A Clue of Singularity

Oswald's singularity is a well-defined and marked difference when placed beside the long line of presidential predators scattered across the landscape of American history. Oswald is conspicuous as the only member of this rogues gallery who claims innocence when accused of an attack upon the President of the United States. Indeed, Oswald vehemently denied any wrongdoing. He even went so far as to label himself a patsy.

In stark contrast to Oswald's repeated protestations of innocence, the remaining presidential attackers share one common characteristic - each boldly proclaimed that their attack upon the Chief Executive was the means to rectify or bring attention to some matter of grave importance. This nefarious cast of misfits were not gratified with mere publicity, but exhibited the unmitigated gall to clamor for accolades and acclaim for a deed they deemed brave and righteous. Some issued manifestos setting forth the justification or rationalization for slaying the nation's leader. Others revealed that an appearance of a divine personage inspired and guided them to an attack upon the Chief of State. In the absence of divine intervention, one assailant was content to take his instructions from the ghost of William McKinley, who wanted his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, eliminated.

From dapper John Wilkes Booth to bewildered John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald stands separate and distinct among America's presidential assassins. His peculiarity, however, is not merely an interesting bit of trivia. I wholeheartedly endorse the validity of Sherlock Holmes' statement that "[s]ingularity is invariably a clue."3 To effectively demonstrate the veracity of Holmes theorem, a synopsis of the behavior of various presidential assailants is set forth herein.

This collection of vignettes substantiates that, first, Oswald's alleged killing of Kennedy defies the very definition of political murder. His unstinting denial of culpability is unparalleled in the annals of presidential assassins. Second, the news media criticism that conspiracy theories are created as a coping mechanism for an otherwise incomprehensible world is not supported by the archival record of American reaction to presidential assassination. Third, the media's effort to portray Oswald as a lone gunman seeking attention is no more supported by facts than is the conclusion that Oswald is a political murderer. Last, this brief voyage into the past demands, indeed cries out for, a designation of a motive if Oswald is to be convicted.

An ardent Southern sympathizer, Booth had just shot Lincoln and left him bleeding to death in the theater box jutting out above the stage. Booth, a familiar face to theater crowds, now stood upon the stage fearless that his famed visage would be associated with the act of violence that had just occurred. Booth demonstrated no inclination to disguise himself.

Certainly Booth had other escape routes available to him, but he selected a dramatic exit that would, he hoped, remove all doubt as to whose bravery had shed the blood of that demon - that tormentor of the South - Abraham Lincoln. Both Laura Keene, star of An American Cousin, and the theater's orchestra leader immediately recognized Booth and reported his identity to the police and the press. Audience members thought the appearance of the well known actor was part of the theater production.

To guarantee that full credit was afforded him, however, Booth took no chances that fame would rob him of his due. He recorded in his memorandum book that "our country owed all our troubles to him [Lincoln], and God made me the instrument of his punishment."5

Still not completely confident that he would receive proper notices for his act of courage, Booth penned a letter to the editor of the Washington National Intelligencer. Unfortunately that epistle no longer exists, for Booth asked an actor friend, John Matthews, to deliver the sealed envelope to the newspaper. Once Matthews heard that Booth had been implicated in Lincoln's death, he opened the envelope. After reading Booth's confession, Matthews feared his possession of such a document would incriminate him, so he burned it.6 Although the contents of the letter were destroyed, Matthews conveyed the substance of Booth's admission to the public.

With the calculated precision of a fine tuned performance, Booth spread his trail with incontrovertible evidence that he was Abraham Lincoln's executioner. Successful in establishing his responsibility for a truly heinous crime, Booth failed, however, to gain his primary objective of an honored place in history.

When warned of one such plot on his life, Garfield replied: "Well if assassination is to play its part in the campaign, and I must be the sacrifice, perhaps it is best. I think I am ready." Whether Garfield's philosophical attitude towards potential assassination was an indirect slur upon his opponent's righteousness or the genuine sentiments of a man prepared to meet his maker is not certain. In light of Garfield's fate, one hopes the latter was true.

