being. you are looking for homes throughout the whole process. the united states, mexico. it made me appreciate both countries. i don't think i would've written this book had i lived in mexico. it made me understand the importance of the united dates and take advantage of the opportunities that parents sacrificed for. >> let me up and enough now to your questions. please use the microphone here. let me please ask you all to ask questions. you have wonderful authors you can turn to. >> i'm from austin, texas. i want to point something out and then ask you what you feel
about it. i think the texas book festival is a good example of why low are not thinking of mexico or mexican-americans is very important. it is very, very few latinos here the book festival and i don't think there's any latinos on the staff, the board, advisory, better for the festival. so it seems like there is a nod to doubt their general that latinos don't read. so what do you feel about the lack of latinos here at the texas book festival? >> well, latinas gone they read, they. [laughter] [applause] >> we talked about the changing narrative from the mexican and industry should towards the war.
have we seen a shift in the strategy? or is there still a great deal of continuity between previous administration and not in kenya. if you're still relying on the army, you know -- i mean, i spent some of last week and last month in d.c. asking that very question. how has the strategy changed? people keep telling me, give it a year, maybe a little more. so to be fair to the admin is haitian coming in now, where scott tagore. but i think maybe we should wait. i personally haven't seen much of a change in strategy. it's kind of the same name. i do see less information coming up about the violence. in other violence in general has leveled off. there are places like laredo
where people tell you things are better, not perfect. as far as an official strategy, don't think we've seen that i could they change. sheena from your pickax print on that, too. >> when you look at what president calderon did come he can criticize and for not doing enough for not doing it fast enough or in the right order. many of the basic things he did are really the blueprint for how to improve security and mexico. so you invest in clean of police forces. you begin to reform the justice system so you can clean up your course. you do socioec pg to try to keep people from going down that path in the first place. and so come about the campaign was about changing what you are going to do in the security because people were in violence. what can you do to make mexico's favor?
a lot of the things that have been tried. there may be different emphasis under the government, but i don't see it being a real speedy change because there aren't a lot of other options out there. >> i think there are conflicting messages. for example, surgeon truong talk about -- the interior minister talked about pulling back from security collaboration and sanity intelligence fusion centers that used to have a lot of participation. i think still as of now they started that in february. so that is one message. on the other hand, one of the top leaders of the card so was clearly an operation that involved close work, and american drums help track this kind of wine. there's very mixed messages.
>> i have read recently that some of the emphasis on the standpoint of the cartels or other underground forces has switched from maybe carrying the drugs to kidnapping and threatening people, kind of like the mafia did or does with extortion. i heard that is a really growing problem and my friends in mexico -- well, my question is, can you speak to that? do you know what is going on in that realm? >> one of the things we learned over the last few years is i think it is kind of inaccurate to call them drug trafficking organizations because it's really organized crime. i think the paramilitary group has been the big lesson from
them. they are privacy, the prostitution, kidnapping, extortion controlling the immigration route in regions with mexico. around 835, san antonio went off, he came of age as a criminal in north texas. it's really changed the whole dynamic of simply saying they are moving drugs. it's really organized crime. >> i would only add that i don't think it is instead the drug-related operations. it shows they've diversified business plans. they've got other sources of income and they now extort people and kidnap people, et cetera, that are at. one source of revenue for them. that is why i think it is better to think more accurate, to think
of it is organized crime other than drug cartels. >> you mentioned the importance -- just how important it is to really have a memory of the things that happen in mexico. they're all just very much informational. they are important. now my question is, in regard to the art, the works of playwrights, the works of musicians, poets, fiction writers, who eventually capture the heart in a more artistic way. which worth you consider to be more representative for more significant of these years? >> that's a great question. connect the new movie coming out
of transcendence book will be one of them. i will let you comment. >> well, i don't know that i can site-specific works. i can tell you a moment that really speaks to what you're addressing. i happen to be in juarez when it was launched. there is a complication that of comments you hear the reports from the various committees. and they go through the various committees and they're about to wrap a good business and set. she noted hispania with? when someone jumps into the bull ring. this guy jumps up. he says mr. president, called a rodent or whoever says, okay, let them how the word. he says i represent the art. in knowledge these committees and all of these groups may be very important. but without the air, you don't
have. you do not hope. you don't have a future. the place was just captured by these men. so i think that you are speaking to something essential, vital, without that no society can function. >> hi, i've been enjoying this to the television series the bridge, which is if somebody to have it in, and it's about a serial killer operating literally on the border past juarez in a war is detected in el paso team up to solve the crime. it's been a great show. i was wondering if you clean it, if and adequately conveyed some of what is going on in your book. >> i haven't seen it. >> i haven't seen any better. >> i've been wanting to see it, but i haven't tenet. >> you guys should see it. it portrays latinos in a very interest anyway.
