In no particular order:
- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.
- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.
- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.
- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.
- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.
- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza)
That's a short list. I could go on.
The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.
Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up
I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.My second response to your claim is from pages 252-254 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:
On May 14, I reviewed a memo from the Hubert/Griffin team regarding additional investigation in the Ruby area. I disagreed with many of their suggestions, which resulted in a very spirited discussion with Griffin in the morning and Hubert in the afternoon. I didn’t lack respect for Hubert or Griffin. I admired them both for their tenacity in pursuing the investigation relating to Ruby.
They were determined to examine every contact Ruby made before the Oswald murder to see if we could detect any signs of conspiracy. They were in complete command of the facts in their area, gave no ground in debate, and almost always succeeded in getting what they wanted. But Griffin and Hubert didn’t believe they had adequate help in achieving our shared goal of a complete and thoughtful investigation. It was my job to solve the problem.79
When I read their memo, I was initially troubled by three aspects. First, I had hoped that by now we would be near the end of the Ruby investigation. Back in February and March, Charlie Shaffer (my Justice Department colleague) and I had reviewed certain investigative requests made by the Hubert/Griffin team and had advised Rankin that they seemed excessively broad in scope. I did not recall, however, to what extent (if any) these earlier requests had been modified before being sent to the FBI. I would have appreciated some warning from them in April that they would be seeking Rankin’s approval of further investigation. When I raised this concern, Hubert and Griffin stated that their earlier memoranda had outlined the scope of the necessary investigation and that their new memo simply reaffirmed their early judgment.80
My second problem was their definition of the assignment. They wanted to answer three questions: Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Was Ruby associated with the assassin of President Kennedy? Did Ruby have any confederates in the murder of Oswald? But in their memo, Hubert and Griffin said that “although the evidence gathered so far does not clearly show a conspiratorial link between Ruby and Oswald, or between Ruby and others, the evidence also does not clearly exclude the possibilities [emphasis added] that (a) Ruby was indirectly linked through others to Oswald; (b) Ruby killed Oswald, because of fear; or (c) Ruby killed Oswald at the suggestion of others.” I had no objections to the questions posed, but their view that the evidence in the commission’s possession had to “clearly exclude” any and all possibilities struck me then and now as unreasonable and unachievable. I said so. Ironically, the next time I saw something like this “clearly exclude” standard was in the final report of the House Select Committee in 1979, which used the equally unacceptable phrase “evidence does not preclude,” in its misguided denunciation of our work.
