A French OAS militant was reportedly in Fort Worth on the morning of November 22, 1963...

in Dallas that afternoon...

and supposedly expelled from the United States approximately 18 hours after President Kennedy was assassinated.

His name was:

Jean René Souetre.

And if you've never heard that name before, you're probably not alone.

But once you hear this story, you're going to understand why Souetre has fascinated JFK researchers for nearly fifty years.

In our ongoing series, “If Lee Harvey Oswald Didn’t Kill JFK, Then Who Did?”, we’ve examined some of the men who have been accused over the years of taking part in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This week, we continue to turn our attention to one of the more intriguing—and controversial—names connected to the case: Herminio Díaz García.

Díaz García was a Cuban exile, anti-Castro militant, and a man reportedly experienced with weapons and political violence. Years after the assassination, allegations emerged that placed him not simply somewhere on the fringes of the JFK story—but in Dallas on November 22, 1963, as a participant in the assassination itself.

Was Herminio Díaz capable of participating in the assassination of a political leader?

Can we prove he participated in Kennedy's assassination?

What motive would Díaz have had to kill Kennedy?

And do we actually have U.S. intelligence documentation showing that he was involved in assassination planning.

That’s what we’re going to investigate today on The End of Innocence.

In our ongoing series, “If Lee Harvey Oswald Didn’t Kill JFK, Then Who Did?”, we’ve examined some of the men who have been accused over the years of taking part in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This week, we turn our attention to one of the more intriguing—and controversial—names connected to the case: Herminio Díaz García.

Díaz García was a Cuban exile, anti-Castro militant, and a man reportedly experienced with weapons and political violence. Years after the assassination, allegations emerged that placed him not simply somewhere on the fringes of the JFK story—but in Dallas on November 22, 1963, as a participant in the assassination itself.

But where did that allegation come from? Who claimed Díaz García was involved? What evidence supports the story, and what evidence contradicts it? And perhaps most importantly: is there any reason to believe Herminio Díaz García could have been one of the men who fired at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?

That’s what we’re going to investigate today on The End of Innocence.

What happened to James Files after those prison interviews...

Did prison change him?

Did he really become a Christian?

What has he been doing since leaving prison?

And perhaps the biggest question...

Has James Files continued giving interviews—or has he quietly disappeared from public view?

Let's take a look.

Whether James Files is ultimately telling the truth or weaving an elaborate story remains an open question. But before anyone dismisses his account entirely, I believe these three questions deserve credible, evidence-based answers. Until those answers are provided, I think the James Files confession remains worthy of careful examination rather than outright rejection.

What has James Files been doing since that landmark 2003 interview, and has anything emerged over the last two decades that either supports—or undermines—his extraordinary claims?

Was James Files telling the truth? Or was he weaving one of the most elaborate stories in the history of the Kennedy assassination?

In this episode of The End of Innocence, we're not going to decide whether James Files was the assassin. Instead, we're going to do what every good investigator should do—we're going to examine the evidence.

We'll compare Files' first prison interview from the early 1990s with his extensive 2003 prison interview. Did his story change over those ten years? Did he contradict himself? Or did the core of his account remain remarkably consistent?

We'll examine what stayed the same, what expanded, what—if anything—changed, and what those differences might tell us about the credibility of his extraordinary claims.

Because consistency alone doesn't prove someone is telling the truth—but inconsistency can certainly raise questions.

So join me as we take a careful, objective look at one of the most controversial confessions in JFK assassination history.

I'm John R. Young, and this is The End of Innocence.

In this series, we’ve already listened to James Files’ original 1993 interview. I think it’s important that we now listen to the interview he gave in 2003 so we can compare the two accounts side by side. Doing so may help us decide whether his story feels legitimate—or whether it’s simply a compelling tale told by a very skilled storyteller.

The 2003 interview was conducted by my good friend and fellow researcher, the late Jim Marrs and Wim Dankbaar. It was conducted on November 19, 2003, while Files was still incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois. With that context in mind, here is part four of the 2003 interview. If you have listened to the 1993 interview, see if you can pick up on some of the new details Files adds into his story this time around.