>> i also haven't seen breaking bad either. the mac it on your list will tweet the responses. >> okay. >> like you said earlier, as organized crime. it's not just drug trafficking. i would just like to know the low state tests are one thing. i'll chop loafers well, i don't mean he is the one running that. but the same time, our soviet submarine in the gulf of mexico. so what i am saying is, how are we supposed to control somebody that is so much money and so much influence that they've spread to other countries? >> so what is the reach? what do you think is the reach of these organized crime groups are or i? i think that's an interesting question. >> well, clearly they have tremendous reach. people are being busted in spain and france. you know, south america and so on. the amount of money, even though
nobody can really put -- get a fix on just what the true amount of money that is being generated and where it's managed, if better. it's a very murky reality of air. there's no question there's a tremendous amount of money in it and that fact complicates any effort to address it. because, you know, billions of dollars are a very sweet thing if you have been in your pocket. the mac it's global. i was in west africa about a year ago and it took me out to show me where planes are landing from columbia with the help of mexicans. it's all important to understand just the tip of corruption that there is in places like mexico. government corruption, how they work hand-in-hand oftentimes. that's not to say that every
mexican is corrupt. there are people trying to do the right thing. but the corruption is such the collision between organized crime and some members of the government is such that it helps the wonders and, explain why this stuff is trained national. i mean, stuff doesn't just magically appear in austin or dallas. it is a vast network that extends all over the world. >> let me just add onto that. the words we have for the global reach. you know, they are here in the united states. we have the biggest drug market appeared the most money is here, but we don't have the crime problem that use the in rico's boat. we don't have the violence. so i don't think all these people are invincible. we found a way to have this kind, to have the checks, to have this money, but not have it affect citizens but the vast majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis on the way it does in other places. if we have these markets, we may never get rid of organized
primers butlers or whatever you want to call them, but there's also a student or you can live a safe and prosperous life alongside having a legal market. >> thank you. >> this is the last question. >> i had a question about section -- >> about perception? >> were trying to learn and understand more about mexico. there's the border and everywhere else. i want to know if you think that is a legitimate distinction or not indifferent in mexico there is also that distinction there made by mexican citizens about the economy or not. >> well, i'm sure we can speak to this. first of all, there are other areas in mexico that are profoundly affect it. that area -- the archbishop recently just said our state is ungovernable. you know, that is after years of
disaster. so there's that, but also there are broad swaths of the country that are for all intents and purposes no different than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. so i think that it's really important to recognize. you know, it didn't shift in terms of where the focus of the issues are. so, i think the violence is one part the narrative of mexico. unfortunately, it overshadows other narratives that are equally important, equally true and reflecting what people are really living. >> i will try to answer that more from a mexico city purse active. that is very live in mexico city. when i first started covering this, 2003, 2004, there was always a perception for mexico city.
that only happens on the border. that is their problem. it's been going on for years and years and years. if you talk to people today, that perception has changed. it is no longer just on the border. it used to be the route for laredo. now it's up to mexico. moving more and more into mexico city. i know where that when i write a book called "midnight in mexico," i'm not trying to scare the big cheeses at people and not going to mexico. there are still many, many places in mexico that are safe. it is a matter of having comments have been knowing when to take a drive here or there. the perception here is everything in mexico is up in flames than it not. in fact, "midnight in mexico" is about the promise of a new day. >> thank you. i want to ask all of you as we leave here to remember that
mexico is right now transforming. there's many good changes. it's becoming more democratic or the economy starting to grow again. it's a rising middle class, but also has incredible problems. one of the biggest of security and rule of law. i would like to have you all to join me two things. i'll say the second one first. the second is please join us in the taboo will be signing the books. the first is please join me in thanking our two panelists were other comments. [applause] >> booktv attended a book party
for the author ann coulter in washington to be. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hey, good to see you. would it be done recently? there was something i really loved. >> i did a bill ayres these. >> what did you do before that? i mean, that sounds good. the mac -- obamacare quick >> event bitmap. >> he refuses to answer my questions. you must meet to define every term. >> i read about that in slander. it's the scorched policy of argumentation. they're burning the english language. what do you mean, communism? >> i read about this. this is an old west wing trick. so you can never talk.
i've seen your staff. it's nice to meet you. what do you do? [inaudible] >> excellent. that's why i love you. >> you now i'm reading you. mingle down here. wow, this is a big plays. this is the. [inaudible conversations] >> nice to meet you. thank you for coming. nice to meet you. nice to meet you. i am going to mingle and then i'm going to find some books. good to see you. good to see you. hi there. >> he's up there in boston now.
they're doing great. [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations. what number book is this? >> 10. >> wow, that's amazing. >> hi, ann. >> nice to meet you. [inaudible] >> so good, so good. they were nice to me. it hasn't happened in a couple days. it was a long, long time ago. my gosh, you're so wonderful. my favorite people are getting married. i've told him, but i haven't told you. >> get working. last mac >> you have to populate them. i'm falling down on the
demographic revolution. [inaudible conversations] >> nice to meet you, gene. >> i always seem to miss you. probably. i was up when you were signing books here. >> okay, well let me keep zipping through. i will sign books when riner. [inaudible] >> daily collar, right? >> yeah, yeah. the office is right next to it. >> awesome. >> hi, ann, i am hannah. thanks for meeting up with everybody. you mind if i take a few pictures? >> yes, i want to mingle and then get through the book
signing. >> grade. hello. nice to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> it is called patty murray, superwoman americo. [inaudible conversations] >> didn't you hold it back for me was? >> i fended off let dance for you. [inaudible conversations] >> come to the book signing. i'm going to the book signing. >> hi, how are you. >> senate meet you. i work for federalist magazine. i'll have to go by there again. i so miss circumvention.
