COMMENTS FROM STREET TALK NETWORK ABOUT THIS POST-

1. Do your own research on the information provided and then come up with your own conclusions.

2. This article contains many names and other information that can be researched.

3. Trust your gut feeling on information provided as this post may contain slanted information.

This is not a conventional book written entirely by Warren Hinckle III. It is the November 1966 issue of Ramparts magazine—Volume 5, Number 5—with Hinckle serving as editor. The issue was a glossy, illustrated collection of investigative journalism, political commentary, poetry, art, and book reviews.

Its centerpiece is an early challenge to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated President John F. Kennedy. The original magazine was later expanded or repackaged as a paperback titled In the Shadow of Dallas: A Primer on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Library catalogs date that separate edition to approximately 1967. WorldCat catalog

The issue is historically important because it appeared in November 1966—three years after Kennedy’s death and only two years after the Warren Report—when major publications were beginning to reconsider whether the official investigation had been adequate.

The JFK cover story

The assassination section is principally composed of two related pieces:

• “In the Shadow of
  Dallas,” associated with Texas newspaper editor Penn Jones Jr.
• “The Legacy of
  Penn Jones, Jr.,” written by Ramparts editor and reporter David
  Welsh.

Archival descriptions place these articles on approximately pages 39–50 of the November 1966 issue. University of Texas archival finding aid

Penn Jones Jr. and his investigation

Penn Jones Jr. was the editor and publisher of the Midlothian Mirror, a small weekly newspaper in Midlothian, Texas, south of Dallas. Jones became one of the earliest newspaper editors to investigate the Kennedy assassination independently.

He believed that the Warren Commission had closed its inquiry too quickly and had failed to examine adequately:

• Witnesses whose
  accounts conflicted with the official narrative.
• Claims that shots
  came from more than one direction.
• The handling of
  evidence by Dallas and federal authorities.
• Jack Ruby’s
  killing of Oswald before Oswald could be tried.
• The subsequent
  deaths of people whom Jones believed had some connection to the
  assassination or its aftermath.

David Welsh’s article presents Jones as an unusual kind of investigator: not a Washington insider or nationally prominent author, but a stubborn small-town editor working through courthouse records, newspaper clippings, interviews, and personal contacts.

The story also describes the atmosphere surrounding Jones’s work. He regarded Dallas after the assassination as a place burdened by fear, silence, political hostility, and unresolved questions. That idea explains the title: the people and institutions discussed in the article were living “in the shadow” cast by Kennedy’s murder.

The “mysterious deaths” argument

The most controversial part of the issue concerns Jones’s compilation of deaths involving witnesses, reporters, law-enforcement figures, or other people who had some connection—sometimes direct, sometimes remote—to the assassination story.

People commonly discussed in connection with Jones’s early investigation included:

• Lee Bowers Jr. — The
  railroad-tower employee who observed unusual activity near the grassy
  knoll shortly before and during the shooting. He died in a one-car
  accident in August 1966. Jones considered the circumstances suspicious.
• Tom Howard — An attorney who
  briefly represented Jack Ruby. Howard died in 1965 after becoming ill;
  Jones included him among the deaths he thought merited further
  investigation.
• Bill Hunter — A journalist
  who had been in Jack Ruby’s apartment after the assassination. Hunter was
  accidentally shot and killed by a police officer in a Long Beach police
  station in 1964.
• Jim Koethe — Another
  reporter who visited Ruby’s apartment. Koethe was murdered in his Dallas
  apartment in September 1964. The murder remained a subject of speculation
  among assassination researchers.
• Hank Killam — An acquaintance
  of people connected with Oswald’s Dallas rooming-house circle. He died
  after apparently falling or being thrown through a plate-glass window in
  Florida.
• Earlene Roberts — The housekeeper
  at Oswald’s rooming house, who said that a police car stopped and sounded
  its horn outside after Oswald returned there. She died in 1966.
• Dorothy Kilgallen — The nationally
  syndicated columnist who covered Jack Ruby’s trial and claimed to have
  interviewed him privately. She died in 1965 from a combination of alcohol
  and barbiturates officially classified as accidental.

Jones argued that the number and timing of such deaths formed a disturbing pattern. Ramparts gave this theory a national audience.

That argument must be handled carefully. Inclusion on Jones’s list does not prove that a death was connected to the assassination. Some of the individuals had only peripheral associations with the case; several died from documented illness, accidents, suicide, or unrelated violence. Jones’s work demonstrated that certain deaths deserved scrutiny, but it did not establish that a coordinated conspiracy had killed all—or necessarily any—of those people.

This distinction is important: Ramparts was presenting an investigative challenge and a case for reopening questions, not a judicial finding.

