Palmetto Press

Author's Blog

This will be an occasional blog by R. Stanley Jackson, the author of Jacqueline Accused. This blog will cover news about the book, as well as provide some additional information about the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

8 Feb 2011

Why this book? Why me? Why now?

The killing of an American President is always a big deal.

The killing of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on 22 November 1963 in broad daylight on a city street in a major city in front of hundreds of people was clearly a major deal.

The subsequent government “investigation” by the Warren Commission, however, never really answered the most important questions about the murder to anyone’s satisfaction. Indeed, the Commission’s conclusions have been received with much harsh criticism, even scorn, from many investigators. As noted assassination researcher Professor James Fetzer writes, “The Warren Report (1964) is surely the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.” (Prof. James Fetzer, writing in his book Murder in Dealey Plaza)

Historians, however, have largely shied away from this supposedly pivotal event in American history. For the most part, they along with the media and others simply parrot the Warren Commissions conclusions and are content with the perpetuation of this fraud.

But why is this?

Assassination researcher Dr. David Mantik wonders about this reluctance of historians to tackle the problem of the death of President Kennedy, which he calls a “Black Hole” in our history. “Inasmuch as the assassination is a major event of the twentieth century, and may well represent a turning point in American history, it is incumbent upon historians to understand and explain this event—as well as those that surround it.” (Dr. David Mantik, writing in Murder in Dealey Plaza)

Dr. Mantik lists some of the reasons for their apparent disinterest in what should have been an event of overarching curiosity:

First, he writes, much of the evidence lies “outside the customary domain” of historians. They are simply not expert in the medical and scientific disciplines, such as anatomy and wound ballistics, necessary to understand, analyze, and report just what did happen in Dallas on 22 November 1963.

Second, again according to Dr. Mantik, historians are not willing to become expert, or even sufficiently knowledgeable, in these areas. Given the learning curve involved, this really isn’t surprising. Many, if not most, of them lack even the most basic science background in biology and physics in order to tackle the more esoteric subjects such as human anatomy or forensic pathology.

The third reason Dr. Mantik gives is really more psychological than substantive: “this controversial issue frightens historians . . . many fear subconsciously at what would gaze back at them from the subterranean depths of this case were they to peer too intently into the well of history.” Dr. Mantik’s rather florid prose notwithstanding, this reason is not convincing. After all, why should anyone, even historians, be afraid of events which occurred so many years ago? Also, why the inchoate fear of things not known or even investigated?

The fourth and final reason given by Dr. Mantik for historians’ lack of interest in the assassination is probably the most compelling one: They simply fear the media, which, having accepted the Warren Commission findings, defend them like religious dogma against any heresy.

The media, which Dr. Mantik describes as the “de facto stage managers” of the historians, certainly have the means to deliver the ridicule, the ad hominem attacks, the snide comments, the “tar and feathers” to quash any and all questioning of or dissent from the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, and he alone, was the killer of President Kennedy.

It has been nearly a half century since the assassination; the historians have long left the field to others, including philosophers, journalists, radiologists, urologists, computer engineers, and even novelists. Most surprisingly, apart from Dr. Cyril Wecht, no other forensic pathologist has even approached this topic.

So, where does this leave us? And, more specifically, why is this book, Jacqueline Accused, so necessary and important?

Of all the books and articles written about the assassination of President Kennedy, this one—Jacqueline Accused—is the best look at the original medical evidence as supplied by the Warren Commission Hearings.

While the Warren Report is a fraud, as Professor Fetzer submits, the 26 volumes of Hearings are a literal treasure trove of medical and forensic evidence, much of which was largely ignored by the Warren Commission. This evidence presents a compelling tale of the actual events in Dallas on 22 November 1963, and later on at Bethesda Naval Hospital during the autopsy.

I’m not a professional (that is, a “degreed”) historian and so am not hampered by their limitations or their fears. This book took ten years to research and write; much of that time was spent learning the details of anatomy, pathology, and ballistics needed to understand what actually occurred in Dallas and later at Bethesda.

I sought only the real story, the truth, and I found it.

Stripped to its bare essentials, the Kennedy “assassination” was merely a spousal killing, the tragic result of an unhappy and abusive marriage. The subsequent cover up by the government was, at least partially, to “protect” the American people from this painful truth.

It’s finally time we faced the truth.

