Talk:James Files

Files Boss Oliphant

All references to Oliphant (the OSS Keeper of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby) Files Boss are off limits, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.49.27 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know who Dankbaar is and do not care. I spent 10 years training with Oliphant in the Arizona High Desert and know what Oliphant says happened. I was in Tampa, Octave and eventually Wickenburg with Oliphant. I was not involved in the Arizona Patriots or the Timothy McVeigh planning/training in Kingman latter on. Jack told us all about Files. I even visited the safe house in Fort Lauderdale, FL for Cuban refugees. I lived at the House on Horatio Street and helped print the materials Oliphant distributed in more than 20 countries. I was there when the packing plant that funded the operation was firebombed. All these details are forbidden on Wikipedia and are speedily removed. I wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.49.27 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Files Photo By Oswald?

Interesting article that does what you suggest it does - present CLAIMS.

However - what possible authentication is there for the photo allegedly taken by Oswald of Files in the Dallas motel? Can an irrefutable chain of evidence create such a link? No doubt it is Files where he claims to be, but the photographer could have been anyone. What ties it to Oswald?Sensei48 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)sensei48

Well....That photo is supposed to be part of a set taken by Oswald. Unfortunately, just the one has been available publicly. Until we see whats available in the other pictures (from the SAME ROLL OF FILM mind you), there really is no way to tell who took it. Goldwings 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Why hasn't anyone seen the match I have; this, same roll, I assume, has a frame of Files in a hat, that has two large spotted 'eyes' on its sides, thus matching with the Black Dog (Man) Polaroid and cine frames, etc.? This is very strange, as this would go against what Files has said about his location, unless there is a parallax 'error' between the corner of the wall and fence, which as far as I can determine, is possible, or an 'associate' is wearing 'his' hat (if these are a true match, which if you see, do match, and do so well ... this can't be just a coincidence). Files as far as I'm aware, has never talked about a hat being worn at the time of the head-shot(s), but if you think about it, him wearing a hat, makes a lot of sense. This issue needs serious expert photographic forensic analysis, as this could provide further physical proof of a 'frontal' shot. Only physical proof can prove this or not, that is physics and probability as proof, and not psychology and probability as proof, which is what most theorists seem to (to me to) advocate from.

Notice of Deletion

Well, its looking like no one wants this article on Wikipedia anymore. So, I'm going to keep the article up until May 1st 2007, after which time I will permanantly delete and redirect to Kennedy Assassination theories. If Mr Wim Dankbaar, or anyone else wishes to step up and take over afterwards, be my guest. Until then, this is your friendly neighborhood author....signing off ;-) Goldwings 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, after thinking it over...I've decided NOT to delete this page. I will simply no longer monitor it, nor edit it. It's now wide open for anyone who wishes to take over, can now edit, add, and delete as they please! Goldwings 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

|

I've tagged this with a disputed-neutrality tag, because I don't think it gives a particularly accurate view of how people see Files and his testimony. Certainly many people believe him, but the article presents it as if it's universally believed, while it appears to be a minority view---no official government body does, of course, and even among "alternative theories" explanations, the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority. --Delirium 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point, but there are some things I would like to point out. You will find, throughout the article, that I've put "Files claims...." or "Files states...." before a statement, to prevent any arguments about the point of view. This tells the readers that those are his claims, and his claims only. That does not mean that it's 100% true. If I had a time machine to go back and see those events, then we could say its 100% true or false. Another thing I will point out, is that I've included links to pages that show the opposing arguments. Some opposing arguments are completely made up (such as Files was in Chicago that day, or the twin brother story), and it would be criminal of me to leave those in as if they are fact. However, there is always room for improvement. I'm going to leave the tag up for now, and I'll refine the article in a more neutral manner later tonight. Goldwings 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've looked over the article 3 times. I don't know where to make a more neutral stance. As far as I can tell, I've put "According to..." or "Files states...." and references to back it up in every section. Could you point out to me where there is a dispute over neutrality? One thing I would like to make clear is...I do not care how people see Files and his testimony. Some people may think he's an honest John, and some may think he's the biggest jerk they've ever known. I'm not trying to please the people (majority or minority), I've put the article together as a collection of statements and facts, and any areas of controversy. If it happened to look like I'm leaning one way or another, thats a result of the evidence, I do not attach my opinions. I'd also like to know where the evidence is that you came to the following conclusions: "the article presents it as if it's universally believed" & "the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority." I'll keep the tag up a little while longer. Goldwings 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "bit the shell casing" mean? Fitzaubrey 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice of accusation

Recently, this artice has come under fire accusing me of: Bias, no mainstream sources, and the fact that this is conspiracy nonsense. I am going to make several things crystal clear:

1. This article is NOT intended to please the anti-conspiracy crowd, nor is it intended to please the majority or minority of JFK researchers. I could care less what the majority or minority thinks of James Files.