i sangamon acknowledgments because he's a circlet deciders. he only e-mailed me telling me, don't print this, ann. then i know it is going to be a great line. [laughter] >> where do you work? >> i actually work on the hill. >> for home? [inaudible] argued the ones calling and sebelius now? tell them, why don't they issue a legal subpoena? i don't think it will be enforced? >> i don't know how they decide. >> they need to have a legal subpoena that has to be enforced by the sheriff. [inaudible conversations]
>> thank you i thank you. nice to meet you. >> i look for you every time you come to an event. >> i don't do it that often. feedback. that's about it. you have to come next year. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. i like your tie. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i know. these right wingers are driving me crazy. thank you. good to see you again. >> you'll have to time your name
again. [inaudible] >> let steve. now not [inaudible conversations] >> where do you live? here in new york? good to see you again. >> hi, there. [inaudible] -- house of representatives. former secret service. occupied territory over there. >> that's great. >> the chapter about arming everybody. >> well, you're going to like this one because it is similar.
>> bush and obama. >> really? [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> got to advertise the book. >> thank you. thank you. it was because he sent it bad enough that i started announcing to everybody. i got this divine e-mail. i handed over to café lattes. one from your blessed jimmy. and then i've been chattering about it so much. [inaudible] >> thank you. it temporary. >> you crazy kid. how are you? i haven't even read your review because they're running me around. >> it's good.
>> tomorrow when i'm working on my column, that is when i'll feel to read it and tweet it and post it. [inaudible] >> i would love that. >> do you know you can get your photo with me anytime? just bring him here. you can get a good photo meaning in. >> would you think it is an iphone? are you going to do it yourself? [inaudible] >> nice purse. >> thank you. i've got it in every color. >> yes, yes. is that the same when i
complimented him peen? >> i've added an orange and pink. >> you are styling, babycakes. >> i will see you tomorrow. >> yeah, tomorrow. what happened to these blogger things? >> it's not that big. it's only like 30 people. >> you can just keep that one handy. >> so it's like 30 people. but i'll be there. >> are the libertarians? maybe i can to fight with them. [inaudible] >> hey, somebody was asking me about it followed by now. log cabin republicans. i think it was in california. i just thought it was too
complicated. .. viciously attacked them. some of the question. >> i got an e-mail. somebody who saw online. >> fantastic. >> yes. >> i see it. >> that is fantastic. and then mentioned you guys yesterday. >> added nancy that part. it was -- someone had the audacity to ask me my position on game marriage. i said, unlike sean hand the i did not have the knack of repeating myself. you may read my 4,000 columns on the subject, when i talk about the marriage.
yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. >> it really would lead to it. you're right. telling the truth about the civil rights. the 50 years. >> okay. i appreciate that. thank you. >> i was just thinking about you. i looked you up. is there another i think -- i wonder what he's doing. i cooled you like to weeks ago. how are you? it is so great to see you. >> argue a consultant?
>> i know. i know. i know. >> the right idea. >> yen. >> i have a case coming up. >> say, do you know -- or seriously just want their name. it was those people who were in it. camping is next year. i want to know who did that. what you will see in chapter one. i want their name. >> i know. write down your e-mail for me. i am hiding my nicker right in here. can i get another.
>> the guy who works. my compliments. >> he does what? >> it represents. >> al, that is fantastic. >> he is a very good buddy of mine. >> i think the last time i saw you was in the hamptons, right? >> how good was that? >> that was great. [inaudible conversations] .. when you see what i say about -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] you know, i don't -- >> i'm so happy to see you. have you been in touch with any of our people? >> yeah. nora was about to be running foreign policy for romney. [laughter]>> o
okay.we'rgoing g >> we going to get together and gossip. okay. that.ad that >> you can read that.ve >> man, you have bad handwritina but thankd you but thank you. >> i'm so happy to see you! >> thank you for coming. yeah! >> hello. [inaudible conversations] >> it's been -- since we hung out at my house. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> that sounds vaguely familiar. [inaudible conversations] >> there we go! fantastic! [inaudible conversations] >> this is for your sister? >> yeah. >> that's so nice of you. [inaudible conversations] >> obligations -- [laughter]
>> thank you. this is a fun one. >> oh, good! >> this one isn't like work. >> i said have you ever ran an ann cowl -- coulter. >> thank you. i appreciate that. you're my favorite person here now. [inaudible conversations] >> ann, how are you doing? tell me when you're ready to go in! >> let me sign the one in here. i want them to buy books and come here. hello. we have a fun segment. let's do it again this weekend! >> i have -- you're not doing it? >> i'm here next weekend and every weekend through new years. >> oh. no, no, no but, i mean, "fox & friends." >> i'll do it for l.a. from you guys. >> can you do the first weekend in november? >> i actually like getting up at 4:00 a.m. if you get there and back i
never knew how close the l.a. fox studio was until i did "fox & friends" on the weekend. it's ten minutes. usually it's an hour during the day. ten minutes there, ten minutes back. it's still dark in l.a., i go right back to bed. it's a weird name. [inaudible] >> where do you live? >> it's toward santa monica from west hollywood. it's a funny name. i can't believe i'm -- i've gotten no sleep for the last few weeks. they are brutal. they are mean, they are torturing me. let me sign this book and then we'll go there. hi, there! nice to meet you. [applause] [cheering and applause] >> i have an announcement to make. [inaudible conversations] i'm going -- we are --
we are honored to have the great ann coulter in our midst. it's the shortest introduction in booktv. ann is the only famous person i have ever met who writes her own books. [laughter] >> no, i'm sewer. -- serious. how many book parties have you been to where the person doesn't even read the book where he stands up saying what a fantastic book it was. that doesn't happen with ann. her books are funny. they are a middle finger aimed at most of the world. we're honored to have her here. the second thing i would say, i'm quoting ann directly. this room sucks said ann coulte. the real action is in the book next deer. -- door. i welcome you to grab a couple
of and with that. >> i don't have much to say. i want you in in. i would like to move the alcohol in to the other room. i think that would really help things. [laughter] i'm so happy to be here. it's, of course, my favorite web page. because i'm honest. [laughter] but no, it's really fun. every time i have come here and everyone remarks on this. you dmoant, because you work here. you think look at all the beautiful young people. i'm so happy you're all right-wingers. think how sad they are. [laughter] i'm going to be back with a beer in the book signing room. thank you for having me. thank you for coming. the list reflects sales as of november 17th.