29 May 2011

Fallacies—Logical and Otherwise—about the Kennedy Assassination

One of the most glaring logical fallacies most assassination researchers make is the assumption that whoever committed the murder of President Kennedy also had the ability to cover up the true nature of the crime.

Think about it: There is absolutely no reason (or requirement) for linkage between the murder itself and the subsequent cover up. After all, in all prior successful Presidential assassinations, the assailant was either immediately apprehended (Charles Guiteau after shooting President Garfield and Leon Czolgosz after shooting President McKinley) or tracked down and killed (John Wilkes Booth after shooting President Lincoln). None of these assassins had the ability to escape the consequences of their acts or cover-up their crimes; in fact, none of them had any government connections or were part of the political power structure.

The “murderer-cover-up” linkage for the Kennedy murder, however, is practically an article of faith to most, if not all, assassination researchers.

Yet, as history shows, it is simple to kill a President. Someone needs only to get close enough with a handgun. To cover up such a monumental crime, though, takes an enormous amount of power and governmental authority, probably such as only a President can command.

1 Feb 2012

A Guest Review

"Jacqueline Accused", by R. Stanley Jackson

Review by Shirley Parker

This book, a holiday gift, was one that I said I'd read but wouldn't believe--reading it changed my mind. Many people have the same initial reaction because they don't want to know the real story about "Jackie" and about Jack Kennedy's assassination. I believe the author came as close to the truth as will ever be known, unfortunate as that truth is.

Jackson provides background for the events to come from people close to the Kennedy marriage: friends, aids, White House employees, members of the FBI assigned to protect the President and First Lady. Some of it is shocking, even though there were always rumors--about Jack's womanizing and Jackie's spending habits. The treatment and humiliation of the First Lady by her husband provide ample motive for murder.

Ten years of research by the author, including documentation from Warren Commission records, provides the reader with a detailed murder mystery--reminding us all the while that it is not fiction but a story about real people in the real world. Accurate medical descriptions are included, and a great deal about ballistics. The setting in Dallas is familiar to me and so provided personal interest based on my employment at one of the hospitals in the complex that includes Parkland. Even if you have never been to Texas, much less to Elm Street in Dallas, and are too young to remember all the grief, medical coverage and investigations,you will find "Jacqueline Accused" fascinating.

10 December 2012

Book News

Jacqueline Accused is now available as an E-Book

on both Kindle and Nook platforms!

27 December 2012

A Guest Post from a psychiatric nurse about denial:


What if someone went to sleep one night and had a dream that Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy had murdered her husband, the President of the United States, right in front of Mr. Zapruder and then this person set out on a mission to prove this theory wrong?

And what would you say if this person, after over ten years of collecting research by diligently going to libraries, one after another and another, studying the Warren Commission testimonies, reading and digesting article upon article and book upon book about forensics, ballistics, acoustics, and finally, human nature, could not do it.

He could not prove that she did not do it.

In fact, what he found was that she actually did do it. She killed him herself right there in the limousine, in front of everyone watching. She was guilty.

And what would you say if after writing what he learned to be true, citing one piece of compelling evidence after another, he was rejected outright by nearly everyone he spoke to about this discovery?

How could this happen?

It happened because this wasn’t just an ordinary murder.

People have a personal and emotional relationship with our 35th President. He was a young president—only 43 when he took office—and the American people, especially the young ones, related to him. He was charismatic and we loved him.

When he was killed in 1963, part of America died with him. We had so much hope in what he could do for our country. When he died, that hope died. His death was a complete shock to everyone. Collectively, we were all in mourning, dazed, confused, and vulnerable.

People old enough to remember the event itself can tell anyone where they were and what they were doing at the moment they heard he had been shot. People not old enough have either heard firsthand stories from people they know, or have heard it or read it as they grew older, year after year until they reached adulthood, then middle, and finally into their old age. Everyone either has their own memories, or carries the memories through someone else. These stories are ingrained in us and are a part of each and every one of us. These stories have lived on and on as if November 22, 1963 were yesterday.

But it only starts there.

The events of November 22, 1963 and the ones reported to us in the subsequent days, including the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby two days later, have been repeated over and over again in the media. Lest we forget, the details of these events have been pounded into our brains.

And the myth-making began as well:

Had President Kennedy not been murdered, the media assured us, he would have gone on to greatness; and
The relationship between the President and Mrs. Kennedy was also described as coming right out of “Camelot.” They were, the media said, the perfect couple, and they had the perfect marriage.

