Of course, the JFK saga contains an unlimited amount of coincidences and many, many unusual turns of events.
In 1976, the U.S House voted 280–65, to establish the Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in order to investigate the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. A vote that followed the national screening of the Zapruder film on the TV show Good Night America in 1975. The chairman of the HSCA was outgoing Congressman Thomas Downing of Virginia, who harbored deep suspicions about the JFK case. And he hired a tough, well-regarded Philadelphia District Attorney, one Richard Sprague, as HSCA Chief Counsel.
But Downing would soon retire, and he turned over the reins to Gonzalez—yes, the very same Gonzalez who 13 years prior had hand-carried Connally’s assassination-day clothes to his closet in Washington, where they mysteriously sat for two weeks.
At first, the ascendance of Gonzalez was comforting to JFK researchers, as he also seemed dubious about the WC conclusions and the nature of the JFK case. The irony of what was to follow is almost cosmic.
Veteran JFK researcher Jim DiEugenio interviewed Downing in his office in Newport News back in the 1990s. The former congressman showed DiEugenio the ballot that Gonzalez submitted for Chief Counsel in September of 1976 and that Sprague’s nomination had been made by Gonzalez himself.
So, it appeared in late 1976 that the HSCA has a no-nonsense and smart chief counsel, backed by a solid chairman (the question of Connally’s clothes having been long forgotten).
Yet as JFK researchers know, as soon as Sprague began to probe connections between Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA, and connections between the Miami office of the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles, stories began appearing in influential print publications questioning Sprague’s ethics and work history back in Philadelphia.
Based on some rather picayune bureaucratic and procedural tensions, HSCA Chairman Gonzalez began attacking Sprague publicly, called him a “rattlesnake,” and loudly roasted him for misconduct and mismanagement. Sprague’s rather small and iffy budget was scrutinized and challenged and the Philly DA was accused of not following the Committee’s directions.
Gonzales ultimately tried to fire Sprague, but on such flimsy grounds that the full committee overruled the firing. Nevertheless, the well was poisoned, and the erstwhile Philly DA did leave his post when he was told his departure was a condition of the HSCA obtaining future funding.
Even Gaeton Fonzi, the superb JFK researcher who was a staffer on the HSCA under Sprague, and who authored the book, The Last Investigation, strained to explain Gonzalez’ behavior, offering little more insight than Gonzalez was “flying off the handle.”
To this day, a good explanation of Chairman Gonzalez’ behavior at HSCA—on the surface, inexplicable—has not been rendered. The veteran researcher DiEugenio does offer up one possible explanation in his book The Assassinations: That there were moles planted on the HSCA to exacerbate the antagonism between Sprague and Gonzalez and one issue was Gonzalez and his curious role in the post-JFKA sojourns of Connally’s clothes.
For those familiar with the history of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and his 1969 investigation of the JFKA, the possibility of moles or CIA-plants on the HSCA staff is not hard to believe—Garrison’s staff was infested with national security state operatives, some of whom actually leaked information to defense counsel for Clay Shaw, the CIA operative who Garrison suspected played a role in handling Lee Harvey Oswald.
After both Sprague and Gonzalez left the HSCA, the new chairman was the diffident Congressman Louis Stokes of Ohio, who brought in Robert Blakey, a US Justice Department mafia prosecutor, as HSCA chief counsel.
Blakey was entirely the wrong man for the job: an earnest civil servant and mob-hunter who, at that time, believed in, and vowed cooperation with, the CIA—the very agency, due to its extensive ties to anti-Castro Cubans and hostile relations with JFK, that was and is most suspect in regards to the JFKA.
As I said, you can’t make this stuff up.
Thus Gonzalez, who inexplicably kept assassination-day evidence—Connally’s clothes—in his office closet in 1963 without informing authorities, then also inexplicably helped torpedo the HSCA investigation of the JFK case 15 years later.
Conclusion
The WC, as it did so often when convenient, exhibited oceanic apathy regarding the strange post-JFK murder treatment of Connally’s assassination-day shirt and coat. As noted by researcher Murr, “There likewise was no effort undertaken by anyone associated with the Warren Commission to establish just who was responsible for the cleaning and pressing of components of the Governor’s clothing.” Neither the WC or HCSA asked Gonzalez how it was he chose to secretly stash Connally’s crime-day clothes, with bullet holes, in his Washington D.C. for two weeks after the JFK murder. Or why the Secret Service sent the garments to Mrs. Connally, instead of the FBI, when they retrieved the clothes from Gonzalez’ office.
Like so many aspects of the JFK case, the tale of Connally’s shirt and coat is unfathomable and more than deeply suspicious, yet simple bungling cannot be ruled out. But when the tale of Connally’s garments is added up with too many similarly suspicious explanations of events and evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, the weight of the whole JFK murder story shifts. There are simply too many stories akin to the Connally shirt and coat tale for comfort.
Back to Gonzalez
Of course, the JFK saga contains an unlimited amount of coincidences and many, many unusual turns of events.
