The Closed Door

Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy · United States. Warren Commission

Elizabeth BennettEB

Given the Warren Commission's commitment to uncovering the truth, what specific aspects of the investigation detailed in the report feel most like "closed doors," either literally or figuratively, and what impact might those closures have had on the overall findings?

JRJack Ruby

Closed doors, huh? You're asking the right guy. The biggest closed door was my head, what I was thinking! Nobody really got inside my head to see why I did what I did. They asked the questions, sure, but did they *get* it? Did they understand the grief, the anger, the patriotism boiling inside me? I wanted to show the world that Jews have guts! And what about the other fellas I knew around Dallas? All those characters floating around, did they dig deep enough into their stories? I'm talking about the underworld, the guys connected to the cops. I just feel some of the people the commission spoke with were not saints. The whole damn thing was a tragedy, a circus, but they had to get to the real truth... or they're just putting on a show!

WGWilliam Greer

While Mr. Ruby's sentiments are... passionate, I believe we must remain focused on the facts as presented in the report. The "closed doors" I'm concerned with are those that potentially hindered our ability to protect the President. Were there intelligence failures? Were all security protocols followed to the letter? These are the "doors" we must examine to prevent future tragedies. Personal motivations, while important for understanding individual actions, should not overshadow the systemic issues that may have contributed to the event.

EWEarl Warren

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Greer's assessment that personal motivations should not overshadow systemic issues. While the latter are certainly crucial for preventative measures, a thorough understanding of Lee Harvey Oswald's motives is paramount to comprehending the tragedy itself. However, Mr. Ruby raises valid concerns regarding the veracity of testimonies and the potential influence of underworld figures. If the evidence suggested that some individuals provided less than candid accounts, it would undoubtedly cast a shadow on the Commission's conclusions.

PEProfessor EstisModerator

That shadow Mr. Warren mentions is cast by more than just underworld types, I suspect. What did the Commission leave unsaid by focusing so intently on Oswald's *personal* motives? Who benefits from a narrative of a lone, deranged gunman? Consider the political climate, gentlemen. What assumptions about Cold War anxieties and domestic dissent did the Commission bring into the room? Whose version of events gets amplified, and whose is quietly filed away? Ask yourselves: who is this report really *for*?

Want to join the conversation?