Ironically, Garfield's eventual assassin enthusiastically supported the Republican's candidacy, though not until after Garfield's surprise nomination on the thirty-sixth ballot. Warring factions of the GOP could not reach a consensus. Deadlock threatened to close the convention down if competing forces did not reach a compromise, so the party, in desperation, turned to a dark horse.7

Garfield's obscurity, however, did not prevent Charles J. Gitteau, an itinerant preacher with political aspirations, from seizing the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the new party leader. Gitteau drafted and circulated a speech advocating Garfield's candidacy. Pleased with his scheme, Gitteau began making appeals to Garfield for a position with the administration. This premature plea for political favor was easily ignored during the campaign, but after the election, Gitteau placed a copy of the speech, with "Paris Consulship" scrawled on the first page, into Garfield's hand. When his importunate petitions did not cease, the White House had him banned from the premises.

The persistent Mr. Gitteau was not discouraged. He simply changed venues and hounded the Secretary of State, James G. Blaine, in the halls of the State Department. Soon frustration got the best of Secretary Blaine, who shouted at Gitteau, "Never speak to me again about the Paris Consulship as long as you live."8

Incensed by Blaine's bluntness, Gitteau sought solace through prayer. While enraptured in devotional supplication, Gitteau, according to his later trial testimony, was visited by God, who instructed him to save the republic and publicize The Truth --- Gitteau's autobiography --- by executing Garfield.

Gitteau was completely unfamiliar with firearms, but he obediently purchased a pistol and diligently engaged in target practice. After several failed attempts to gain access to the President, Gitteau's rendezvous with Garfield occurred on Saturday, July 2, 1881 at the Baltimore and Potomac Depot. Gitteau fired several shots into Garfield and fled for a nearby cab.

His flight was foiled by a Washington, D.C. policeman, who wrestled the assailant to the ground. To assure the officer of his willingness to cooperate, Gitteau said: "It's all right. Keep quiet, my friend. I wish to go to jail. Now Arthur is President of the United States. I am a Stalwart of Stalwarts."9

Among Gitteau's possessions was a copy of his autobiography, and a speech to the American public in which he bequeathed his gun to the State Department Library and granted the New York Herald publication and serialization rights for The Truth. Attached to these items was a note from Gitteau explaining God's hand in Garfield's assassination and disclaiming monetary greed as a motive for his actions: #I am clear in my purpose to remove the President. Two points will be accomplished. It will save the Republic, and it will create a demand for my book, The Truth. . . . This book was not written for money. It was written to save souls. In order to attract public attention the book needs the notice the President's removal will give it.#10

Garfield wavered between life and death for several months. When he died, Gitteau wrote to Garfield's successor, Chester A. Arthur: "My inspiration is a God send to you & I presume you appreciate it. . . . It raises you from a political cipher to President of the United States . . ."11

Gitteau's trial is celebrated among legal scholars because of the significant contribution it made in addressing and refining the legal determination of insanity. The trial transcripts certainly buttress an argument for insanity, for the record shows that Gitteau blatantly trumpeted his exploits throughout the trial. Moments before the hangman slipped a noose around his neck, Gitteau harangued the crowd with one last dissertation on his divine calling to slay Garfield.

Europe gave birth to anarchism, but the United States was by no means immune from the infectious spread of this radical reevaluation of organized society. In the late 1890's and early 1900's, Emma Goldman, an effective agitator for American anarchy, stirred enough ferment within an anonymous disciple, Leon Czolgosz (pronounced "Colgosh"), to prompt the assassination of the twenty-fifth President of the United States, William McKinley.12

Czolgosz was intrigued, then fascinated, and then inspired by Goldman's doctrine that all leaders should be exterminated. He, like many believers in anarchism, felt compelled to validate his conviction with an act of heroism. Czolgosz selected the target, William McKinley, that would verify, indeed testify, of his commitment to the cause of anarchism.

Czolgosz joined a reception line greeting President McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Czolgosz concealed his weapon by wrapping a gun clutched in his hand with bandages. As he approached McKinley in the receiving line, he fired two shots.

