In a very short open meeting, the Assassination Records Review Board, sort of, decided what do to with the Zapruder film. They want to do several things. None, apparently, right away. Dr. Kermit Hall introduced a resolution that was voted on and approved by all members. This resolution has four parts. In a "Statement of Policy and Intent with Regard to the Zapruder film", dated April 24, 1997 the ARRB has resolved, "that the Zapruder film is an 'assassination record' within the meaning of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992".

This, and this alone, should settle the issue. This constitutes a "taking" in all the legal and constitutional meanings of that phrase. By this action alone the film should be transferred to the JFK Records Collection at National Archives II today, April 24th, 1997. Any member of the public should be able to get a copy of the film, or at least place such an order, in whatever medium desired, today.

But it isn't going to be that easy. More on that thought in a moment.

The second resolution was that the ARRB "will do all in its power to ensure that the best available copy of the Zapruder film shall become available to the public at the lowest reasonable price." What does that mean? What does "best available copy" mean? In what medium? Who's deciding it's the best copy? What does "lowest reasonable price" mean? The Board might cease to exist soon. So, they might not be around to ensure anything. Its continued existence is not assured. This resolution sounds very nice but I think we might be very unhappy with what we wind up with.

The third resolution sounds the funniest to me. "The Review Board offers to work cooperatively with the LMH Company to : (a) make the best possible copy of the Zapruder film to be placed in the National Archives and Records Administration for scholarly and research uses, (b) to establish a base reference for the film through digitization, and (c) to conduct all appropriate tests to evaluate authenticity and to elicit historical and evidentiary evidence".

Well, it's certainly the wordiest. Okay, so the Board "offers", so what? Why make this "offer" at all? Why not "take" the damn film and do these things today? My guess is that the Board wants to do these things while Congressional hearings take place and/or a, or several, lawsuits take place. I predict that none of this will happen, ever. Why? The Zapruders will obviously sue. This suit will probably take years to resolve, during which time no one will be able to touch the film, also during which time the clock runs out on the Review Board and the Dept. of Justice will be left to carry on. Now, given the Dept. of Justice's track record with the requests of the HSCA, guess what will happen with the requests of the ARRB?

Note the language used in these resolutions, "best available" in the second resolution becomes "best possible" in the third, either way it's still highly ambiguous language. Notice the lack of the term "government use" in resolution 3 (a). Compare that with the statute and legislative history and discussion of that phrase in the transcript of the April 2nd hearing. Notice that in the April 2nd hearing all talk of a base reference was used as a reason for holding onto the original. That now becomes a reason for making a digitization. Yes, I'm sure that the digitization will be of the now badly deteriorated original film. However, will this digitized version of the original replace the original? I think that is the intent for research purposes. But what happens to the original? Is digitization the best way to establish a base reference? Can a duplicate of the film be made in 8mm that will include the information in between the sprocket holes? If that can be done could that be done too? I for one do not want the base reference to be the digitized copy. I would rather let the original be the base reference, or a duplicate in 8mm with the film in between the sprocket holes be a base reference. I think a digitized copy is a good idea but I don't think it should be used as the base reference. I worry that the original will continue to deteriorate and people will be referred to the digitized copy. Eventually someone will decide that the original is too badly deteriorated and it will be trashed. Will the potential of future technology arrive too late? Is this digitization the best that can ever be done?

In Resolution 3 (c) they want to test the Zapruder film to see if it is the camera original and to elicit historical and evidentiary value. Well, exactly what does that second part mean, "historical value" and "evidentiary value"? Its historical value seems plain enough but how would you elicit more historical value from it? Ask it to be more important? Seeking to elicit its evidentiary value intrigues me. For what purpose? They have repeatedly said they are not investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Or are they? If tests are to de performed, what kind of tests would be performed and by whom? And if something extraordinary is discovered, assuming it is indeed the original, then what? Who would own that new knowledge and what would be done with it?

The last resolution, which shouldn't be necessary at all if they would have taken the film today, states, "the Board intends to exercise its authority as formulated in its enabling legislation (a Prof. Brauneis phrase) to direct that the film be transferred, on August 1, 1998, to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at NARA, and that the Review Board will work with Congress to resolve this issue."

This last resolution, according to Dan Alcorn, "invites litigation". I couldn't agree more. Why this delay? A lawsuit is a certainty. Why give the Zapruders this extra time, to prepare? How courteous! The real answer is that the Board wants to play it safe. The delay is to allow Congress to weigh in on matters of just compensation, and the Board's power to take the film.

Now all of the above may seem quite a negative response. I am glad the Board decided that the film is an "assassination record" They will go down in history for this decision. It's a great step in the right direction. I just wish they were more bold. Now the lawsuits start. Congressional hearings could be a disaster. It's going to be a long and difficult road ahead. Everyone clamoring that the film is now in the public domain etc are fools. The film is not in the public domain and will not be anytime soon. Look at the Board's own press release, it says, "JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD INITIATES STEPS..." This is a beginning. This process is nowhere near finished yet.

The emial sent by Hudson Tom with the subject heading, "Z film now in public domain" is totally incorrect. The AP story by Mike Feinsilber is totally inaccurate and sensationalistic. What Mr. Silverberg, the attorney representing the Zapruders is quoted as saying is nothing short of spin control. "James Silverberg, the family's lawyer, said in an interview that the Zapruders already have offered to accept ``very, very, very substantially less'' than the appraised value of the 26-second film." As what that appraisal amount is is kept secret by the Board who is to know the accuracy of what Mr. Silverberg is talking about? The accurate part of the report is the 7th paragraph, but that doesn't quite have the sensationalistic power of a headline grapping hook.

This is not accurate either, "The movie - shot by Abraham Zapruder on a home camera as the Kennedy motorcade moved through the streets of Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 - was cited by the Warren Commission in its conclusion that a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was Kennedy's assassin." On the contrary it caused enormous problems for the Commission. The FBI at the time declared it had no evidentiary value.

Mr. Silverberg tries to paint the Zapruders as caring souls who are being victimized, "Silverberg said the family makes copies available for noncommercial use for $50 plus shipping costs, a fee waived for those unable to pay it." Anyone want to disagree with that, or should I say everyone? Notice not a word about the restrictions which were part of a good article in "The Fourth Decade" not too long ago. For example, thou canst not mention that TIME-LIFE ever owned the film.

This part of the AP story is true: "(Jim) Lesar said that in his view the board's action immediately opened the way for Freedom of Information Act requests for copies. He said his organization may file such a request. ``It is now a government record,'' he said." I'm sure many will use this to try to get a copy of the film before all this "period of time for Congress" stuff starts. However, we all know FOIA suits usually take a long time. So I don't think anyone in anyway will get a copy fo the Zapruder film soon.

Return to Main Page

* * *