and now a panel of first-hand account on the assassination ann the aftermath. panelists include journalist hugh ands worth reporting for the "dallas morning news" whensn the president was shot dr. alan ndilds who was a . memorial hospital when president kennedy arrived, and howard will lets, the only living member of the warren commission. this panel, from the 2013 texas book festival in austin, is about 40 minutes. >> okay. my name is charles, i'm the book's editor, and we are supposed to have three gentlemen here. hugh is running late, apparently, so we're going to go ahead and get started since this is being televised. but hugh ainsworth, who was the reporter who was on the scene when kennedy was killed in deally plaza in 1963, to my far
left is alan childs who was at parkland hospital when kennedy arrived there. and he has written a book, an oral history of those people who were there. and then to my immediate left is howard willens. he was one of the key lawyers working on the warren commission that investigated the death of kennedy. so i'm going to start with mr. willens here, and he's going to read probably 5-8 minutes, and then we'll have childs who will read from his book for 5-8 minutes, and then we will have a discussion and open it up to questions. thank you very much. why don't you proceed, mr. willens. >> okay. thank you, charles, and to the supporters of the texas book festival. i'd like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before an ever-growing crowd, it appears, and to tell you a little bit about my experience with the warren commission staff nearly five decades ago. the first section i'd like to read from my book is entitled the genesis of the single bullet
theory. one of the most significant developments in the commission's work started to take shape late in february. although working conscientiously on their analytical memoranda in order to make the deadline, the commission staff -- like most lawyers -- greatly preferred to confer and debate the issues. one of the important problems we faced was determining which of the bullets hit home and when. the film gave us a key to solving this problem. both the fbi and the secret service had separately and repeatedly examined the film. a group of our lawyers, joe ball, david melon, arlen specter, did the same often joined by fbi agent -- [inaudible] a photography expert who provided valuable assistance to the commission.
>> it was my first meeting w nin who i asked him whether he thought more than one person had been shooting at the motorcade. thane his answer. been hist's what we're trying to find out. th at this stage of the find investigation, the lawyersat tha instigated the conclusion reached by both the fbi and thet secret service regarding the three shots believed to have the been filed from a depository. se recalled hearing between two and six shots, the largest number heard three shots, and three cartridges had been discovered on the sixth floor of the depository. so three shots became our working hypothesis. initially, most of us thought that the first shot hit the president, the second hit connolly and the third shot killed the president. connolly firmly believed that he had been hit by the second shot. after he had heard the first shot, and that he was not hit by
the same shot that first hit kennedy. however, remnants of only two bullet withs were found in the presidential vehicle. close examination of the film gave us one way to help determine roughly when kennedy was first hit and when connolly was hit. if the interval between the first and the second shots covered a span of less than 2.25 seconds, the time estimated to be necessary for the assassin to fire two shots, it might suggest that a second rifle was involved. david melon worked hard in these early days to prove that a second gunman had participated in the assassination. he requested the secret service to ask the three physicians who attended to connolly's three wounds to retruck the position of the -- reconstruct the position of the governor as it must have been to receive the wounds that he did receive. he received a set of drawings portraying the reconstructed position of connolly from five different viewpoints. melon then gave these drawings to the fbi asking the bureau to
compare these drawings with the film and advise when, according to the film, connolly could not have been hit. the fbi advised that governor connolly was not in the position reconstructed by his doctor cans at any time after frame 240. the commission's lawyers working on the problem agreed with this determination. as additional information became available, this small group analyzed, evaluated and rejected theories, but there was one basic question that now seems very simple: where did the bullet go after it exited the president's neck? there was no evidence on the inside of the presidential car that reflected the damage that a bullet would have caused had it followed the trajectory and had the assumed velocity of the bullet that exited the president's neck. so at some point in these collegial sessions, someone -- probably arlen specter -- suggested out loud what all in the group were thinking, that the first bullet that hit the president also created connolly's wounds.