2. The purpose of this article is intended for those who are diligently and legitimately researching the JFK assassination, and what to know what Files "claims" (there's that word again) to have said or done, such as for a school project. In no way are any of his claims presented as 100% fact. The only way to know Files' story is by his claims. Who else am I going to ask...his mother?

3. I am NOT going to shadow the article with doubt, or make speculative claims that his story is not accepted by the majority or whatever, because I believe that would be dishonest for the readers.

4. There are very few sources about James Files available on Google. That is why it appears that there are very few sources, because that's all I have to work with.

5. Last but not least, I am NOT going to be deleting this article, or moving it around to a conspiracy theory topic. There is already a small paragraph in Kennedy assassination theories about his claim. This article is a supplement to his claim, by letting readers know a little bit about him as a "subject" (kind of like a mini-biography).

6. If anyone has any constructive criticism, I am keeping an open ear and willing to listen. However, if all you intend to do is slander and label the article as conspiracy guff, you will be laughed at and ignored.

7. Please direct all disputes here to the discussion page. Thats what it's here for. Goldwings 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by "True History": Bravo! I applaud your efforts to show the true history of James files to the best of your ability! I noticed one reference is to a letter written by "Bob Vernon" who was involved in a lawsuit with Wim Dankbaar, over rights to James Files materials. Basically, Mr. vernon wanted much more money. Ever since Mr. Vernon lost, he has attacked anything about Dankbaar or Mr. Files with vitriol, possibly to assure that Dankbaar won't make any profit from books on Files. Mr. Vernon's letter includes a link to an interview made with James Files' elderly aunt, and his method of questionig her with leading questions, trying to get her to admit that James Files 'never' used the name 'Sutton' (merely because he didn;t sign his name that way in letters to her (--I never signed MY last name onto any letters to MY aunts, by the way!--who does? ) can be heard on the tape. Since vernon gets the elderly lady to admit sort of) that James files never told her his last name was 'Sutton' -- even though earlier in the tape, the elderly lady indicates that James Files was 'adopted' by Sutton, vernon then tells the listener that sure enough, Files is lying about ever being called "James Sutton.' Mr. Vernon's 'research' -- just as the Chicago myth is perpetrated on 'anti-conspiracy' official version websites -- is based on subterfuge. I corresponded briefly with James Files through his girlfriend, Pam, who lives in Hawaii, and was struck by the fact that Files described having bitten a cartridge, making a dent in it. That cartridge had been found at the Grassy Knoll. Yes, the cartridge HAD been reported as being found. But nobody had mentioned a dent in it. Yet Files described having bitten it. Files was in prison, and in fact is severely restricted as to access to the outside world. His girlfriend couldn't even send him a candy bar. There simply is no way that Files could have known that there was a dent in that cartridge. Since then, objections have been raised about the Fireball special weapon Files says he used. Conveniently, objectors insist that the boring of the barrel isn't correct, etc. But the weapon was described as one-of-a-kind, and still in the development stage. There were some 50 in existence, and at least some of those were in CIA possession. One cannot assume the Fireballs mentioned by critics really had to match, in every detail, the Fireball as described by Files, as the weapon was still in development and variations were possible. This crucial fact is ignored by detractors. Files suffered for speaking out and gained less than nothing for doing so. He believes his chances for parole were permanently destroyed by his speaking out. Since he became a committed Christian, Files has revealed additional information, particularly about the Mafia, which has been verified. It was difficult to pry the assassination story out of him, which he had confided only once, to an investigator, Joe West. But West, who was petitioning to have Kennedy's body exhumed, died before he could film Files. Files remained silent until he was persuaded to speak out by those who realized Joe West's death, while recovering from heart surgery, was somewhat suspicious. Eventually, Files agreed to be filmed. None of that story was freely offered by Files: it had to be coaxed from him. Because he mentions Oswald's presence with him for a long period of time on the Sunday before the assassination, and Judyth Vary Baker, another witness (who had expressed doubts about File's story)stated she was not contacted, as promised, by Lee Harvey Oswald on that Sunday, forcing her to make a telephone call to him at the TSBD, which was recorded on that Wednesday before the assassination in official records, it is possible Oswald really was with Files at least on the Sunday evening prior to the assassination of Kennedy. This is circumstantial evidence, but it tends to lend weight to Files' assertion that Oswald was with him, as Oswald reported to Baker that he was delayed "for days" to call her, due to interactions with persons planning to murder Kennedy, and that he had penetrated an assassination ring, in which he was so deeply involved that he was all but certain he would not survive. Thus, Oswald sent warnings to the FBI and elsewhere, which were ignored (these warnings are on record). Oswald's link to Files, therefore, might be as stated. For these reasons, and considering the unreliability of Mr. Vernon's 'evidence to the contrary,' and his known prejudices against both Files and Baker (Dankbaar also filmed Baker), your efforts to keep this biographical information unbiased and as accurate as possible are to be applauded. Efforts to change both Files' and Baker's biographies on Wikipedia to reflect the bias of those who reject 'all' who indicate a possible conspiracy in JFK's murder, despite the recent confession of CIA mastermind Hunt, as revealed in a tape recording by Hunt's own son, seem to be ongoing. WHY such efforts, on their part, to distort these biographies? At one point, even Baker's date of birth was removed by 'anti-conspiracists.' "References' are difficult to cite for both persons, since mainstream media has basically ignored (Files) or censored (Baker) documentaries made on them. You Tube shows "the banned documentary' regarding Baker. Dankbaar's website is JFKMurdersolved.com, and it should be mentioned in the article here (since Dankbaar is mentioned several times) as a link. ==posted by TrueHistory===

