Joan Mellon's excellent new book: the death of LBJ-did-it theory?

[Vince Palamara]

Joan decimates just about every tenet of the LBJ-did-it theory. I am curious to see if anyone sees anything left? Say goodbye to Mac Wallace, the fingerprint evidence, etc.

Vince

[Douglas Caddy]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23016

[Glenn Nall]

just a point, as devil's advocate, I guess.

whenever I hear the categorical phrase "so-and-so did it theory" it is my opinion that, at least among responsible researchers and theorists, this does not necessarily mean (though it might) strictly that, in this case for instance, LBJ was the one who orchestrated and effected the entire thing. We so often hear the ridiculously inclusive "the CIA did it," which rarely means that the theorist proposes the idea that it was a from-the-director down mission. Most reasonable researchers know what something like that really means, that it usually is referring to some -

oops, hang on, my puppy's got to go pee, and this post will not interfere, she has explained -

- a smaller 'sub-group' of the CIA, at least, with or without the knowledge and approval of the 'bosses.' It doesn't really mean "the CIA did it" to most people. (Except one person who, as far as I can tell, really means "General Walker did it.") There are so many moving parts in this murder, with so, so many potential, motivated people that, to me, to pin this thing on a singular orchestrator, without a goodly number of other people wanting to help, and being needed, is not very realistic. Even if someone like LBJ "did it," there's no conceivable way he could have done so without both the help, AND the acquiescence of other, equally, or more, powerful people. President or not, he had people he had to answer to. Yes? No?

When I think, in vague terms, "LBJ did it," which happens to be one of my leanings - I've committed to nothing - what I'm really thinking is that LBJ a) had as much motivation to want K dead as the anti-castro groups, or Trafficante and Marcello, et al, or others, that he benefitted decidedly as much as anyone else, and more than most, and c) that it might be that he simply had complete knowledge and offered either his help or silence.

To say that Johnson, or Hoover, or McCone, or even Hunt, or the other Hunt, "did it" is a grand reach.

In fact, I really don't know of anything other than the potential fingerprint that implicates Mac Wallace. I should read Ms Mellen's book, but it's at this point far down a line of books (yes, I read books other than The Yankee and Cowboy War). I don't think LBJ 'did it,' but I do think he was involved, at some level.

This phrase "so-and-so did it theory" can really be misleading. Too often the layperson asks, "who do you think did it? the CIA?" and thenceforth begins the token hour and a half expose on how it really works.

Or not.

[Roger DeLaria]

I don't see JM decimating the LBJ theory at all. To 86 Mac Wallace and the fingerprint, she has to discredit Nathan Darby and throw him under the bus, and I don't see that happening. Darby was highly skilled and made a multi point match.

[James DiEugenio]

It would be nice if people would actually write things based upon facts instead of what their preconceived predilections are.

I just got the Mellen book yesterday. I have to finish on other book before I start in on it.

Unlike others, I am not going to say anything about her book before I read it.