After his arrest, Czolgosz told police: "I killed President McKinley because I done my duty. I don't believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none."13 Czolgosz initially entered a plea of guilty, but in New York defendants accused of capital crimes were required to enter a plea of not guilty. A true anarchist, Czolgosz declined the assistance of legal counsel because acceptance of legal assistance would acknowledge the right of the court to sit in judgment upon him.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to the electric chair. Before he faced death by electrocution, Czolgosz affirmed his manifesto for the gathered spectators: "I killed the president because he was the enemy of the people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime."14 One cannot imagine a more forthright and candid death-bed pronouncement.

Roosevelt, a highly popular figure of his day, easily won over his Democratic opponent, Alan B. Parker. During the 1904 campaign, Roosevelt pledged that he would retire at the end of a single full term. After nearly eight years in the Oval Office, Roosevelt's ambitions were momentarily quenched by playing king-maker: he hand-picked his successor, William Howard Taft.

Shortly after Taft assumed his duties, Roosevelt left the United States for an extended African Safari. His adventures and expeditionary conquests on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution received maximum newspaper coverage. By the time he returned home, the country was frustrated with impassive Taft, and the returning adventurer received the country's pent-up adulation.

Unfortunately for Taft, Roosevelt agreed with criticisms directed towards the incumbent. To salvage the country from ruin, Roosevelt concluded that he must seek another term as President. Political maneuverings, however, necessitated that he run as third party candidate. Roosevelt obligingly formed the Bull Moose Party.

During a campaign swing through Milwaukee, Roosevelt emerged from the Hotel Gilpatrick on his way to deliver a speech before a rally. Outside the hotel, Roosevelt found a crowd of admirers seeking a glimpse of the still famous and popular former President. Roosevelt stood up in his open automobile to acknowledge the well-wishers when a man stepped forward and shot him with a .38 Colt revolver.

The bullet penetrated Roosevelt's overcoat, a steel spectacles case, the fifty page manuscript of his speech, and eventually lodged beneath his ribs. Dazed, but not critically wounded, Roosevelt demanded that his assailant be brought before him. After a penetrating examination by Roosevelt, John F. Schrank was taken into custody. Roosevelt, by the way, finished his oration - over an hour in length - before he allowed a doctor to dress his wounds.

Schrank, like Gitteau before him, had a visitation from beyond the veil. The ghost of William McKinley appeared to Schrank and denounced Roosevelt for complicity in his shooting. McKinley, according to Schrank, demanded revenge and appointed Schrank as his avenging angel.

McKinley's ghost was evidently more convincing than the specter of Hamlet's father, for Schrank carried out his task with unhesitating dispatch. Schrank, however, may have had additional motivation not available to Hamlet because he fiercely opposed third terms for Presidents. Therefore, with the ghost of William McKinley urging vengeance and Theodore Roosevelt about to violate the unwritten prohibition against third terms, Schrank pursued his assignment with a fanatical tenacity.

Divulging his conversation with the ghost of William McKinley, Schrank openly admitted his attack upon Roosevelt. The court persuaded prosecutors to subject Schrank to a board of psychiatric examiners to determine his sanity. To no one's surprise, Schrank was judged insane and placed in a mental institution where he remained until his death in 1940, which, ironically, is the very year that another Roosevelt, broke the "no third term" tradition.15

Mrs. Lillian Cross, a spectator standing next to Zangara, deflected Zangara's aim by grabbing his arm as he fired his last four shots. Quickly arrested, Zangara assured the police that he did not hate Roosevelt personally, but explained that "I hate all Presidents, no matter from what country they come, and I hate all officials and everybody who is rich."16

In fact, Zangara, an unemployed brick-layer who had immigrated from Italy ten years prior to his assassination attempt, had originally planned to kill Herbert Hoover, but when he read that President-elect Roosevelt was vacationing in Florida, he adapted himself to the available opportunity.

Zangara's bullet fusillade slightly wounded four people and killed Anton Cermak, Mayor of Chicago. Miraculously Roosevelt escaped unharmed. The president-elect proved a courageous and cool-headed leader under difficult circumstances, for when he saw that Mayor Cermak had been hit, he ordered his driver to halt. The Secret Service yelled at the driver to get out of the crowd, but Roosevelt issued a countermanding order that the Secret Service agents come to the aid of Cermak.

