The Warren Commission

[Glenn Viklund]

Let's make this very straight forward:

Did the Warren Commission perpetrate a cover-up?

!) Yes? About what?

2) Is the implication that they knew there was something fishy going on?

3) If so - what - exactly - were they aware of?

No doubt I would extend these questions. A fair approach of those who oppose this view would be to prove me otherwise - right?

In my view it's essential to sort out what the WC knew or did not know. What they were hiding and what the reasons for such an action might have been.

And yes, please don't give me that old crap about Dulles. I'm well aware of his hiding certain facts from the commission and more.

My question today, is this:

Did the WC knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

One simple question.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Mark Knight]

Any "investigative body" that refuses to view the autopsy materials of the murder they are investigating would certainly give the appearance that they were not concerned with discovering the truth. It would then beg the question, "WHY were they not concerned with discovering the truth?" [Of course, why they would refer to a cardboard "representation" of a survey of Dealy Plaza, when they had the ACTUAL SURVEY in their possession, is also a mystery.]

And one possible answer is that they were knowingly covering up something. Whether that was or was not a conspiracy is where the debate begins.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Mark Knight

[Glenn Viklund]

Any "investigative body" that refuses to view the autopsy materials of the murder they are investigating would certainly give the appearance that they were not concerned with discovering the truth.

Agreed, which is one of ,my basic points.

It would then beg the question, "WHY were they not concerned with discovering the truth?"

This is one of the most important questions; did they, or did they not hide the knowledge of a conspiracy?

[Of course, why they would refer to a cardboard "representation" of a survey of Dealy Plaza, when they had the ACTUAL SURVEY in their possession, is also a mystery.]

And one possible answer is that they were knowingly covering up something.

Agreed.

Whether that was or was not a conspiracy is where the debate begins.

I could not agree more, Whether one believe in a conspiracy or not; this is another of the holy grail's?

Edit: spelling errors.

Let's see where this discussion takes us, and thanks for your views.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

This is what I mean about this guy. His knowledge base is so limited.

The idea that there was a so called monolithic "Warren Commission" is ridiculous.

The Warren Commission was made up of three separate factors, which all contributed to it being a set up.

1.) Because of the CIA's BS story about Oswald and Kostikov in Mexico City, LBJ intimidated the hell out of Warren. Therefore at the first meeting, this guy did not really want to do anything regarding an inquiry at all. He just wanted to forestall World War III.

2.) IF one looks at Walt Brown's valuable book, The Warren Omission, the three people who controlled the procedure overwhelmingly were Dulles, Ford and McCLoy. Who I call the Troika. Boggs, Cooper, and Russell--the last was by far the most honest guy there--were marginalized. They strongly suspected something was going on, as is exhibited by their withering cross examination of Marina in Volume five. This is why all three of these guys turned and discarded the results within about four years.

3.) The overwhelming amount of data issued to the Commission was by Hoover. And Hoover had decided Oswald did it on the first day. And Saturday he was at the race track. Therefore, as several FBI agents have said, reports were rewritten, some were discarded, and in a couple of weeks everyone got the message that Hoover wanted an Oswald did it verdict.

Hoover himself admitted this in the sumer of 1964 when a wealthy friend of his in California asked him what had happened. He said, "You don't want to know."

And seven weeks later, he himself noted on a document marginalia that the CIA had sold him a snowjob about Mexico City.

And so Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford wrote the obituary for JFK. And Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway.

Jim,

For someone being not worthy or you attention, it is amazing how you repeatedly cannot stay out of my views. (You are making straw man after straw man but that's an issue for another day).

And since you are blathering, let me raise the question once again:

Did the WC knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

One simple question, Jim?

[Pat Speer]

As someone who's studied the writings of the Warren Commission and its counsel more than most, I would concede that it's not clear if the Warren Commission, as an entity, KNEW that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. I would even concede that the majority of its members PROBABLY believed Oswald had acted alone.

By the same token, however, it's incredibly clear they investigated the case in such a way that the outcome of their investigation was a foregone conclusion, and that they did their best to make sure their work was not re-investigated for another 15 years, by which time the trail had gone cold.

While it's possible this was a reflection of their fear the "truth" would come out, it seems equally likely this was a reflection of the sad fact that many of these men saw their experience on the commission as a feather in their cap, and a gold star on their resume, and were more concerned about their reputations than the truth.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Viklund]

As someone who's studied the writings of the Warren Commission and its counsel more than most, I would concede that it's not clear if the Warren Commission, as an entity, KNEW that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. I would even concede that the majority of its members PROBABLY believed Oswald had acted alone.

Well, that's where the entire basic for a cover-up starts, isn't it?

By the same token, however, it's incredibly clear they investigated the case in such a way that the outcome of their investigation was a foregone conclusion, and that they did their best to make sure their work was not re-investigated for another 15 years, by which time the trail had gone cold.

Yes, absolutely.

But the whole point of this excercise is to vet argument of why the WC were doing a poor job.

While it's possible this was a reflection of their fear the "truth" would come out, it seems equally likely this was was a reflection of the sad fact that many of these men saw their experience on the commission as a feather in their cap, and a gold star on their resume, and were in denial about its true nature.

It is a mountain of difference dependant of these answers, in my opinion, here.

Thanks Pat, for your input here.

[Glenn Viklund]

PS: As someone who's studied the writings of the Warren Commission and its counsel more than most, I would concede that it's not clear if the Warren Commission, as an entity, KNEW that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. I would even concede that the majority of its members PROBABLY believed Oswald had acted alone.

By mid December the outline was in.

Well, based on the Hoover Report.

THey had decided Oswald did it according to Rankin's investigative outline.

You are speculating - they were nowhere near a decision in 12/63

And after that, there was no inquiry since Hoover controlled almost all the info going to them. By their own estimates about 85 per cent.

Possibly agreed.

And if you read the hearings you will see, that in all the off the record stuff revealed later, and in the leading questions, they understood where they were going at the outset. I mean just look at Specter's leading questions about the SBT. Sickening. OR what Dulles did to Perry.

Yes, but what was the reason for that?

Therefore, with this agenda, and with people like ELmer Moore softening up the Dallas doctors, and Specter doing the same with the pathologists, and discrediting SIbert and O'Neill to Rankin, then it was a set up. ANd it was set up before the first witness was called.

Now your making outrageous conclusions. That's pure speculation on your part.

And who was the first witness: Marina. Who now changed her story about Mexico City due to a mysterious company named Tex Italia signing a deal with her worth 132, 500 dollars. Or about 400 G's today.

Again You're speculating. Marinas first testimony should normally be the most thrustworthy.

So did they know they were participating in a cover up?

BS. That's your interpretation, nothing more.

Undoubtedly.

Rubbish. prove it!

And Warren said words to this effect at a staff meeting.

So?

ANd Liebeler repeated it to Sylvia Odio.

Hua, hua...

You will not get away with these weak arguments, period. Heck Jim, you are just making up arguments as you go along, are you not??

Edited June 12, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Patrick Block]

It is a little unfair to treat a group of men as an entity, but certainly by the time the Commission published, everyone aboard knew that they hadn't "investigated" anything. They were rubber stamping the Government's official verdict. No one believed it was true.

And I would disagree slightly with Mr. DiEugenio's assessment that it was Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford that wrote JFK's obituary. That fictional epitaph was written by the CIA, who tossed in into the lap of J. Edgar Hoover before the assassination without him even being aware of it. He then tossed the treasonous football to President Johnson, who passed it to Earl Warren, et al.

I think it is that tale of Mexico that is the key to understanding why so many people lied so very easily in a great, patriotic path of incredible fibs and altered and destroyed evidence. Everyone who needed to be told were advised that the Soviets were behind it, that WWIII was lurking in Dealy Plaza, so do your duty and purjure yourself for your country.

And so many did.

Follow that same tale of spies and assassins back the other direction, friends, and it leads to those who actually concocted the plot, which was a work of very dark genius of the domestic variety.

Since the chapters of the Warren Report were decided on so very early in the Commission's existance, it seems clear to me that there never was any intention of looking for who did the deed. The WC's purpose was to make sure the world bought the unlikely left-leaning patsy as killer of left leaning liberal Presidents.

From the start, it was a ridiculous task. Each of those men knew that the conservative right hated JFK. One of them knew perfectly well who the real assassins actually were. One has to believe Dulles was aboard specifically to make sure that the most honest amongst them, the ailing Russell, wouldn't decide to get wise and actually look.

At the end Russell refused to sign the damned thing, so, the rest of the bunch lied even to their own comrade, in order to get him to set his name on that pile of refuse.

That's how rotten the whole mess was.

[Glenn Viklund]

"I knew you knew all this Glenn. No need to thank me for enlightening you."

Hehe, Jim that's very good, indeed humorous - now, unfortunatelaty I am far less sure you view it as such. :-)

Now:

"He told them the circumstances under which he accepted the job. Warren admitted he had declined the position on grounds the Supreme Court should not be involved in such things. Johnson then called him in. Johnson then said "rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the GOvernment wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. [if LBJ told him this, it was left out of other renditions by LBJ and Warren.] Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives. NO one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that his was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles." (italics added.)"

Well, I can't vouch for the authenticity of all of that

However - I've read, studied and heard similar stories. Fair enough. You see JIm, it's the interpretation of those stories where I suspect you and I are making vastly different conclusions. On your part it seems they all knew there was a conspiracy."

And:

""The Chief Justice then discussed the role of the Commission. He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth whatever that might be."

Tell me Jim, just exactly what conclusions do you make of this? Please be specific?

BTW, it is not true that the Commission did not have the medical evidence. This is another canard used by WC apologists in order to sometimes deflect blame onto the Kennedys.

Agreed. The important thing is what conclusions are to be made of this?

For Rankin refers to seeing a picture of the back wound, coming in too low to exit the neck. He actually uses those words to that effect. At this meeting, McCloy asked about these exhibits, and Rankin said they had them in a special room. So this is part of the conscious cover up of a cover up.

And, accordingly - the one and only conclusion - again - is that Rankin was lying and part of The Cover Up of the Century? Knowing that LHO was innocent and that the whole bunch of lawyers, top dogs and the the rest were "lying in the know" of a conspiracy? That's what you're saying here Jim?

"Finally, what could be more compelling than the fraud perpetrated on RIchard Russell at the last meeting? Knowing he was going to lead a dissent against the SBT for the Southern Wing, Rankin hired a stand in to pose as the stenographer, when in fact, they deliberately did not record this debate! This is what I mean about the WC not being a monolith. It was so bad that Russell actually wrote a letter of resignation since he understood he was being marginalized since they knew he was not buying the cover up. This is why he commissioned his own investigation

.Yes, I agree that was a shame. Again - what does it prove?? You are speculating about the interpretations of this. That's all. And you are - in my view - and as usual - far out in the terrain with those speculations of yours. Or else, prove it JIm!

Etc, Etc. It's just more blather and speculation on your part.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Don Jeffries]

As Harold Weisberg stressed so often in his books, the actual work of the Commission was done by the staff. Of the staff, Arlen Specter, David Belin and Wesley Liebeler were especially active; Specter was primarily responsible for the actual writing of the Report. The Commission members themselves heard very little of the testimony. So, it is theoretically possible that Earl Warren and co. didn't understand the fraud they were perpetrating on the American people, although Warren and Ford's performance while Jack Ruby pleaded to be taken to Washington to testify certainly didn't make them look good.

Whoever was tasked with doing the investigating, didn't do any. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the Commission's work was divided into several areas, such as Oswald's background; where, he asked, was the area called "Who killed JFK?" The Commission never entertained the possibility that Oswald wasn't the assassin. The only "conspiracy" they would have looked at would have been one involving the assassin Oswald and his possible confederates.

The authorities had solid evidence that someone resembling Oswald was seen running to a Rambler moments after the assassination; there were five witnesses who independently testified to this. They simply ignored this kind of productive lead, and instead built an implausible scenario using witnesses who would have been laughed out of court. They tracked down one woman who had never interacted with or even met Oswald, and deposed her for several pages of meaningless testimony. Meanwhile, this same crack staff somehow neglected to call the most crucial witnesses imaginable, the most obvious ones like Admiral Burkley. This simply cannot be attributed to incompetence. Instead, it strongly indicates a willful suppression of the truth.

As the early critics showed so clearly, the Commission's own record completely contradicts its conclusions. One need not do anything else but sift through the official record to prove there was a conspiracy.

[Glenn Viklund]

As Harold Weisberg stressed so often in his books, the actual work of the Commission was done by the staff. Of the staff, Arlen Specter, David Belin and Wesley Liebeler were especially active; Specter was primarily responsible for the actual writing of the Report.

Yup. someone's got to do it?

The Commission members themselves heard very little of the testimony.

Again, yes.

So, it is theoretically possible that Earl Warren and co. didn't understand the fraud they were perpetrating on the American people,

Theoretiacally? If you, or anyone else here, have any indications of otherwise - yes that could be a game changer as far as I'm concerned.

although Warren and Ford's performance while Jack Ruby pleaded to be taken to Washington to testify certainly didn't make them look good.

Well, I'd probably agree with you, but so what?

Whoever was tasked with doing the investigating, didn't do any. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the Commission's work was divided into several areas, such as Oswald's background; where, he asked, was the area called "Who killed JFK?"

Yes, which again - and since it proves (as we know in Sweden about the unsolved ass, of our PM in 1986) that bureaucrats should stay out o criminal investigations?

The Commission never entertained the possibility that Oswald wasn't the assassin. The only "conspiracy" they would have looked at would have been one involving the assassin Oswald and his possible confederates.

Oh, I'm not defending the WC as being complete or having given the answers. Don, again, that's why I'm here..

The authorities had solid evidence that someone resembling Oswald was seen running to a Rambler moments after the assassination; there were five witnesses who independently testified to this.

Lots of speculation and selectiveness among witnesses about that...

They simply ignored this kind of productive lead, and instead built an implausible scenario using witnesses who would have been laughed out of court. They tracked down one woman who had never interacted with or even met Oswald, and deposed her for several pages of meaningless testimony. Meanwhile, this same crack staff somehow neglected to call the most crucial witnesses imaginable, the most obvious ones like Admiral Burkley. This simply cannot be attributed to incompetence. Instead, it strongly indicates a willful suppression of the truth.

Well, I can possibly agree, but what would be the reason for this behavior?

As the early critics showed so clearly, the Commission's own record completely contradicts its conclusions. One need not do anything else but sift through the official record to prove there was a conspiracy.

That's a matter of interpretation - it was not a slam dunk at that stage, certainly not.

Thanks Don for your input here.

[Glenn Viklund]

Jim DiEugenio:

"And so Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford wrote the obituary for JFK. And Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway. "

This is something that you made up yourself - as we economists say - out of thin air?

Right? No proof, no documentation, not phone calls, no witnesses etc. No nothing, right?

I noticed your claim a couple of days ago. And still you are avoiding Fetzer and his outrageous positions?

Jim, go back to the drawing board and think again - this will do you a huge favor, I believe.

[Mark Knight]

I think Jim DiEugenio was misconstruing something I said earlier. I didn't say that the Warren Commission didn't HAVE access to the autopsy materials; I stated that they refused to LOOK at the materials when they had them. And the Warren Commission I'm referring to were the men whose signatures went on the report...not the investigators who were hired by the commission. The men who actually wrote the report simply found the conclusions they were told to find.

I'm not saying they covered up a conspiracy; I'm saying that if the evidence pointed toward conspiracy, they simply didn't want to hear of it. And that goes for the investigators as well as the actual Warren Commission.

[David Von Pein]

Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway.

Something that conspiracy zealots like DiEugenio always totally ignore when discussing the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory is Warren Commission Exhibit 903, which is a photo that proves for all time that the Warren Commission (including Mr. Ford) did not need JFK's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the neck of the President.

And the above statement is a fact regardless of any changing of the wording associated with the location of the back wound that was done by Gerald Ford.

CE903 has the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck". And, furthermore, any "raising" of the wound up into the neck wouldn't have strengthened the WC's SBT, it would have destroyed it.

I wonder why more CTers haven't figured this one out yet? I guess they're still too much in love with the idea that Gerry Ford did something sinister and underhanded, even though by taking just one quick glance at CE903, we can see that the SBT works perfectly with the wound just where it is in the autopsy photo -- the upper back, not the neck.

And, yes, I have seen the "opposite angle" pictures of Specter holding his pointer too, and have commented on those pictures HERE.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Edited June 12, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Viklund]

I think Jim DiEugenio was misconstruing something I said earlier. I didn't say that the Warren Commission didn't HAVE access to the autopsy materials; I stated that they refused to LOOK at the materials when they had them. And the Warren Commission I'm referring to were the men whose signatures went on the report...not the investigators who were hired by the commission. The men who actually wrote the report simply found the conclusions they were told to find.

I'm not saying they covered up a conspiracy; I'm saying that if the evidence pointed toward conspiracy, they simply didn't want to hear of it. And that goes for the investigators as well as the actual Warren Commission.

Mark,

The WC - as an entity - wanted to see those photos. Earl Warren himself though, made an agreement with the Kennedys that he was gone be the only one to see them. This was just another peculiarity of those times (I believe) ; nothing of this was based in law, constitution or such. It was all about the Royal Family of the US.