We all invested in this tragic love story. We “know” the Kennedys as if we are part of the family. And to keep the stories alive, people write article upon article and book upon book about that infamous day, about the love they shared, and the great loss, not only to the First Lady, but also to the American people when he died that day.

But what keeps this story alive, after nearly fifty years?

Is it because some people don’t want us to believe anything else?

Is it because we are in an eternal grieving place, mourning the loss of what our great nation could have become.

Or is it because we really don’t believe the narrative of his death, the one told to us by the Warren Commission?

As the story keeps popping up, though, more and more people are questioning those very “facts” which have been repeated over and over, again and again. People don’t feel comfortable. They sense that something is amiss. They question. “What is it,” they ask? “What could it be?”

But there is an even bigger question.

Do we really want to know what actually occurred on November 22, 1963? Are we prepared to know?

And, once known, can we survive this new knowledge? Can we live with it?

And--after we realize the truth—what, if anything, are we going to do about it?


This is where the power of the psychological phenomenon call denial comes in.

It is very important to remember that we know the Kennedys and this story just as if it had happened to us. In a way, it did, especially for those of us who personally remember where we were and what we were doing at the time President Kennedy was shot, and throughout that entire week-end as well. After President Kennedy, Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippet was killed. Then, on Sunday, Oswald himself was shot and killed by Jack Ruby. Finally, on Monday, there was the elaborate state funeral. Those of us old enough to remember sat in front of our televisions mesmerized, listening to the constant beating of the drums, watching the heroic First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy as she accompanied the casket to Arlington. It was if we were right there with her, walking beside her, mourning the loss too.

[Note: From a propaganda and mind-control standpoint, the entire state funeral was designed to achieve just this result in Americans. R.S.J]

This is one reason most people reject any new ideas about the murder of President Kennedy: This emotional loss is our connection, our relationship to the tragedy of that day that we cannot forget. For us to replace it with a new belief will be synonymous to losing part of ourselves. It will be a betrayal. For the story to remain as told to us and grant us the comfort of grief and the endless chatter of “What ifs,” we must not give up the accepted story. It is so romantic, so honorable, so emotionally charged with heart wrenching, genuine love, loss, and grief. Thus, we cannot give it up, throw it away, or deny it. If we give it up, if we deny it, we have to question everything else that we have been led to believe, what we have been told, what has actually become part of our culture, part of us.

When something such as this becomes so near and dear to us, we lose objectivity. And we all know when we lose objectivity our eyes become closed. We do not see reality and we use denial to cope.

Denial keeps us safe in our beliefs about ourselves and the people around us . . . until we are ready to meet the problem head on, and do what we have to do to make things better and to improve our lives. That’s how a wife or husband is blind to the philandering of their spouse, a mother blind to her child’s drug problem, an employee blind to the dishonest work practices of the boss. Denial is our comfort, our best friend. It keeps us safe, prevents us from rocking the boat, let’s us stay where we are. Denial allows us to lie to ourselves about the reality we cannot accept.

Another aspect of denial is it is so easily seen in other people. Why is that?

We see it in other people because it is not us; it doesn’t affect us. It does not challenge our belief system. We are not invested in the situation. That is why we say it is so obvious when we see it in others.

We ask, “Can’t he or she see what is happening? It’s right in front of their face,” we say.

No, they cannot see what is happening. They are just too close to it.

In fact, no one sees it, at least not until they cannot see anything else.

We leave denial only when we can no longer stay where we are. When reality hits us in the face, the lie we’ve been telling ourselves becomes so obvious to us that we simply can no longer believe it. For example, we come home and suddenly see our spouse in bed with another person. Or we find our child’s drug paraphernalia or are called to the police station. Or our boss asks us to alter official documents, to be dishonest ourselves. The sudden reality makes us do something different; it forces us to make changes.

Denial, though, is not simplistic, but rather it is complicated and insidious. Denial works in a continuum, moving back and forth, from someone completely oblivious to the problem, to one who can see the problem but not long enough to do anything about it, and, finally, the person completely awake who sees nothing but the problem and finally acts, making those changes based on the realization that their problem needs a solution.

People sometimes move in and out of denial based on the strength of problem and the strength of their ability to cope with and solve it. How many times have you said to yourself upon reflecting on a personal problem or situation: “I was in denial. I didn’t see what was happening. I didn’t see the obvious.”