Photographic evidence and the cover

The magazine used photographs connected with Dealey Plaza, including images associated with Dallas witness and amateur photographer Phil Willis. Its memorable “picture puzzle” presentation invited readers to compare assassination photographs and ask what had changed from one image to another.

This was characteristic of Ramparts: it used sophisticated layouts, large photographs, provocative covers, and visual argumentation. It did not look like a cheaply printed conspiracy pamphlet. It presented controversial material in the format of a nationally distributed illustrated news magazine.

The visual material encouraged readers to examine:

• The position and
  reactions of people in Dealey Plaza.
• The grassy-knoll
  and railroad-yard areas.
• The sequence in
  which photographs were taken.
• Objects or figures
  that seemed to appear differently between frames.
• Whether the
  photographic record supported or contradicted particular witness accounts.

The photographs could raise legitimate questions, but isolated still pictures rarely prove where a shot originated. Image quality, perspective, elapsed time, cropping, and assumptions about sequence all affect their interpretation.

Criticism of the Warren Commission

The issue’s broader contention is that the Warren Commission produced closure without eliminating reasonable doubt.

The magazine questions several aspects of the official investigation:

The investigation’s narrow framework

Ramparts argued that investigators became committed too early to Oswald as the lone assassin. Evidence was consequently interpreted within that framework instead of being used to test several competing possibilities.

Witnesses suggesting more than one firing location

A number of Dealey Plaza witnesses reported hearing shots or seeing activity near the grassy knoll. The Commission concluded that the shots that struck Kennedy and Governor John Connally came from the Texas School Book Depository. Ramparts considered the conflicting testimony insufficiently resolved.

Oswald’s murder

Jack Ruby’s shooting of Oswald on live television prevented a criminal trial. A trial would have subjected the evidence to adversarial examination, including cross-examination of witnesses. Its absence left the Warren Commission as the principal public mechanism for determining what happened.

Jack Ruby’s associations and motives

The magazine questioned whether Ruby could adequately be described as an emotionally distraught nightclub owner acting spontaneously. His familiarity with Dallas police officers, his underworld contacts, and his access to the police basement all required closer examination.

The sealed and unavailable record

In 1966, substantial portions of the government’s assassination records were unavailable to the public. Critics could reasonably argue that the public was being asked to accept conclusions without being permitted to inspect all the underlying evidence.

Later investigations and document releases showed that the Warren Commission did not receive or fully explore everything known to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies. That fact does not by itself establish an assassination conspiracy, but it strengthens the historical case that the original inquiry was incomplete.

“I Was a Burglar, Etc., for the FBI”

Another major article in the issue is William W. Turner’s “I Was a Burglar, Etc., for the FBI,” beginning around page 51.

Turner was a former FBI agent who became an outspoken critic of J. Edgar Hoover’s leadership. His article describes questionable or unlawful practices he said agents were expected to perform in the name of domestic security and counterintelligence.

The title refers to activities such as:

• Surreptitious
  entries or “black-bag jobs.”
• Unauthorized
  searches.
• Telephone
  surveillance.
• Infiltration and
  monitoring of political organizations.
• Pressure to
  produce information matching Bureau assumptions.
• Treating political
  dissent or controversial associations as potential subversion.

Turner’s article is not principally a JFK-assassination theory. Its relevance to the issue’s central theme is institutional: if federal agencies operated secretly, broke legal rules, or concealed their methods, the public had reason to question whether those same institutions should be accepted uncritically when investigating Kennedy’s death.

Later government investigations, particularly the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s, confirmed that the FBI had engaged in extensive unlawful surveillance, disruption, infiltration, and warrantless break-ins. That does not validate every allegation Turner or Ramparts made, but it shows that their underlying distrust of Hoover-era FBI practices was not imaginary.

“White Power Illustrated”

Dugald Stermer, Ramparts’ influential art director, contributed “White Power Illustrated.”

This was not an endorsement of white supremacy. It was a satirical visual examination of how white political, economic, and social power operated in the United States. It answered the emerging national debate over “Black Power” by turning the question around: why was Black political organization treated as alarming while established white control was treated as normal and invisible?

The piece uses visual irony to expose the degree to which American institutions were dominated by white people:

• Government and
  political leadership.
• Corporate
  ownership.
• Banking and
  finance.
• Police departments
  and the justice system.
• Universities and
  cultural institutions.
• Housing and
  real-estate power.
• The major
  communications media.

The central argument is that “white power” did not need to announce itself as a militant movement because it was already built into American institutions. The feature belongs to the civil-rights and Black Power debate of 1966, when Stokely Carmichael was bringing the phrase “Black Power” into national political discussion.

“I’ve Got Nothing Against the Colored, Understand”

Gene Marine’s article, bearing the deliberately revealing title “I’ve Got Nothing Against the Colored, Understand,” examines ordinary white racial attitudes.