In 1976, the U.S House voted 280–65, to establish the Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in order to investigate the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. A vote that followed the national screening of the Zapruder film on the TV show Good Night America in 1975. The chairman of the HSCA was outgoing Congressman Thomas Downing of Virginia, who harbored deep suspicions about the JFK case. And he hired a tough, well-regarded Philadelphia District Attorney, one Richard Sprague, as HSCA Chief Counsel.
But Downing would soon retire, and he turned over the reins to Gonzalez—yes, the very same Gonzalez who 13 years prior had hand-carried Connally’s assassination-day clothes to his closet in Washington, where they mysteriously sat for two weeks.
At first, the ascendance of Gonzalez was comforting to JFK researchers, as he also seemed dubious about the WC conclusions and the nature of the JFK case. The irony of what was to follow is almost cosmic.
Veteran JFK researcher Jim DiEugenio interviewed Downing in his office in Newport News back in the 1990s. The former congressman showed DiEugenio the ballot that Gonzalez submitted for Chief Counsel in September of 1976 and that Sprague’s nomination had been made by Gonzalez himself.
So, it appeared in late 1976 that the HSCA has a no-nonsense and smart chief counsel, backed by a solid chairman (the question of Connally’s clothes having been long forgotten).
Yet as JFK researchers know, as soon as Sprague began to probe connections between Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA, and connections between the Miami office of the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles, stories began appearing in influential print publications questioning Sprague’s ethics and work history back in Philadelphia.
Based on some rather picayune bureaucratic and procedural tensions, HSCA Chairman Gonzalez began attacking Sprague publicly, called him a “rattlesnake,” and loudly roasted him for misconduct and mismanagement. Sprague’s rather small and iffy budget was scrutinized and challenged and the Philly DA was accused of not following the Committee’s directions.
Gonzales ultimately tried to fire Sprague, but on such flimsy grounds that the full committee overruled the firing. Nevertheless, the well was poisoned, and the erstwhile Philly DA did leave his post when he was told his departure was a condition of the HSCA obtaining future funding.
Even Gaeton Fonzi, the superb JFK researcher who was a staffer on the HSCA under Sprague, and who authored the book, The Last Investigation, strained to explain Gonzalez’ behavior, offering little more insight than Gonzalez was “flying off the handle.”
To this day, a good explanation of Chairman Gonzalez’ behavior at HSCA—on the surface, inexplicable—has not been rendered. The veteran researcher DiEugenio does offer up one possible explanation in his book The Assassinations: That there were moles planted on the HSCA to exacerbate the antagonism between Sprague and Gonzalez and one issue was Gonzalez and his curious role in the post-JFKA sojourns of Connally’s clothes.
For those familiar with the history of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and his 1969 investigation of the JFKA, the possibility of moles or CIA-plants on the HSCA staff is not hard to believe—Garrison’s staff was infested with national security state operatives, some of whom actually leaked information to defense counsel for Clay Shaw, the CIA operative who Garrison suspected played a role in handling Lee Harvey Oswald.
After both Sprague and Gonzalez left the HSCA, the new chairman was the diffident Congressman Louis Stokes of Ohio, who brought in Robert Blakey, a US Justice Department mafia prosecutor, as HSCA chief counsel.
Blakey was entirely the wrong man for the job: an earnest civil servant and mob-hunter who, at that time, believed in, and vowed cooperation with, the CIA—the very agency, due to its extensive ties to anti-Castro Cubans and hostile relations with JFK, that was and is most suspect in regards to the JFKA.
As I said, you can’t make this stuff up.
Thus Gonzalez, who inexplicably kept assassination-day evidence—Connally’s clothes—in his office closet in 1963 without informing authorities, then also inexplicably helped torpedo the HSCA investigation of the JFK case 15 years later.
Conclusion
The WC, as it did so often when convenient, exhibited oceanic apathy regarding the strange post-JFK murder treatment of Connally’s assassination-day shirt and coat. As noted by researcher Murr, “There likewise was no effort undertaken by anyone associated with the Warren Commission to establish just who was responsible for the cleaning and pressing of components of the Governor’s clothing.” Neither the WC or HCSA asked Gonzalez how it was he chose to secretly stash Connally’s crime-day clothes, with bullet holes, in his Washington D.C. for two weeks after the JFK murder. Or why the Secret Service sent the garments to Mrs. Connally, instead of the FBI, when they retrieved the clothes from Gonzalez’ office.
Like so many aspects of the JFK case, the tale of Connally’s shirt and coat is unfathomable and more than deeply suspicious, yet simple bungling cannot be ruled out. But when the tale of Connally’s garments is added up with too many similarly suspicious explanations of events and evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, the weight of the whole JFK murder story shifts. There are simply too many stories akin to the Connally shirt and coat tale for comfort.
[1] Details of Governor Connally’s Damaged Clothing.
[2] Warren Commission, Volume VI: Ruth Jeanette Standridge.
[3] Forgive My Grief, Volume II.
[4] Ibid.
[5] November 25, 1966, Life, “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt.”.
[6] “From Love Field: our final hours with President John F. Kennedy,” 2003, Nellie Connally.
[7] Warren Commission, Volume III: Robert A Frazier.
[8] See “Soft X-ray and Energy-Dispersive X-ray Analyses of Clothing,” Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, 2/1/78, Vol. 7, HSCA.