It appears that essential detail had been removed from this article since "Goldwings" made his or her entry 10 October 2006. Specifically, (Goldwings point 2 above): "The purpose of this article is intended for those who are diligently and legitimately researching the JFK assassination, and what to know what Files 'claims' (there's that word again) to have said or done." Since there was zero information about what James Files claimed to have said or done when I read the article earlier today, I made an entry into the "Background" section to give a short summary of his claims. This summary would be better in a separate section titled "Claims of shooting JFK" or something similar, but I am new to Wikipedia editing and I do not know how to make a new section entry. Also, I referenced two separate YouTube video entries, both showing the same prison interview material by James Files, but I would appreciate it if someone would check these reference entries to ensure that they conform to Wikipedia standards for references. They probably do not conform, but as a neophyte I am not sure how to do this. These YouTube videos, however, show James Files making his claims directly and are therefore primary sources, as opposed to a published article 'reporting' as to what James Files claimed during his interviews, which may introduce inaccuracies. gwlucca 75.140.48.109 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased since it doesn't mention the biggest problem (and only speaks of "support) with the subject's confession - the headshot came from behind. GreatGatsby 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is fair to recieve mention. I never thought I would be getting an intelligent response, but here it is....the first one! Before I do a major edit, go ahead and list any more "legitimate" problems you have. Keep in mind, I WILL NOT be shadowing this bio with doubt. So, if that is your intent, save your breath. Goldwings 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be put under doubt? It's quite obvious this man has made this "confession" to gain fame. The type of projectile he describes wouldn't have worked, and no shots came form the knoll (none of the traejctory lines up). His whole story is if Oswald didn't get the kill shot the first time he was to end it. But both shots that hit Kennedy came from behind, and the knoll was to his side when the headshot came. GreatGatsby 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Both headshots came from behind"-My ass. How can you be so stupid as to come up with that bullshit when the Zapruder film clearly indicates otherwise? Put out that joint, pull up your pants and sober up....Busceda (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Under the section regarding Files' military service, there is discussion of Files' apparently confused military record, referencing the Office of Strategic Services, which was obsolete at the time Files claims he served, makes no references at all to sources for these claims and includes the following line:

"Unfortunately this affects almost all the officers that participated in the Kennedy Assassination serving under Jack M Oliphant."

This statement seems to be by fiat, supporting the notion of participation by the intelligence community in assassinating JFK, an assertion that has thus far, little demonstrated credibility.

Its has far more credibility than the warren report, discredited by the house committee, who "officially" supported the second shooter, i.e. conspiracy, actuality. Apparently the intelligence "community" is no. one prime suspect for the jfk assassination, as of course they are in every other major or not so major dirty deed committed from time immemorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.51.226 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Files etc.