The mayor was placed in Roosevelt's car. Cradled in Roosevelt's arms, Cermak was rushed to the hospital. While Cermak was on the operating table, Roosevelt visited the other gunshot victims. Cermak died on March 6, 1933. Zangara was charged with murder and was eventually electrocuted.

Outside Blair House, Puerto Rican patriots Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola rushed towards the guard, positioned beneath the canopy of the front entrance, from opposite directions. What could have been a bloody assault was foiled because Collazo had forgotten to release the safety trigger. His pistol silent, save a tiny click of the hammer hitting the safety mechanism, Collazo panicked. He fumbled with the revolver, but his attempts to remedy his mistake triggered a comedy of errors as his gun misfired and hit the guard in the leg.

The discharge of a bullet alerted the guards stationed within Blair House, who charged out of their assigned posts with guns blasting. Torresola and Collazo returned fire and wounded several secret service agents and killed Leslie Coffelt, one of Truman's favorite officers. In the ensuing gun battle, Torresola was killed and Collazo wounded.

With his compatriot slain, Collazo was left to elucidate the articles of faith upon which the Puerto Rican Nationalist movement was instituted. Ironically, Truman had been a strong supporter of Puerto Rico's autonomy. Truman believed that Puerto Rico should determine its political relationship with the United States and appointed the first native Puerto Rican as governor of the island. When confronted with these facts, Collazo defiantly asserted that Truman was a symbol of the system and he was attacking the system, not the man.

Collazo was convicted on four criminal counts, including the murder of Coffelt, and sentenced to the electric chair. In 1952, Truman commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. In 1979, Jimmy Carter pardoned Collazo.17

An alert secret service agent interceded and prevented a discharge by wedging the webbing between his thumb and forefinger in front of the hammer. "Squeaky" was flustered that her effort had been foiled and explained that she had simply "wanted to get some attention for Charlie and the girls."19 Fromme was a follower of cult leader Charles Manson, who was imprisoned for the grisly murder of actress Sharon Tate and others.

Fromme was the first person convicted under a 1965 statute making attempted assassination of a president a federal offense punishable by life imprisonment. Fromme was sentenced to life in prison, but she is eligible for parole.

Sipple, a private citizen, was praised in the press, but when Ford discovered that Sipple lived an openly gay lifestyle, he shunned his savior. Ford paid a political price for his homophobic reaction.20

Moore was the epitome of emotional instability. She was frustrated by five failed marriages and her own parents' adoption of three of her four children. In addition, Moore had ensnared herself in the undesirable predicament of spying for the FBI and the San Francisco police and betraying that trust by sharing inside information with the very people she was assigned to watch. By working both sides of the fence, Moore claimed her life was in danger. Indeed, Sara Jane must have felt akin to a caged animal.

The slings and arrows of her outrageous fortune prompted Moore to exorcise her demons with an act of violence. "There comes a point when the only way you can make a statement is to pick up a gun," she confided to reporters.21 Precisely what statement her conduct was suppose to declare is not certain, but at no time did Moore disclaim her action. She pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

Hinckley had fallen in love with the child actress Jodie Foster when she portrayed a 12-year-old prostitute in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. Hinckley reportedly viewed the movie over fifteen times. When Jodie Foster took a temporary hiatus from her film career to attend Yale University, Hinckley followed her. He persistently phoned her and left messages at her dormitory, and frequently appeared as her second shadow. Foster ignored Hinckley.

Enormously distressed by Foster's rejection, Hinckley's delicate grasp of reality seem to snap. Determined to gain the attention and adoration of Jodie Foster, Hinckley concluded it was time to take action. Apparently Hinckley took his cue directly from Taxi Driver.

That Hinckley's inspiration for his attempted assassination of President Reagan, the first actor to become President, was a movie star is among the many ironies surrounding this tragic story. Perhaps more disturbing are the eerie parallels between Taxi Driver and John Hinckley. The film's story line depicts an alienated man who is driven to murder by his love for a teenage prostitute, portrayed by Jodie Foster. Hinckley imitated art and sought violence as the means to charm and enchant his idol.

