COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

The Warren Commission

Seven men, ten months, 552 witnesses, and a verdict most Americans never accepted

← Interactive guide and chronology · The JFK hub: biography, timeline and every file · What people say ↓

Who they were and what they did

A commission of Washington insiders, working fast.

Johnson signed Executive Order 11130 on 29 November 1963. The members were Chief Justice Earl Warren; Senators Richard Russell of Georgia and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky; Representatives Hale Boggs of Louisiana and Gerald Ford of Michigan; Allen Dulles, a former director of central intelligence; and John McCloy, a former president of the World Bank and U.S. high commissioner for Germany. They first met on 5 December. On 13 December Congress passed a joint resolution giving them subpoena power and the power to grant immunity. [1]

The Commission heard its first witness on 3 February 1964. It took testimony from 552 people: 94 before the members themselves, 395 questioned by staff lawyers, 61 by sworn affidavit and 2 by statement. It relied on the FBI, the Secret Service and the CIA for most of its investigative work. [1]

Its central conclusions were that the shots came from the sixth-floor window of the Depository, that Oswald fired them, and that “the Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.” [2]

What we can’t tell you. The membership facts are from the report itself. The Dulles point is context, not a finding of misconduct.

The sources

  1. Warren Commission report: foreword ↗

    The Commission’s membership, mandate and powers.

  2. Warren Commission report, chapter 1: summary and conclusions ↗

    The Commission’s own conclusions: three shots from the sixth-floor window, the single-bullet finding described as “very persuasive”, Oswald as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit, Ruby acting alone, no conspiracy found.

What it was not told

The most serious problem was not what the Commission concluded but what the agencies kept from it.

The Senate’s Church Committee reported in 1976 that the CIA had been plotting to kill Fidel Castro, including with underworld figures, and that neither the CIA nor the FBI told the Commission. It found that the FBI, “ordered by Director Hoover and pressured by higher government officials,” had been pushed to finish quickly and had “focused narrowly” on Oswald. It said “the possibility exists that senior officials in both agencies made conscious decisions not to disclose potentially important information.” [1]

The Church Committee was careful about what that meant. It said its findings did “not lead to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy” and that it had seen no evidence that Castro or others in the Cuban government plotted the killing. [1]

In 1979 the House committee reached a similar view: the Commission investigated Oswald thoroughly but “failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy,” partly because it did not receive all the relevant information from other agencies. It called the Commission’s performance on that question “flawed.” [2]

The members knew from early on that they were dependent on the agencies they might have needed to investigate. In a closed session on 22 January 1964 they discussed a report from Texas officials that Oswald had been an FBI informant, paid $200 a month. Hoover and the agents who had dealt with Oswald later swore that he was never an FBI informant, and the Commission accepted that. [3][4]

What we can’t tell you. Neither congressional inquiry found that the withheld information pointed to a conspiracy. It found that the Commission could not responsibly rule one out.

The sources

  1. Church Committee, Book V: the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the intelligence agencies (1976) ↗

    The Senate finding that the CIA and FBI did not tell the Warren Commission about the Castro plots, and that the agencies’ investigations were deficient.

  2. HSCA final report, part I-D: performance of the agencies ↗

    The Secret Service was “deficient” in protecting the President; the Warren Commission’s conspiracy investigation was flawed.

  3. Warren Commission executive session transcript, 22 January 1964 (AARC mirror) ↗

    Primary transcript. Members discuss Texas officials’ report of a rumor that Oswald was FBI informant number 179, paid $200 a month.

  4. Warren Commission report, chapter 6: investigation of possible conspiracy ↗

    The Commission’s review of the Soviet years, Mexico City, Cuba, New Orleans, Ruby’s associations and rumors; it found no evidence of a conspiracy.

The members’ own doubts

The report was unanimous on paper. Not everyone was.

The report’s findings were signed by all seven members. Its text admitted that members differed on whether one bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally; see the single-bullet file. [1]

Richard Russell told Johnson by phone on 18 September 1964 that he did not believe the single-bullet theory. Gerald Ford defended the report and in 1997 defended his edit of the wound description as a matter of clarity. [2][3][4]

What we can’t tell you. A disagreement about one bullet is not a disagreement about who fired the rifle.

The sources

  1. Warren Commission report, chapter 1: summary and conclusions ↗

    The Commission’s own conclusions: three shots from the sixth-floor window, the single-bullet finding described as “very persuasive”, Oswald as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit, Ruby acting alone, no conspiracy found.

  2. Johnson–Russell telephone call, 18 September 1964: transcript (Hood College Weisberg collection) ↗

    Senator Russell tells Johnson he does not believe the single-bullet finding; Johnson answers, “I don’t either.” The Hood server times out on scripted fetches; confirmed by search.

  3. Spokesman-Review (Washington Post): “Ford pushed for change in JFK assassination report,” 3 July 1997 ↗

    The draft said “his back”; Ford wanted “the back of his neck”; the report said “the base of the back of his neck”. From Rankin papers released by the Review Board.

  4. Deseret News: “Ford defends his changes in JFK report,” 3 July 1997 ↗

    Ford’s response that the edit was for clarity, not to change the evidence.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

5 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 155 rated claims ↗

← The JFK hub: biography, timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesJFK shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesJFK.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.