Files/Sutton seems to be an attention-seeker and pathological liar, rather than the money-snatcher mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC) The article implies that the OSS was in existence in 1959. It was abolished in 1945. I think that this has already been noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It is odd that Files' sister is called Files, when Files was originally called Sutton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Points 2 and 3 don't mention Nicoletti explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It is not clear why Files bites shell casings. Does he eat metal generally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I suspect that Dankbaar is behind the rambling reference to Oliphant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It was nice of the CIA/Mafia to say the Jacquie should not be harmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It is odd that all "officers" in the Kennedy Assassination were in the 82nd. Airborne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC) A 14-year-old would not be old enough to drive legally in England. I don't know if this applies to America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC) On the Dankbaar site, in the alleged FBI file on Files, Files is called Files in 1959 and 1962, at a time when he says that he was Sutton. The FBI might have used his new name for the old convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.99.253 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Files' name change in 1963 is puzzling, as he was already known to the Police as Sutton. Modern finger-prints and photographs make changing your name a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.110.59 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC) The phrase, "the FBI gave him up", is very vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam

The article on Files is mostly spamming from Dankbaar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dankbaar's book costs $37.95. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Puzzle

The site www.bop.gov says that a James Earl Files, with the #89287-024, a white man, 69 years old at some point, was released on 28/2/1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The site www.manuscriptservice.com has much information discrediting Dankbaar and Files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicably, the spartacus source given was deleted by the party producing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to Digby scallops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no obvious James Sutton in prison in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See www.idoc.state.il.us, which does have a James Files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I stupidly over-looked the fact that the manuscriptservice site is already mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

James Files is now said to have been paroled in the May of 2016. I can't get www.idoc.state.il.us to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.175.165 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

See http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.175.165 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wim Dankbaar

Wim Dankbaar has been mentioned several times on this talk page. Here is his research on James Files:

• JFK MURDER SOLVED - Is James Files telling the truth.
• Wim Dankbaar : Biography. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source per previous discussion. Location (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think the Files bio should contain one morsel of content germane to his contentions?

Why the push-back on the James Files revelations? What are you people afraid of? That somebody's going to spill the beans on the Warren Commission's fabrication? That JFK was offed, Mutiny on the Bounty style, by his own government? Are you afraid the Files contentions will open cans of worms, and let the cat out-of-the-bag that, in 1963, there was coup, and everybody's going to find out there really is no constitution, no bill of rights, that we live in a one-party plutocracy with a shadow government, overlain by pretense of democracy? Fake elections, and all?

Or, is it you're afraid you'll have to change your way of thinking?

You're abusing the Wikipedia, to censor Files' contentions. Don't you think your push-back, trying to keep your fingers in the dyke on the Files revelations, only serves to further underline collective realization Files' contentions make more sense, than the far-fetched, untenable, overreaching contentions of the Warren Commission?

This article is the epitome of personal biased! Example: What is this about the weak, frivolous, wishy-washy statement on your opening segway, about the FBI "quoted" by a pro Warren Commission stalwart, that an investigation by the FBI is "quoted" to have been performed (ACTIVE READING... ) so don't you worry your pretty little head because but the FBI says there's nothing to it?

Bias! Bias! Bias! Bias! Nah, na-na-na-nah! Everything bounces off me and sticks to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.21.119 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1. You appear to be referencing this sentence: In 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was quoted as having investigated Files' allegation and found it "not to be credible". The phrase "was quoted as having" is included in that sentence is compliance with in-text attribution to placate individuals such as yourself who have doubt that the FBI actually did what they say. Regardless, it is reliably sourced information and you can't remove it just because you don't like it or agree with it.
2. You also changed/added material to construct this sentence: Files, who changed his name from Jimmy Sutton, was born in Alabama 24 January, 1942, and after his tour of duty in the United States Army became a hired assassin jointly managed by the Chicago underworld and the CIA. Files is a bullshit artist... or a bullshit teller because there isn't much art how he has presented his tired claims. Just because he said he was an assassin for the mob and the CIA that doesn't mean he was an assassin for the mob and the CIA. I am happy to take the Newsmax source to WP:RSN if you would like.
3. You inserted material cited to jfkmurdersolved.com. As noted previously, Wim Dankbaar and jfkmurdersolved.com have been discussed at WP:RSN. Not a reliable source.
4. You inserted the following: Associate Professor Emeritus from Santa Clara University, Dr. Jerome Kroth attributes Files as "surprisingly credible," contending his to be "the most believable and persuasive" testimonial on the JFK assassination, to date. The citation you provided doesn't note Kroth's views on Files. - Location (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with the combative nature of the unsigned IP poster above, the question raised here had also occurred to me: What IS James Files' story? I only recently learned of the existence of this man, and of his claims regarding the JFK assassination. I must say, I find this article lacking anything specific about WHAT those claims are, other than the last section about his biting the spent shell-casing. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the actual "story" seems to be missing here. Jororo05 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jororo05 that the article as it stands now is missing the core entry: a summary of James Earl Files' claim that he shot President John F. Kennedy in the head while he was positioned behind the picket fence. This is very odd since it is easy to find at least two lengthy interviews of the James Files 'confession' on YouTube. Here is one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdo5zAhUCdg published in YouTube on Feb 19, 2016, under the heading, "I shot JFK". Here is a longer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4vgHsmNEk published in YouTube Aug 7, 2015, under the heading, "Interview with James Files" gwlucca 75.140.48.109 (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