On March 30, 1981, Hinckley awaited Reagan's departure from the Washington Hilton, where he had just delivered a speech. When the Presidential party emerged, Hinckley fired six shots. In addition to seriously wounding White House Press Secretary James Brady, a secret service agent, and a policeman, Hinckley's inaccurate aim was sufficient to pierce the President's lung and lodge a projectile an inch from his heart.

Hinckley was immediately apprehended. Prior to the shooting, Hinckley wrote one last love letter to Jodie Foster in which he swore his determination to win her heart by killing the President. Hinckley faced a battery of charges. After a seven week trial, the jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity. After the verdict, Hinckley once again iterated his motivation by describing his action as the greatest love offering in history.22

To answer that question, perhaps a more fundamental questions needs examined: Why does an individual want to kill the nation's leader? Thus far, attacks upon a President have not been personalis actio - an act against the person. Rather, the assaults have been perpetrated because of the President's position or to retaliate for action he undertook in his official capacity. Assassinations in the United States have consistently been triggered by the assassin's belief - a personal, social, or political agenda.

If the assassin is to fully realize his or her objective, the intended audience - whether that be the world at large or a popular movie star - must be fully apprised to what vainglorious purpose the act of violence has been enacted. In other words, the assassination must be a public spectacle. To label the death of a leader a political murder without that annunciation of purpose is a misnomer. The most essential element in establishing a prima facie case for political murder is a public declaration of the perpetrator's motive and purpose. Hence, political assassins stand the logic of Camus on its head; for to that peculiar animal - extremist and zealot - an admission of guilt is of paramount importance.

If a leader is murdered without an assertion of responsibility, that killing must have in reality been a conspiracy. Therefore, the Kennedy assassination has all the classic markings of a conspiracy. Oliver Stone's JFK suggests a coup d'etat: "This was a military-style ambush from start to finish . . . a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings."24 Stone's theory and countering hypothesis may proffer plausible interpretations, but Oswald's refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing is far more significant, for the lack of any confession is not merely a distinction from all other Presidential assassination cases, before or since Kennedy, it is an unprecedented break in the pattern of history. Indeed, Oswald cuts horizontally across the vertical pattern of history.

The poet T.S. Eliot wrote that "history is a pattern."25 History most definitely has a pattern, but the role assigned to Oswald by the Warren Commission clashes with the law, rhythm, and flow of that pattern. When the pattern of history is disrupted, a reevaluation is merited in order to determine whether some unique variable modifies and explains a departure from the accustomed trend or whether historians' bias or predisposition for one version of the past have barred them from honoring Arnold Toynbee's principle on the nature of history: "There must be some common element of regularity in human nature."26

Certainly the evidence demonstrates that political murders follow a readily identifiable pattern. If Oswald were guilty, why didn't he seize a microphone and broadcast his agenda or declare some radical impetus for killing John F. Kennedy? As the Dallas Police proudly paraded their suspect back and forth for the gratification of the press, Oswald had ample opportunity to publicly announce his political convictions or articulate his personal grievances or simply play the braggart and arrogantly assert his role in changing the destiny of the world.

Instead, Oswald repeatedly asserted his innocence. Oswald's behavior does not fit the profile of a political assassin. By failing to conform to the modus operandi of past and future presidential assailants, he defies the standard classification of a political assassin. Indeed, Oswald cannot legitimately be classified as a political assassin. Oswald's remarkable conduct highlights the gaps and missing pieces in the fragmented JFK puzzle.

The citizens of this country are well acquainted, indeed intimately familiar, with the potent impact of a single man or woman. Three other U.S. Presidents have been shot and killed. These earlier Americans accepted the simple fact that crazed fanatics and blinded zealots have the power to rob them of their elected leaders. Charles Rosenberg, author of The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, noted the public reaction to the attack upon Garfield: "Most simply assumed that it had been the work of a lunatic."28

Convoluted and somewhat bizarre conspiracy theories were propagated by elements of a lunatic fringe.29 Such theories could not sustain themselves, however, with the persistent and unswerving declarations of guilt by the assassins themselves. Even if Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley's assailants had denied shooting a president, each of these men, as true of subsequent presidential assailants, were either positively identified or apprehended in possession of a weapon at the scene of the attack. Therefore, any disavowal of guilt from the accused would have spawned massive skepticism, but assuredly no basis would exist for the fabrication of theoretical plots or schemes.