The title reproduces the familiar defensive statement of someone denying racial prejudice while proceeding to express prejudiced assumptions. The article explores racism not merely as the activity of the Ku Klux Klan or explicitly segregationist politicians, but as something maintained through:

• Residential
  segregation.
• Employment
  discrimination.
• School inequality.
• Fear of
  interracial neighborhoods.
• Opposition to
  civil-rights enforcement.
• Stereotypes
  disguised as common sense.
• The insistence
  that racial inequality was someone else’s responsibility.

Placed beside “White Power Illustrated,” the article argues that racism functions both institutionally and personally. Formal political power and ordinary social attitudes reinforce one another.

“The Disunion of South Africa”

Adam Hochschild contributed “The Disunion of South Africa,” addressing apartheid and the political divisions inside white-ruled South Africa.

In 1966 South Africa was governed by the National Party’s system of legally enforced racial separation. Black South Africans were denied meaningful national political power and subjected to pass laws, forced removals, segregated education and employment, and repression of anti-apartheid organizations.

Hochschild’s article examines not simply a unified white regime but tensions among:

• English-speaking
  and Afrikaner white communities.
• Business interests
  and rigid apartheid ideologues.
• Nationalist
  political leaders and their opponents.
• South Africa’s
  economic dependence on Black labor.
• The country’s
  desire for international legitimacy and its increasingly isolated racial
  policies.

The inclusion of South Africa complements the domestic “White Power” features. The issue moves from less openly acknowledged structures of racial domination in the United States to an overtly codified white-supremacist state in South Africa.

Allen Ginsberg’s “Proem to Wichita Vortex Sutra”

The issue also contains the first magazine appearance of Part I of Allen Ginsberg’s “Wichita Vortex Sutra,” one of his major antiwar poems.

Ginsberg composed the work from observations and recorded speech during a journey through the American Midwest. The poem combines:

• Highway and city
  imagery.
• Radio and
  newspaper language.
• Government
  statements about Vietnam.
• Casualty figures
  and military terminology.
• Religious and
  mystical imagery.
• Ginsberg’s attempt
  to use language as a form of resistance.

The “vortex” is the swirl of political rhetoric, mass-media language, patriotic symbolism, violence, geography, and personal consciousness surrounding the Vietnam War. Ginsberg suggests that official language makes destruction seem remote and reasonable by converting human suffering into abstractions such as targets, body counts, and strategic objectives.

Its presence shows that the issue was not exclusively about Dallas. It connected the Kennedy controversy to a wider question: how should citizens respond when government language and institutional authority cannot be accepted at face value?

The issue’s unifying theme

At first glance, JFK, FBI misconduct, American racism, South African apartheid, and Ginsberg’s antiwar poetry may seem unrelated. The editorial connection is the abuse—or concealment—of power.

Each principal feature examines a different institution or narrative:

The issue’s message is that power protects itself not only through force but also by controlling which questions appear respectable and which explanations are presented as settled.

How reliable is it?

The answer differs by section.

The FBI, race, apartheid, and Vietnam pieces can be read as serious contemporary investigative journalism and political criticism, although they reflect Ramparts’ openly left-wing editorial position.

The JFK material is more complicated:

• It correctly
  identified unresolved contradictions and weaknesses in the original
  investigation.
• It helped preserve
  witness accounts and questions that larger publications had neglected.
• It correctly
  recognized that important government information had not been publicly
  disclosed.
• It did not prove
  that every suspicious death was connected to Kennedy’s assassination.
• Similarity,
  timing, or proximity to a historical event cannot substitute for evidence
  of causation.
• The issue should
  therefore be read as an influential brief for further investigation, not
  as a final solution to the crime.

Historical significance

The November 1966 issue captures the moment when skepticism about the Warren Commission was moving from small newsletters and specialized books into nationally visible journalism.

It appeared during the same general period as works by Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein, Harold Weisberg, and other early critics. Ramparts made that criticism visually compelling and accessible to a broader audience. The magazine subsequently published additional assassination investigations, including David Welsh and David Lifton’s January 1967 article “The Case for Three Assassins.”

Today, the issue is valuable for three reasons:

1. It is an original document from the first generation of Warren Commission criticism.

2. It records Penn Jones’s theories while he was actively developing them.

3. It shows how the JFK controversy became connected to the wider 1960s crisis of confidence involving Vietnam, race, the FBI, the CIA, and government secrecy.

In short, In the Shadow of Dallas is not merely a JFK conspiracy publication. It is a snapshot of a turning point in American political journalism—a moment when Ramparts asked whether official institutions deserved the confidence they demanded, and whether the press had been too willing to accept government assurances without completing its own investigation. The surviving issue is documented in archival collections, including the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth JFK media collection, while a contemporary contents description confirms its combination of Kennedy, white-power, South Africa, FBI, and Ginsberg material. Gettysburg College archives