James Earl Sutton Files is a truth teller and exUS Government sniper ! Fredvincent7 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

John McAdams Research

I removed the John McAdams claim referenced to John McAdams. It's not a secondary source and can be considered original research. (McAdams website on McAdams.) Also what's the point of telling the reader that according to John McAdams Files has changed his story if the article doesn't even tell us what Files story is except for the vaguest summary? In short there is more "critical analysis" than factual exposition in this entry. Moreover the spirit of this analysis is already well reflected in what remains of the section. Detmcphierson (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Biased; lack of objectivity

The Vincent Bugliosi critique is inappropriate. As per Wikipedia policy, the existence of this page constitutes scholastic and ethical basis that Mr. Files contentions should be presented and precisely articulated accurately, objectively, unprejudiced, sans your personal bias, or omission. You people, whoever you are, are acting in collusion, wantonly misusing the Wikipedia, to suppress the meat of Mr. Files contentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.22.190 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I must agree that "the meat of Mr. Files contentions" is nowhere to be found here. One specific (the biting of the shell-casing) is presented, seemingly only to be disproved. Otherwise, there is NOTHING about his contentions. I'm not about to accuse anyone of a "conspiracy" (which would be supreme irony), but the dearth of relevant information is odd, to say the least. Jororo05 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At the date/time of the making of this (my) entry here, it appears that the specific of James Files biting the shell casing of the head shot bullet has been removed. As per Jororo05's entry of 6 August 2016, there is still NOTHING about James Files' contentions, which can be viewed at length at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4vgHsmNEk published under the heading "Interview with James Files" in YouTube Aug 7, 2015. Another, shorter video of the same James Files interview was published In YouTube Feb 19, 2016, under the heading "I shot JFK".

Below is a summary of the James Files 'confession', taken from "Mafia Hit Man Confesses to Killing President Kennedy" in a NewsMax article By Jim Meyers published Thursday, 20 Nov 2014 08:14 PM

In his "I Killed JFK" interviews from prison, Files tells why he chose to position himself on the grassy knoll to await JFK's motorcade while another shooter took a different position. Shortly before the assassination, Files said, "I went back to the plaza, got my briefcase out with the gun in it. I went into the railroad yard, put it away where nobody could see it."

As the Kennedy motorcade entered the plaza and made a turn, the president's car cruised past a street sign in front of Files.

"That's when I started focusing through the scope. As far as I can see at this point the president has not been hit in the head. I've seen the body lurch. I know he's been hit. How serious I don't know. But my last instructions were we're going for head shots. If you have to take a shot take it, but don't fire unless you really have to.

"I was aiming at his right eye. When I pulled the trigger it was almost like looking from six feet away through the scope. As I squeezed his head moved forward. I missed and got it right along the temple, right behind the eye. I squeezed off my round. I hit him and blew his head backward. I fired one shot and one shot only." gwlucca 75.140.48.109 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Box

The box on the top right has the word "Killings" in it. This seems not to be in the Wikicode. As far as I can see, the two police were not killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.217 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Saw that too and have no idea how to fix the template.--77.7.19.226 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The word "killings" seems to have vanished from the box now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.212.20.241 (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Files. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609031601/http://www.playboy.com/playground/newsroom/politics/how-the-outfit-killed-jfk to http://www.playboy.com/playground/newsroom/politics/how-the-outfit-killed-jfk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

JFK assassination and James Earl ( Sutton ) Files

The assassination work performed for the CIA, the US military and his Vietnam success as a sniper needs to be added to his history. The testimony James gives about sighting in a rifle with a silencer for one of the other JFK shooters makes sense about why there were more shots fired than were recorded on the open mike at the time. James Sutton Files turned his life over to Christ 10 years ago which adds to his truthfulness. It appears that the two officers he fired at in 1991 were trying to assassinate him for what he knew about the JFK assassination. This needs to be investigated ! Fredvincent7 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)