Did 1963 suddenly send the national personality into a tailspin towards immaturity? How can Time-Life and others credibly suggest that Americans suddenly have lost their ability to recognize the presence of harsh reality in its history?

The citizens facing the death of John Kennedy were confronted with a very different scenario from similar incidents. The accused man emphatically denied the charges against him. Eye witnesses could not place Oswald in the sniper's nest. He was apprehended miles from the scene of the crime. The murder weapon, a single shot rifle, seemed an improbable tool to wreak such havoc.

The American public has been reluctant for thirty-three years to accept a single assassin because the facts of the case offer no other solution. Despite allegations to the contrary, the nation is not suffering from paralysis brought about by a pathological denial syndrome.

To suggest that Oswald is rolling over in his grave because his alleged participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy is being challenged is mind boggling. Such a careless and thoughtless proposition speaks to the unwillingness of certain segments of the media to objectively review the facts surrounding the Kennedy case. Even a preemptory perusal of the pattern of presidential assassination in the United States would foreclose making an argument that Oswald, in his heart of hearts, wanted to step permanently into history as a man of bold and daring deeds.

The only operable explanation tendered thus far is the one Oswald himself provided: "I'm just a patsy." Many resist such a conclusion because its spells conspiracy.

The truth and pattern of history cannot be ignored forever.

1 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, "The Boscombe Valley Mystery" (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: New York), p.202.

2 Winston Churchill originated this phrase in a radio talk addressing the future action of Russia during World War II. The phrase has been used by a number of people to describe the Kennedy assassination.

3 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, "The Boscombe Valley Mystery" (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: New York), p. 202.

4 Jim Bishop, The Day Lincoln Was Shot (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 209.

5 Id.

6 Id. at pp. 228-229.

7 William A. Degregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (New York: Wings Books, 1993), p. 299.

8 Lee Davis, Assassination (London: Transedition Books, 1993), p. 23.

9 Id. at 24.

10 Id.

11 Charles E. Rosenberg, The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 49.

12 A. Wesley Johns, The Man Who Shot McKinley (New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., Inc., 1970), pp. 33-36.

13 John Mason Potter, Plots Against the Presidents (New York: Astor-Honor, 1968), p. 172.

14 Id. at 184.

15 Nathan Miller, Theodore Roosevelt (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992), p. 530.

16 Nathan Miller, F.D.R. (New York: New American Library, 1983), p. 299.

17 David McCullough, Truman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), pp. 809-812.

18 The Editors of Time Life Books, True Crime: Assassination (Alexandria, Virginia: Time Life Books, 1994), p.55.

19 Id.

20 John Strausbaugh, Alone With the President (New York: Blast Books, Inc., 1993), pp. 104-5.

21 The Editors of Time-Life Books, True Crime: Assassination (Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1994), p. 55.

22 William A. Degregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (New York: Wings Books, 1993), pp. 651-52.

23 Albert Camus, The Fall, trans. Justin O'Brien (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), p. 81.

24 Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film (New York: Applause Books, 1992), p. 136.

25 T.S. Eliot, The Complete Poems and Plays, "Little Gidding" (Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.: New York, 1971), p. 144.

26 Arnold J. Toynbee and G.R. Urban, Toynbee On Toynbee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), p.5.

27 The Editors of Time-Life Books, True Crime: Assassination (Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1994), p. 38.

28 Charles E. Rosenberg, The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 7.

29 The Lincoln assassination has fostered an enduring conspiracy debate, but the public never had doubts or questions as to who killed Lincoln himself.

30 The Editors of Time-Life Books, True Crime: Assassination (Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1994), p. 7.

31 Tony Augarde, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 234.

Return to Main Page

* * *