It is only natural when we ourselves or someone we feel close to, such as a family member, has a serious problem that we don’t want to face, we go instantly into denial and do not face the problem.

We Americans feel as close to the Kennedys as anyone in our own family. Thus, we cannot even think that our tragic, mourning First Lady could have possibly been a murderer, or that her husband could have possibly done something that deserved that murder, or (even worse) that we all have been lied to for nearly 50 years.

Can we even begin to face this fact now? And, if we do, what comes after that? What do we do then?


But, what exactly is the scope of the denial about the Kennedy murder?

Does this denial pertain to only one person, to only one family, to only one group of people?

Is it possible for an entire country to be in denial?

Has our belief in the “official” Kennedy narrative grown so strong that any hint of anything else is rejected outright by the populace? Like the people in the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Are we as a nation ready to come out of denial? Are we ready to ask questions, to look objectively at the evidence, to finally think for ourselves? Or do we want to keep our blinders on, to deny the facts, to out-and-out reject any new ideas?

As Americans, as a people who lost a President in 1963, do we want to stay in a seemingly safe place? To stay comfortably in denial? After all, why rock the boat? Why question the story?

So, this denial thing, although we easily recognize it in other people, we never do we recognize it in ourselves . . . until it is in the past tense. “I was in denial,” we say, “I didn’t see it for what it was. But, my eyes have been opened, and now I get it.”

And so, what exactly happens when we finally come out of our denial?

Sometimes we want to go back there. But, more often we just cannot go back. So, we act. We make changes. We do something else. Coming out of denial is what we do to move on. It helps us to make life changing decisions that move us forward, that help us grow as human beings.

Making these changes, though, is not easy.

These are changes that we, as Americans, must begin to make if we are to survive into the future. We have been lied to, cheated, and forced to walk in a fog for so long that we cannot really think for ourselves.

Isn’t it about time we wake up and learn a few things?

According to a poll from 2010, 80% of American adults do not trust the government. So, why believe them about the Kennedy murder? So does it make sense to close our eyes and simply ignore people who question it?

Is it possible for an entire nation to be in denial? At least with respect to President Kennedy’s murder, the easy answer is “Yes, of course.”

What is the reason for this?

Perhaps we simply cannot cope with the truth. Perhaps the belief in the myth is to comforting. Perhaps we are just not strong enough to do what has to be done to change things.

We as a people, as Americans, just aren’t ready to come out of denial. We aren’t ready to see that we have been lied to about historical events which directly affect us. We aren’t ready because we are too busy pretending everything is okay. After all we are safe, we are comfortable, aren’t we? We are living in the greatest country in the world, and everything is just fine and dandy.

Isn’t that correct?

Most think so. Don’t rock the boat. Lie still, just close your eyes, and enjoy the ride.

Oh, in case you’re wondering about the person I was talking about earlier, the one who had the dream? Well, maybe it is best that he just go back to bed, put the covers over his head, relax, and go back to sleep. That way, he will be like all the rest of us, snoozing.

We Americans, well, we aren’t ready for him to wake up yet. And, we certainly aren’t yet ready to wake up ourselves. After all, we have been asleep now for nearly 50 years. And if we’re sleeping, well, darn it all, everybody else has to stay asleep too.

Don’t you agree?


Okay, how about a different scenario?

It’s finally time to wake up.

30 December 2012

A few random thoughts

A few of you have bought Jacqueline Accused, Volumes I and II, as an ebook, in both Kindle and Nook formats.

I thank you for your purchases, but wonder why you didn’t get the Appendices as well.

The Appendices—all eleven of them—help to “flesh out” the book, but it's not just filler. The Appendices add things about the Kennedy assassination that just didn’t quite “fit” into the flow of the book itself. Interesting and important topics such as the reconstruction of the shots in Dealey Plaza, a detailed discussion (and destruction) of the so-called “Single Bullet Theory,” the mystery of President Kenney’s adrenals, and much more are covered in great detail.

The Appendices really do add a great deal of information about the assassination, and, along with the Glossary of firearm and medical terms and the List of Works Cited, greatly helps in the understanding of Volumes I and II.

So, if you decide to go the ebook, rather than the print, route, be sure to buy the Appendices as well.

(A side note: My favorite appendix is Appendix J, the one about the President’s adrenals.)