this possibility be of a single bullet hitting both men which contradicted connolly's statement and his later testimony before the commission was also of starting simplicity. it became the much-maligned single bullet theory. although we were all intrigued by this explanation, we immediately recognized its potential and controversial significance. before this theory could be accepted by the staff and presented to the commission, it needed to be challenged and tested in a variety of ways. that, in turn, led to the reenactment of the assassination that the commission conducted three months later. i would like to just read one additional short piece that took, relates to events in march of 1964. in response to a detailed investigative request that we sent to the fbi, we got in return a very detailed response. but in that response j. edgar hoover said as follows: at the outset i wish to emphasize that
the facts available to the fbi concerning lee harvey oswald prior to the assassination did not indicate in any way that he was or would be a threat to president kennedy, nor were they such as to suggest that the fbi should inform the secret service of his presence in dallas or his employment at the texas school book depository, end quote. hoover was not telling the truth. immediately after the assassination, hoover ordered an investigation to identify any deficiencies in the handling of the oswald case. on december 10 he received a report from assistant director james gayle which stated that there were a number of failures in the oswald security case. the report concluded, quote: oswald should have been on the security index, his wife should have been interviewed before the assassination, and the investigation intensified, not held in advance after oswald contacted soviet embassy in mexico, end quote. gayle recommended that 17 fbi
employees be censured or placed on probation for, quote, shortcomings in connection with the investigation of oswald prior to the assassination, end quote. and that action should be taken promptly despite the possibility that the warren commission might learn about it during the commission's existence. other fbi officials took the contrary position. assistant director suggested that the disciplinary action be deferred until the commission's findings were made public. hoover did not agree and implemented gayle's recommendations on the same day he received the report. personally ordering that all 17 fbi officials who had been involved this the fbi's dealings with oswald before the assassination be disciplined. his view was such that, quote, such gross incompetence cannot be overlooked, nor administrative action postponed, end quote. assistant director belmont suggested in an addendum that it was significant that all the agents, supervises and -- supervisors and officials who
had considered the issue had concluded that oswald did not meet the criteria for the security index. rather than discipline the 17 individuals, the criteria should be changed as recommended by gayle. hoover rejected this suggestion with a handwritten notation next to belmont's addendum. quote: they were worse than mistaken. certainly no one in full possession of all his faculties can claim oswald didn't fall within these criteria, end quote. hoover's deliberate false statement to the commission did not come to light until ten years later after hoover died when a congressional committee investigated the fbi's failures in connection with the assassination of kennedy. >> thank you, mr. willens. if you buy his book, you will find out that he played a key role in nearly every phase of the warren commission investigation, but i want to introduce hugh ainsworth who has just arrived, just arrived
shortly, a while ago. and he was the reporter at the scene when oswald shot kennedy. he was there when oswald was arrested at the texas theater, and he was there when jack ruby shot as wald. he was a reporter for the "dallas morning news" at the time, and he's written a book called "witness to history." we have let these two guys are going to read from their book, but you can speak or make remarks or whatever you wish to do, mr. ainsworth. >> well, perhaps i should explain why i was all those places, because some have accused me of being involved, you know. [laughter] actually, i was a reporter for the "dallas morning news", and i was not assigned any part of the kennedy coverage. and i was a little, little upset because with i'd been a reporter for 12 years already, and i thought this was a pretty important story, and i should be involved. so everybody, you know, they came by and had coffee, and they said i'm going to the motorcade,
i'm going out to love field, i'll be at the trademark, and i'm just sort of seething, you know? suddenly i decided, well, i've got to go over to the motorcade, to the parade route. you don't see a president every day, and it was rather exciting, and there was a mood in dallas that made me anticipatory. i thought there might be some embarrassment of some kind, because some people had warned they were going to picket the trademark or down up to area. so i got over there, and i saw a couple lawyer friends, and i positioned myself on elm street right -- had i looked up at 1:00, i could have seen that sixth floor window. i did not look up that way because the motorcade was coming in front of me, and everyone was so excited. when they first hit main street, it was just an amazing thing because although there were kennedy haters in dallas, none of them showed up that day.
it was a visceral type of feeling. it was excitement. cheering. i mean, five be, six, seven, eight people deep. and i was very, very pleased. and they went by, and it was -- they were so happy. the connollys and the kennedys. and everybody around me was too. exuberant. and then i thought i heard a motorcycle backfire. but it wasn't. that was the first shot. and then a couple, three seconds later, a second and a third. and i'm not a shooter, but i could tell that when i listened carefully to the second and third were rifle, the whine of the rifle. and the place went berserk. people were running, they didn't know where to run because, first, we didn't know who was shooting, how many were shooting, where they were shooting from. we knew nothing. people were throwing their children down and covering them. people were running into each other. people were screaming and
crying. and it was just complete pandemonium. and at that point i got a little bit busy. the newspaper man in me kicked in, and i thought aye got to inter-- i've got to interview everybody i see here. and there was one man particularly in front of me who was pointing up to that sixth floor window. he kept saying, he's up there, he's up there. i didn't know what he'd known or seen, but i had to interview him, and i did. i approached him. i don't know how much you want to go -- we're going to take questions later. >> yes, we are. >> yeah. anyway, from that i went on, heard that the officer had been shot, went to that scene. was in the theater when he was captured. that was pretty bizarre too. and then the sunday morning when i got up and i found out that he had not been moved during the night, despite the fact they had all kinds of warning and threats, i ran like the devil for the city hall and was there when jack ruby shot his way into
history. >> okay, thank you, mr. ainsworth. i need to restate the title of your book. i shortened it, apparently. it's "november 22, 1963: witness to history." >> thank you. >> yeah. okay. mr. childs. you were there at parkland. can you read us some of your book? >> i'm dr. alan childs, and on november 32, 1963 -- 22, 1963, almost 50 years ago, i was a medical student at the university of texas southwestern medical school and in the library of parkland hospital when the staccato pages began that all department heads report immediately to the emergency room. we, none of us had ever heard any page like that. but be it began a -- but it began a day that none of us will ever forget. my book is not a historical
retelling of events surrounding the assassination. nor is it an analysis of the events of that day and their impact. rather, the book is the human story of the assassination from the standpoint of the physicians, medical students and residents who were the first community to learn of the death of our president. ..
>> i have included archival histories from the oral testimony of the individuals who are no longer with us. now they are preserved for all time. i will read something from my book now. twice in a 35 minute timeframe, parkland hospital were was the center of worldwide attention and it was the temporary seat of the united states of america of the seat of government of united states of america, as well as the seat of government for the state of texas. our 35th president died and diamond, room one. at that moment, the ascendancy of the 36 president of the united states occur.
the president was assassins and we were there. like the patrons of the ford's theatre who witnessed the assassination of president lincoln, a blood splattered history assaulted our senses. some of us were in the emergency operating room and conspiracy berrios and the doctors at parkland were the only ones who saw the neck wound before the emergency tracheotomy occurred, and they were unanimous that the
neck wound was an entry wound and in time, however, most, but it's not all would believe this. the vein of recollection will report from those of us who stood at the emergency room loading dock, some of them who were in the room, some colossal errors that are here and we looked into the top down and saw the back seat covered in blood and the roses on the floor. there were about 150 of us standing there when we received word that the president had died about half an hour for the world new. i can never forget how the wailing of the black people contrasted with the dry eyes that stunned medical students standing around. a first-year student lary held a
telephone line open to cbs for their new york reporter, robert pierpoint, as this was long before satellite or cell phones, the payphones in the e.r. were the only communication with the outside world and for more than an hour, this freshman medical students that their and described to cbs what was going on in the emergency room while robert pierpoint went back to, room one. when robert pierpoint told walter cronkite who was broadcasting live that the priest had administered last rites to the president of the united states, walter cronkite would then say that i guess it doesn't get any more official than not. eisenstein and other medical students saw this to whisk away lyndon johnson in the car, and a
mexican-american man pulled up to the loading dock with his soon to deliver wife, and they allowed him in, but they stole his car. [laughter] >> many of us saw president johnson ghostly pale, surrounded by secret service men trundling him into.car. memories of jacqueline kennedy are in many of the narratives that i have received, and they reflect a primal sympathy for her. pepper jenkins, the anesthesia chief said this. as she circled in circle, i noticed her hands were cuffed in front of her as if she were cradling something. as she passed, she nudged me with her elbow and she handed me what she had been nursing with her hands. it was a large chunk of her husband's brain tissue.
in one of the most touching memories of the first lady is from a surgery resident who witnessed jackie kennedy moving toward the dead president and removing the wedding ring from his finger and placing it on her hand and kissed them goodbye. then there was a historic confrontation in the trauma room between county medical examiner earl rose and the secret service over the custody of the remains of the president. he said i was in their way. i was face-to-face with the secret service agent roy keller and i was trying to explain to him that the texas law required a non-toxic to be performed in texas. and no one was in charge of the situation very an agent kellerman tried three tactics to have his way. he asserted his identity as
representative of the secret service. he appealed for sympathy for mrs. kennedy and finally to use body language in an attempt to bully me. i was not looking at agent kellerman's gone, the guns were drawn. i was looking in his eyes and they were very intense. his eyes said that he meant to give the president's body back to washington. and in the wrong out silence of the parkland emergency room after president johnson, jackie kennedy, and the casket had gone, doctors, both of them walked into this, room number one before it had been cleaned and in a wastebasket they found two dozen red roses given to the first lady at love field that
morning and each removed a single rose and preserved his to this day. the eyewitness memories gathered in my book pain it previously unseen tapestries of this unforgettable time. some recollections are like the grainy black-and-white tv images of the day. while other memories are the graphic technicolor of surreal dreams. the chapters that follow detailed asides and feelings of our 45 authors and the shockwave first hit parkland hospital and then the world. the immediate actions and what they saw and felt are vividly remembered half a century from that fateful day. the narrative tone began with
the whole world cried the day that i met jfk. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> dr. childs committee bring up a point about the neck wound that has been used in used in conspiracy theories may possibly came from the front and this is in contradiction with what the one commission found and i believe you might have something to say on that. >> yes. in the book, it is a very touching recitation of the feelings and the endowment of many people at the time of the assassination. he does unfortunately extend his views from time to time to point out that the one commission ignored some critical evidence that that is not the case. and i can elaborate on that
later. and i think that hospitals did not turn the body over for very good reasons. they were concerned with saving the president's life. and they knew that that was going to be an uphill struggle and some of the senior positions thought it was from the very onset. but they began to have a complete knowledge from doctors at the facility that were conducting the autopsy by including two wounds from the rear, one from the upper shoulder of the back and the other entering on the right posterior of the skull. and watching them communicating their findings to the doctors, most of them are more likely that they are wounded in the throat that it would be an exit wound. the doctors looked at the autopsy x-rays and photographs
of 1968 and 1975, 1978, all of them look at the autopsy of the photographs and x-rays and opportunities that the one commission did not have, and all of those experienced graphologist concluded unanimously that 17 of the shots of the brain and heard from the right rear and entered from the top and the front end is shot through the back entry and read through the upper right shoulder and exited through the throat. seventeen pathologist agreed upon the shot through the head and 15 agreed upon a second shot to the back exiting through the throat and out 21 people who have examined the issue of qualifications beyond challenge, 20 out of 21 agreed that the single bullet theory is, in fact, not a theory but a conclusion of fact. and i have respect for the doctors but i'm sure share their
skilled efforts to resuscitate a president who had brought so much hope and promise and what strikes me as a 50th anniversary approaches us, that we should honor our president with a fair understanding of his contribution and his weaknesses and his potential for changing the course of history and we should not demean his reputation by fostering and endorsing conspiracy theories that have no factual basis whatsoever. [applause] >> thank you. if you have anything to add to that? >> i'm very familiar with your work and i admire each monthly. i think the one commission caused some of its own problems. at the time he began of january
of 1964, there was only one conspiracy theory. mark twain came up and testified and made up all kinds of stories that he had spent four days by his own admission in dallas and he came up with allegations and he didn't really investigate to stop this with later became much more tumultuous. and i know is that one of those days and gave him a lot of material that he later turned around and talking to the one commission. there's a lot we have to understand. and we had never thought of this
before and had something of this magnitude happened. that was the military situation that was far off, and we had implications. the dial dallas was unusual. everyone from the top to the bottom made mistakes and talked and they shouldn't have. which also led to conspiracy theories by the hundreds. and he was asked how did they get to this building now. and they said that it was true. twenty reporters said who is the cab driver and he said there'll click. to this day, there has never been a cab driver in the whole state of texas named there'll click.
and they see pictures here of the officer holding it up in a the deputy sheriff said that that looks like a mauser. so reporters suddenly knew that he was a mauser. another chance showed that they lied to us. a good reporter from st. louis thought what he was cleaning the windshield and we were not there a few hours later, so he was on the inside. and once again they line lied to us. so many along the lines and no one ever asked the right people what really happened and the people didn't shut up that
should have at that time. and that is contributed to. >> thank you so much. the more we go to questions from the audience, does anyone have anything that they wish to add? dr. childs? >> anyone who has questions, please come on up and let started. [inaudible conversations] >> please go ahead. >> i would like to ask mr. hugh aynesworth. he knew about the association between jack ruby and lee harvey oswald. journalistic colleague of mine who worked for the local station in dallas, one of the local station said that he saw them together numerous times talking about each other and i was aware of you have your own knowledge the prior association of oswald and jack ruby. >> that's an interesting
question. he's a good friend of mine and has been for over 50 years and i've never heard him tell that story. i've heard all kinds of allegations. but i can tell you that not one person has come forth with any kind of proof at all and i don't believe it. >> let me just elaborate on that for a moment. and this includes the comments about the commission. we have one ability to stop the flood of conspiracy and he had the ability to stop newspapers from reporting incorrectly. and in fact, a lot of them need not try,. >> 552 witnesses, the most expensive recommendation, basing the decision on the sworn testimony of these witnesses. not on fbi reports or secret
service reports. and they had to evaluate the evidence and reach the conclusion that there was only one assassin and that there was no credible evidence at the time of any conspiracy. the commission members all independent experienced men had no interest whatsoever in doing anything other than finding out the truth and which of them would've taken on this national importance inside look very the evidence. and we did consider all those alternatives support the report and we've made some mistakes in the important point is that our conclusions have been examined time and time again, including by a house select committee in 1978 and 1979 whose every motivation was to find a conspiracy and they have confirmed all of our critical findings that two shots were fired and the president and the governor and there was no evidence of any kind of a second shooter and there was no fourth
cartridge order this shot that had anything in dallas as far as we know. i think it has been developed in an extensive amount of time and this is why i think the title of my book comes from a statement of the chief justice made one of his close friends who was on the stand. a distinguished criminal lawyer from los angeles. after a year or so of criticism, joe was a price the guy and he called the up the chief and said that, you know, they are smashing our report and what can we do about it. the chief said that need to be gone. history will prove us right. if years have passed and i would like to think that history has proved us right. but i'm enough of a realist to know that 50 years from now we will have another panel. [laughter] and most of us won't be here. so i think that once we can help
investigation and say that the commission ignored this, dr. childs in his book said that the commission ignored the testimony of a deaf mute the testified that he saw a person with a rifle behind a white picket fence should a president. now, who can ignore the testimony of a deaf mute? i ask you. >> but he didn't say that backing for it. and when people went to the place where he saw what he saw, it was evident that he came back with another theory in the 1970s and the 1980s and i think that particular failure commission was impossible because this allegation was not put forth at the time it was completed. >> i think that there is a possibility he should have interviewed witnesses deeper. green osborne, when asked if any
public official was threatened was told no and then three months later i wrote in the dallas times herald that he threatened to shoot richard nixon. and i don't know, you just didn't -- i agree totally and i'm just saying that the investigation could have been a little bit more concise in some respects. boswell visited the fbi office and left a note a few days before the assassination. and i didn't know it until 1975. so i'm just saying that there were things that were left undone that i believe occurred. >> next question? >> i am proud to ask this. for many years i have read hugh
aynesworth as an author for many years. is it not possible that the need and that the desire to find the assassination grows out about fact that the alternative is so hard, that is to say that we would then have to accept the apparent truth that the pathetic loner brought down camelot and we accept that and then we have to look into our own souls and admit something we don't always like like to do, which is to admit that violence and death is unfair and reinvent. >> i agree with you totally. i don't think that we want to admit the two nobodies to change the course of history, but they did. >> next question? >> thank you all for being here. i think everything can be summed
up in the film and i'm wondering if you think that future technology would be able to trace the path to the blood spurts we can tell when we allocate from the grassy knoll, they are there on the film. but what we have is the technology to slow them down. >> i'm not aware of any technology that would be available to do that. and i think that the film has been examined in great detail in the years following the one commission. this includes the assassination with ichat to examine the friends of this in more detail to confirm whether or not the president had in fact gone forward with the impact of the second shot and many conspiracy books have been written and it
shows that they had dramatically gone backwards. and that seems to be the evidence from the front. the frames were examined in 1975 and this is reported in detail on the assassination. in the study did show that the president had gone forward 2.2 inches and his shoulders went forward 1.1-inch. so there was a forward movement that reflected the impact and there is a physical reaction of the body and this could be a reaction that could've been expected. so i do not expect that we will find any more bullets coming in because there have been bullets,
they would've had something that is the point to get messed. there is a consensus that some miss this and seems to be now the passage of time in the second and third decade. this includes what has come to light since that time. >> okay, next question. >> this question is for hugh aynesworth. what you say about a cia document written on october 10, 1963, where the head of the dallas cia domestic contract division are part of this the possibility of hugh aynesworth making a trip to cuba. have you ever been a cia media asset. [laughter] or have you ever received compensation for money or any
kind of support? [laughter] >> that's a fair question. >> i had been in the cuba missile crisis in 1962 and i wanted to go back. and i don't know what year this was exactly and i was trying to get back to cuba. you had to go through the czechoslovakian embassy. when they get a call from a guy and i'm even though they had a ca office. i also learned there was just one goal if nothing else. but he said that things are going on in cuba that we need to warn about and would you look around and sort of look for this and he knew that i was an
editor. and i'm a good american. when i come back, also you everything that i have seen. and this includes any federal organization ever and that is the story. [applause] >> my question might be a little bit easier. [laughter] >> is there any truth to the story but the limousine to the president was writing is taken away shortly afterwards and claimed before technicians had a chance to examine it? >> that is not true. early the following morning was the subject of an extensive investigation that went on and to make sure there was no
situation where the vehicle was clean. the two substantial fragments, they discovered this on the inside of the windshield, some greens, but they think was part of the ricocheting fragments of a bullet. and subsequently years later was proven to be from the same bullet that went through. so i know that it's been widely talk about there is some conspiracy by government agencies and that is simply not the case. >> no one can definitively answer this, but i would like to see if anyone has conjecture or not. had kennedy not been killed that day, how do you think history would've been changed,
particularly the civil rights movement and what are the changes in history that you think that would have a situational had kennedy full-term, a full two-term? >> i will try to answer that because of speculation, but i don't think that mr. kennedy, even though he started this, i don't think you would've had the power to get the legislation through to do that. and how that might have affected the nation would've had another 10 years without that civil rights legislation and i'm not sure what kind of chaos could have happened. >> i think that's a very good answer. there have been many books written by story ends to address
that issue. and one that i have recently been reading as well on emphasizing the extent of the president and his brother for whom i worked in the justice department were extremely unhappy with the way in which the military officials demanded that they take a more militant staff with respect to the soviet union and the steps that they wanted to take and that they were disturbed away with which the cia was handling intelligence functions and there are some thought they had serious problems in dealing with the federal institutions of a dependent upon and i think he was right in saying that they may never have been able to exercise meaning meaning full control over those agencies that were important and he was also right to say that president johnson brought to the legislative department and
expertise that kennedy did not have and i think that president johnson left an important legacy for the country. >> my panel in general, i would like to know more about the cents about the magic bullet. >> i am not an expert on any aspect of that. >> okay. there is no magic bullet. >> that's a fine question. >> what i did try to tell you in the first segment and it came as a surprise to all of us and we finally realize that it had been part of the evidence. i am a lawyer and some people say they that there were too many lawyers on the one