1967 Debate: Mark Lane vs. Wesley Liebeler

[David Von Pein]

It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing.

More smelly garbage from DiEugenio---proving nothing.

"Troika". and .

And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work.

Hoover's agents at the FBI did a lot of the work, yes. But the WC staff and counsel did tons of investigative work on their own too. ....

"And the Commission didn't limit itself to taking testimony, which would alone immunize it from the total-reliance-on-the-FBI argument. Its staff went beyond this, going out into the field, mostly in Dallas. Assistant Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball said, "As lawyers, we investigated the case thoroughly. We got some leads as to who to talk to from the FBI. But we went into the field, we talked to every witness that we reported on. We took depositions. We took people before the Commission. We handled this like we would handle...any lawsuit." "

-- Pages 333-334 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

Edited August 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

LOL, ha ha.

Davey has not even read the Warren Report. That is how rudderless he is. So he just walks into punch after punch, sort of like Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke.

In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963 the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews..and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous, only in the pages of RH could it exist. We know the senior counsel did little and most left early since they were losing money. How many JC were there, maybe seven? The rest were staffers who barely left the building. And that little group was going to equal the scores of agents Hoover had on this case?

Tell me another one.

VB added that in his book for one reason. By the time he started work on the volume, it had become common knowledge that Hoover was a public embarrassment. And VInce's former writing partner, Curt Gentry, had written one of the most coruscating exposes on the blackmailing adder, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets. Which I am sure that in his prodigious research on this case, DVP has had to have read and taken copious notes on.

Therefore, Vince--and the WC guys he interviewed-- understood that to admit that Hoover had done the vast majority of investigative work for them would be sort of like shooting themselves in the foot. Because, not only has Hoover's staunch civil servant image been leveled, but his hatred of the Kennedys had also been well publicized. As was his closeness with LBJ.

So connect the dots.

Then add in the evidence that surfaced later that Oswald was an FBI informant.

Now what proves this out of course is this: Back in 1964, before all the exposes had become public knowledge, the WC advertised how close they were to the FBI, the work they did, and they invited Hoover to testify before them. Today, with all this info out there, they run from it.

As does Davey.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963 the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews...and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous only in the pages of RH could it exist.

I never said the FBI didn't do a whole lot of work on the Kennedy case. I'm just pointing out that the WC staff ALSO did a lot of investigating too.

And Vince Bugliosi never suggested that the Commission's investigative work actually surpassed that of the FBI's input either. Vince, in fact, was always trotting out the "25,000 FBI interviews" fact during his radio interviews. And, of course, Bugliosi highlights that figure in the Introduction section of "Reclaiming History" as well....

"The FBI alone (there were also companion investigations of the assassination by other agencies) conducted an unprecedented 25,000 interviews as the investigative arm of the Warren Commission, and submitted 2,300 separate reports. Eighty additional FBI agents were ordered into the Dallas area alone, and a great many more agents around the country worked on various parts of the case. A total of 3,154 items of evidence were introduced before the Commission in its investigation of the assassination." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page xxxiii of "RH"

Edited August 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, VInce was caught between a rock and a hard place on Hoover. He did not want to admit all the awful things attributed to the man today. He knew that would seriously compromise the WC's performance. So what he does is soft-pedal--and that is being kind --his whole portrait of Hoover and what he did for the WC.

In Reclaiming Parkland, I strongly criticize Vince for this. For example, Vince does not print what some of the Commissioners themselves said about Hoover e.g. Hale Boggs. Therefore, I had to correct this lack of candor. In my chapter on Vince's treatment of the FBI and Hoover I subhead one of the sections, "The Horrendous History of an Ogre"; and I go ahead and inform the reader of the godawful things Hoover did which, for political and polemical reasons, Vince did not want to tell his readers about.

I interviewed former FBI agent Bill Turner on this issue. Let me quote what he said to me from RP (p. 219):

"The thing that struck Turner as being so bad about Hoover's JFK investigation was that individual leads were not followed to their ultimate conclusion. As he described it, there were three main steps in any FBI inquiry: 1.) Collection of all pertinent leads 2.) the following out of all leads to their ultimate end 3.) Collating of all information garnered into a complete and accurate report.

Turner said that without the second phase, the third phase was not really possible. And that is what he found so appalling about the FBI report on JFK. To him, it was so apparent that step two had been systematically and rigorously circumvented that there had to have been interference from above. FBI agents just did not proceed like that unless they were advised to do so."

This was later certified by the late FBI agent Don Adams in his book. After watching the Zapruder film in Dallas, he told his fellow FBI agents: well its obvious he was hit from two directions. They told him, heck we know that but that is not what HQ wants us to write about.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

Davey,

Maybe you also forgot about the meeting Ball had with Redlich as related in Inquest?

Some of the staff were a little wiser than you. (Which isn't hard to be.)

They did not want to use witnesses as bad as Brennan, Marina, and Markham. (Which is what Liebeler also objected to in his memo. You have read that, have you not?)

Same thing happened here as what happened to Liebeler. They got overruled. That's the real world Davey. I mean do you let the employees run your KFC? Do they set the prices and policies?

BTW, Redlich, who actually wrote a large part of the final report, actually said to Liebeler, "I work for the Commission and they want it in."

Now, who was the Commission? It was the Troika plus Warren. Because Willens in his dairy related a story about getting the opinion from Dulles and Warren on an issue, and then writing that he had to now get the opinion of the "other two commissioners." Two, Howard? Should that not have been five?

He gave the game away. Its like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, With Warren for window dressing. That is who Redlich was working for. And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work. Some line up eh?

Davey, please quit or I am going to call the referee over to stop it.

um.

KFC?

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

You weren't aware that Davey runs a KFC in, I think its Mooresville, Indianna.

That is what I was referring to.

[Glenn Nall]

i see.

i was being tactful.

i think i understand him a bit more, now.

...i love their chicken.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

I have to comment on him calling the concept of the Troika of Dulles, McCloy and Ford as controlling the WC, "smelly garbage".

See, if one goes through all the testimony in the 26 volumes and sees who was there as each witness testified before the actual commission, one will note that there were certain commissioners who are in attendance with frequency and others who are not so frequent.

Sylvia Meagher first noticed this back in 1967. She noted that Richard Russell was not there very much at all. And therefore, we looked at that record with chagrin. And Bugliosi goes after him on this account. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 257)

We should not have. Russell actually figured out that the whole thing was a dog and pony show quite early. In fact, even Burt Griffin testified to the HSCA that Russell's ideas of an investigation were different than the WC--which was essentially a reliance on the FBI. (ibid) So what he did was essentially a boycott of the Commission. This was never more evident than when he, Boggs and Cooper--what I call the Southern Wing--decided to reinterview Marina Oswald--and the Troika did not show up: that is Ford, Dulles and McCloy. Why? Because as can be seen by the questioning, in large part, the Southern Wing did not buy Marina.

Russell even composed a letter of resignation, which he did not send. In that letter, he complained that the Commission "has been scheduling holding, and canceling meetings without notifying him." (Ibid, p. 258) This important material is all absent from Bugliosi's book.

And need I add what happened at the final Executive Session hearing? Knowing Russell, and likely Cooper and Boggs, were going to object to the SBT, the Troika, and Warren decided to trick him. They had a girl there posing as a stenographer, but she was not from the steno company, who's contract had expired a week before. So there is no stenographic record of this meeting or Russell's objection. (ibid) Let me add, the gymnastics that Bugliosi pulls to camouflage what happened here--he couldn't ignore it-- is truly a sight to behold. Nadia Comenici would have been proud of his balancing act performance.

It was not until years later that Harold Weisberg alerted Russell to this bit of treachery. And this is what started Russell in expressing his objections in public.

Smelly garbage? Yep that is what the Warren Commission was.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

maybe, but i bet his bottom wasn't as cute as hers.

[James DiEugenio]

The evidence for the Troika controlling things is simply overwhelming.

As adduced by Walt Brown in his valuable book, The Warren Omission, the man who attend the most meetings of the Commission was Dulles. And the member who posed the most questions was Dulles.

After putting together a matrix, Brown concluded that Dulles, Ford and McCloy asked nearly 70% of the questions. Which is astonishing considering its only three men, and recall, the questioning was incredibly pointless.

Now, the Southern Wing attended only 63 full hearings, less than 25% of the total. They also asked less than 25% of the questions. (RP, pgs. 256-57)

From those figures, its pretty obvious who controlled the WC. And why the Troika did not go along with Russell's excursion into questioning Marina as a hostile witness, and why they wanted no stenographic record of the last meeting.

These are simply facts. Label them what you wish.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

I've been thinking about this diary.

DVP wields a sword he calls "evidence". In the law, where "evidence" is defined rigorously, evidence can be a mighty sword. How mighty is determined by the jury in a jury trial. In a jury trial, the judge determines the law, the jury determines the facts.

I'd like nothing more than to argue with DVP here. But I can't. Because I know the law's definition of "evidence" but I don't know DVP's definition. So argument is not possible, because a key word lacks agreed definition.

Calling DVP, for a definition.

BTW, KFC? C'mon, David. I ate that stuff 37 years ago in Indianapolis. It was OK. Today, in Connecticut, I want organic, grass-fed, humanely-raised meat. Get with the program. It will serve you well with aging Baby Boomers.

[James DiEugenio]

Jon: Because I know the law's definition of "evidence" but I don't know DVP's definition.

Easy, if the WC or Vince Bugliosi says it, then to DVP, its evidence. Don't worry about its authenticity, its origin or its chain of custody, or even a differing description.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

yes, what Jim said. he does not and will not adhere to the accepted, standard definition of 'evidence', in its most liberal sense. Jon is correct in saying that the reason reason is impossible with him is that he refuses to even allow for an agreed upon constant. His definition of "evidence" is so far from the norm that reason is not possible - his definition of "reason" is even under suspicion, and I'm not trying to be funny. his intent to avoid both is obvious and vital to the maintenance of his theory.

this is crucial: IF HE CHOSE TO finally accept either, as i stated before, he KNOWS that he would then be forced into a corner from which there is but ONE way out.

he knows this. He will deny it, he will even pretend to be dumb (he is not, as we all know), in order to avoid facing the hard truth. Pride is obviously much more important to him than truth.

and for the record, KFC is still my favorite chicken on the planet (I'm from Atlanta).

Edited August 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[David Von Pein]

You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

I ask: Is that a reasonable thing to believe? Especially when the evidence was collected by MULTIPLE agencies and was found in MULTIPLE places (TSBD, Parkland, and the limo itself).

Get real. (CTers are anything but. Real, that is.)

And I suppose Vince B. is just lying some more when he said this on page 442 of the Endnotes (on the CD-ROM) in "Reclaiming History"....

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the evidence to Oswald's actions in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.

Edited August 2, 2015 by David Von Pein