13 February 2013

“we'll probably never know who was behind the assassination”

There are two main schools of thought about the Kennedy assassination and most “researchers” of the crime fall into one of these two groups.

The first (and probably smaller) group believes the Warren Commission was essentially correct: Oswald, acting alone, killed the President and wounded Governor Connally, with a war surplus bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. A representative member of this group is Professor John McAdams (

The second group is somewhat more nebulous in their theories: Oswald may or may not have been involved, but was only a minor player or just a fall guy, the famous “patsy.” The real killers, the members of this second group maintain, were some shadowy faceless and nameless figures, perhaps in the government, perhaps outside, who shot President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza from some unknown locations. A representative member of this group is yet another academic: James H. Fetzer (, the author of three books on the Kennedy assassination, none of which get anywhere near the truth of the matter.

And now a new member of this second group has arrived.

He is Bill Christopher whose latest oeuvre can be found at Supposedly, Mr. Christopher has read and read but just could not “make sense” of the events, so he—like so many others—has come to the conclusion that “we'll probably never know who was behind the assassination.”

He does, however, replace his own fruitless research efforts with hope and prayer:

“I hope and pray that someone,
some day,
somehow finds those answers.”

Well, Bill, if you can stand the truth, I have those answers for you.

It’s time for you to get out of that second group.

12 July 2013

I indulge in some speculation

The major strength of Jacqueline Accused is the documentation: the events in Dealey Plaza and Bethesda unfold as the witnesses testified about them; the forensic evidence is evaluated according to established experts in the field; the laws of ballistics are set forth in detail as they exist. The book does not engage in wild, unfounded supposition about things or participants. For example, there is no speculation about Corsican Mafia hitmen popping out of sewer covers, nor imagined sightings of George H. W. Bush in blown-up pictures of Dealey Plaza, nor prattle about “triangulated crossfire.” Go to other books and movies for those things.

A question from another excellent assassination researcher, Deborah Collins, has finally made me ready for a little speculation about the actual role of Lee Harvey Oswald in the sorry affair.

Ms. Collins wondered about the so-called “sniper’s nest” in the Texas School Book Depository, especially if, as I’ve always maintained, Oswald wasn’t the shooter. I promised her that I had some thoughts about it, but that I hadn’t really investigated it and could proffer only speculation about it.

Oswald, I theorize, was indeed a government operative engaged in implementing (quite illegally!) one of the scenarios set down in Operation NORTHWOODS.

This plan, as many people know, had been advocated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially General Lyman Lemnitzer. The plan called for various “false flag” events against Americans which would be blamed on Cuba. Such events, it was hoped, would lead to war with and the invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. (See the original NORTHWOODS document here.)

To his credit, President Kennedy rejected NORTHWOODS. The military command, however, was not dissuaded. They knew a weak President when they saw one and saw their chance to convince him that the Cuban invasion was necessary.

Oswald’s mission, I speculate, was to kill, wound, or at least shoot at a number of people in Dealey Plaza, after the motorcade had passed.

President Kennedy would then be in an uncomfortable position. People who had come out to cheer him, he would be told, had been attacked. How was he going to respond? His desperate need to act tough would ensure that the Joint Chiefs would get their way against Cuba.

This NORTHWOODS connection explains how the government knew so much about Lee Harvey Oswald so quickly: He was one of their own. That is why, after his arrest, Oswald said that now everyone will know who he was. It also explains why Oswald became the government’s official “patsy.” He had to go down in order to protect the powerful—but overreaching—generals, and, even more important, to protect the guilty First Lady.

In furtherance of NORTHWOODS, Oswald, as the Warren Commission later documented, had purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle through a mail order house, thus leaving a convenient trail right back to himself, or rather to his alias “Alek Hidell,” of the so-called “Fair Play for Cuba” organization. Oswald’s supposed sympathy towards Cuba also had already been carefully established.

After the President had been shot, however, Oswald knew things had gone very awry. He was probably trying to contact his government “handler” at the Texas Theater when he was arrested. His handler, of course, wasn’t coming; he undoubtedly had already been warned off.

There are, supposedly, many thousands of unreleased government documents regarding Lee Harvey Oswald. Many of these records likely relate to his involvement in NORTHWOODS. It would be a very profitable area of research for someone, if these documents could be pried loose with a Freedom of Information Act request.

Next time, who really shot Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippet.