Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tim Gratz

O'Donnell Did It!

Recommended Posts

From a post by Ron Ecker on another thread:

The SS not only "improperly removed the limousine from Dallas," they improperly removed the body.

I just obtained a copy of Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and was struck by this passage, which depicts the folks on AF1, still on the ground with the body, as criminals desperately trying to make their getaway:

"[Kenny] O'Donnell was certain that official Dallas would protest the kidnaping of the President's body. If they rammed through an order forbidding AF-1 to take off, the authorities could besiege the plane in their zeal to adhere to a local law. They could show up any moment and demand an autopsy. . . . The only way to forestall it, he was sure, was to get the plane the hell out of Dallas before anyone realized what had happened."

If only the authorities had done that, upholding the law, there would never have been a "single bullet theory" or lone nut scenario, and today we might know the whole story.

Ron

(The red above is my emphasis.)

So O'Donnell was instrumental in the earliest part of the cover-up! Surely that makes him a part of the conspiracy.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was O'Donnell who made the final decision that the luncheon would be at the Trade Mart, necessitating that the motorcade go by the TSBD.

According to Tip O'Neill, O'Donnell told him in 1968 that he thought two shots had come from behind the fence. O'Neill reminded him that he didn't tell the WC that. O'Donnell said that the FBI told him that it couldn't have happened that way so he had to have imagined it. O'Donnell said, "So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

That makes two people who wanted to spare Jackie any more trouble. I wonder if they knew each other.

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, I was also aware of those facts, but, of course, it is as ridiculous to suspect O'Donnell as it is to suspect Dillon (the point I was making, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, it is obvious that you are SO obsessed about the Dillon topic that you are attempting to turn this entire forum into a theater of the absurd...otherwise, why so many new threads on O'Donnell, when they ALL could have been contained within ONE?

Methinks thou doth protest too loudly. Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot.

Let's start with the link you posted for Dillon's "biography," which was merely some boilerplate put together for for GHWB's awarding Dillon the Medal of Freedom. Not only does it list that Dillon was Undersecretary of State from 6/12/1959 to 1/4/61 [and the State Department IS, or historically HAS BEEN, the primary cover for the CIA], but the commendation mentions Dillon's involvement with something called the "Mutual Security Program," in both the "military and non-military aspects." Now, I don't know if you're familiar with "governmentspeak," but that sounds to ME as if he was involved with the CIA in a BIG way...and, if the BOP is an indication of CIA ops--or perhaps Guatemala in the 1950's would be a more appropriate comaprison--then Dillon was apparently no stranger to using violence to effect a regime change.

And your basic premise--that friends simply don't kill friends--is flat-out wrong. Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if you recall the headlines. Surely your memory isn't so selective that you don't recall THAT tabloid-sounding headline? Or did Fox News Channel [a/k/a the Bush News Network] not carry that piece?

I repeat...your premise that friends simply don't kill friends doesn't stand up to even LESS-than-rigorous scrutiny. Therefore, your argument on those grounds is invalid.

By the way...I DID find O'Donnell's claim to have run out of film prior to the motorcade's entrance into Dealy Plaza to be quite "convenient," if NOT outright suspicious. Just another in a LONG string of "coincidences," I suppose.

Edited by Mark Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, it is obvious that you are SO obsessed about the Dillon topic that you are attempting to turn this entire forum into a theater of the absurd...otherwise, why so many new threads on O'Donnell, when they ALL could have been contained within ONE?

Methinks thou doth protest too loudly.  Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot.

Let's start with the link you posted for Dillon's "biography," which was merely some boilerplate put together for for GHWB's awarding Dillon the Medal of Freedom.  Not only does it list that Dillon was Undersecretary of State from 6/12/1959 to 1/4/61 [and the State Department IS, or historically HAS BEEN, the primary cover for the CIA], but the commendation mentions Dillon's involvement with something called the "Mutual Security Program," in both the "military and non-military aspects."  Now, I don't know if you're familiar with "governmentspeak," but that sounds to ME as if he was involved with the CIA in a BIG way...and, if the BOP is an indication of CIA ops--or perhaps Guatemala in the 1950's would be a more appropriate comaprison--then Dillon was apparently no stranger to using violence to effect a regime change.

And your basic premise--that friends simply don't kill friends--is flat-out wrong.  Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if you recall the headlines.  Surely your memory isn't so selective that you don't recall THAT tabloid-sounding headline?  Or did Fox News Channel [a/k/a the Bush News Network] not carry that piece?

I repeat...your premise that friends simply don't kill friends doesn't stand up to even LESS-than-rigorous scrutiny.  Therefore, your argument on those grounds is invalid.

By the way...I DID find O'Donnell's claim to have run out of film prior to the motorcade's entrance into Dealy Plaza to be quite "convenient," if NOT outright suspicious.  Just another in a LONG string of "coincidences," I suppose.

Mark,

You're right. This thread is just a big dummy spit by Tim. O'Donnell's not involved.

Otherwise it would be the most bizarre conspiracy in the history of civilisation. (where have I heard that before)

I never knew O'Donnell ran out of film. He also made the final decision on the bubbletop. However, in this matter there's been times when a person who is credited with making a decision is not necessarily the person who made the decision, if you follow. An example, when LBJ badgered RFK into agreeing to an AF1 swearing in, LBJ then began announcing to others that "RFK wants me sworn in before we leave Dallas". On the bubbletop, I've held a slight suspicion that someone may have helped him make that decision. Who would be important enough and close enough to influence O'Donnell ? I realise this is a hypothetical scenario but I would speculate on LBJ-or a proxy. I know I tend to get on LBJ's case but there's just so much circumstantial evidence pointing his way. "Now son, you just leave it to me--it's my home state".

Far more interesting is CDD. Sorry Tim, but he's starting to look a bit ragged around the edges. If research on CDD gets somewhere, some of the credit will belong to you, Tim. Won't that be ironic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is Tim's revenge for me comparing Dillon vs. Castro.

I believe it was Dave Powers who ran out of film and not O'Donnell.

No way in hell were either Powers or O'Donnell part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. They were the loyal buddies Tim is pretending Dillon to be. While I don't believe Dillon was involved in the assassination, I think he is worth investigating, in light of the many strange circumstances involving the SS.

Since his background was in banking, does anyone know of his investments? If he was a big investor in General Dynamics, or Brown and Root, for instance, his involvement might make a little more sense and not sound as improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BELL Heicopter made a remarkable recovery, AFTER the assassination. The brink of bankruptcy to producing thousands of the UH-1 series helicopters - made famous or infamous during the Vietnam war...

I believe Collins Radio, the same?

Dillions personal investments were more than likely, atypical, for the head of a Wall St., company. I suspect the REAL money was in bond creation and trading syndicates. His investment/trading house is what I'd find interesting - say, new public offerings, what issues [stock] were his and other Wall Street firms pushing for the days/weeks, months following the assassination...

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has so graciously reminded me via private message that it was Dave Powers, and NOT Kenny O'Donnell, who was filming from the motorcade...as Pat has pointed out in his post above. I apologize for the error, as it was one made of haste and not of an ignorance of--or willful disregard for--the facts.

Edited by Mark Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, it is obvious that you are SO obsessed about the Dillon topic that you are attempting to turn this entire forum into a theater of the absurd...otherwise, why so many new threads on O'Donnell, when they ALL could have been contained within ONE?

Methinks thou doth protest too loudly.  Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot.

Let's start with the link you posted for Dillon's "biography," which was merely some boilerplate put together for for GHWB's awarding Dillon the Medal of Freedom.  Not only does it list that Dillon was Undersecretary of State from 6/12/1959 to 1/4/61 [and the State Department IS, or historically HAS BEEN, the primary cover for the CIA], but the commendation mentions Dillon's involvement with something called the "Mutual Security Program," in both the "military and non-military aspects."  Now, I don't know if you're familiar with "governmentspeak," but that sounds to ME as if he was involved with the CIA in a BIG way...and, if the BOP is an indication of CIA ops--or perhaps Guatemala in the 1950's would be a more appropriate comaprison--then Dillon was apparently no stranger to using violence to effect a regime change.

And your basic premise--that friends simply don't kill friends--is flat-out wrong.  Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if you recall the headlines.  Surely your memory isn't so selective that you don't recall THAT tabloid-sounding headline?  Or did Fox News Channel [a/k/a the Bush News Network] not carry that piece?

I repeat...your premise that friends simply don't kill friends doesn't stand up to even LESS-than-rigorous scrutiny.  Therefore, your argument on those grounds is invalid.

By the way...I DID find O'Donnell's claim to have run out of film prior to the motorcade's entrance into Dealy Plaza to be quite "convenient," if NOT outright suspicious.  Just another in a LONG string of "coincidences," I suppose.

Although I have long put Tim on ignore I can read his quotes in the rest of the members posts and I would like to address the word "friends". I personally think you have to look at the lifestyle and occupation of the two people (Dillon/Kennedy) before you call them friends in the sense of the word that most of the members of this forum would use. These men are beuracrats and politicians. Most people of this type are driven by power and the only thing that satisfies them is more, so if they think hanging with the prez socially will garner them power they will do it. They will also have their wives hang with the presidents wife if that will keep them in the good graces. Are these actions sincere and acts of true friendship or just opportunistic networking. I personally dont think it qualifies as true friendship. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BELL Heicopter made a remarkable recovery, AFTER the assassination. The brink of bankruptcy to producing thousands of the UH-1 series helicopters - made famous or infamous during the Vietnam war...

I believe Collins Radio, the same?

Dillions personal investments were more than likely, atypical, for the head of a Wall St., company. I suspect the REAL money was in bond creation and trading syndicates. His investment/trading house is what I'd find interesting - say, new public offerings, what issues [stock] were his and other Wall Street firms pushing for the days/weeks, months following the assassination...

His investment/trading house is what I'd find interesting - say, new public offerings, what issues [stock] were his and other Wall Street firms pushing for the days/weeks, months following the assassination...

Especially, if a connection could be made to Sullivan and Cromwell...but then again, I'm possibly grasping at straws to even allow a thought like that to enter my mind, right? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Knight wrote:

Methinks thou doth protest too loudly. Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot.

Mark, this presupposes I would have some knowledge that Dillon did it. Why can you not accept the obvious that I am simply enraged that someone who fathoms himself a right-thinking liberal would accuse a close friend of JFK of being among his killers. It has nothing to do withn Dillon's party affiliation, I can assure you. As noted in a previos post, Dillon went "squishy soft" in the Ex Com meetings over the CMC, which facilitated a blocade rather than an invasion. Had JFK taken care of Fidel once and for all in October of 1962 (the missiles sure gave him the opportunity) he would probably be alive now, watching his son as president (this is true whether JFK was killed by Fidel or by anti-Castro Cubans).

I would be equally enraged if someone seriously claimed that O'Donnell did it (or Sorenson). Maybe Sorenson was upset with JFK's betrayal of Jackie. ANYTHING is possible. But speculation does nothing to advance assassination research.

Reminds me of the midevil theologians who would speculate how many angels could sit on a pin. Accomplishes nothing but waste time and divert attention from other lines of inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medieval, Tim.

While I agree with your point that Dillon was almost assuredly innocent, the point you seem to be missing is that Castro was also almost assuredly innocent. Instead, you adopt this he's guilty until proven innocent attitude like an attack dog with a mailman's butt in his mouth. Let go, Tim. I believe your hatred of Castro has blinded you to the fact that the evidence against him is ALL speculative and hazy. I'll grant you that the evidence against Dillon is equally hazy, and perhaps even more speculative. But your contention that looking into Dillon is a distraction while looking into Castro is worthwhile is 100% incorrect. While the CIA, FBI, WC, and the HSCA all looked into Castro, and found little of substance, none of them looked into Dillon. Couldn't it be, Tim, that the reason no other suspects were identified beyond Oswald is that the previous investigations were looking in the wrong direction? Keep an open mind, my friend. You can tell people you think they are mistaken without insinuating that you consider them idiotic and un-American. I know you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Stapleton wrote (replying to Mark Knight):

You're right. This thread is just a big dummy spit by Tim. O'Donnell's not involved.

Otherwise it would be the most bizarre conspiracy in the history of civilisation. (where have I heard that before)

Well I can state with equal certainty that Dillon was not involved.

Why do you say O'Donnell was not involved? Because he was JFK's friend? As Pat wrote, the friendship excludes O'Donnell as a suspect. Pat just thinks Dillon was not a true friend of JFK. On what basis, the Lord only knows.

Mark also wrote:

Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if

Well, let's see. . . no evidence Dillon killed JFK to get Jackie. And no evidence Dillon killed JFK because JFK was messin' with Mrs. Dillon.

To get the job? What job? Certainly not the presidency. He already had a high-ranking Cabinet job, compliments of JFK. If anything, he stood to LOSE his job with a change of administration.

Wait! I got it now! It's the cheerleader angle! Remember Murchison, rich oil man and owner of the Dallas Cowboys! Well, I guess Dillon had a deal with Murchison. If Dillon would order the secret service agents to get drunk, and order Greer to brake at the first shot, then Murchison promised Dillon his daughter would one of the first Dallaw Cowboy cheerleaders!

All speculation, but what else do most of the members do here anyway?

So Dillon did it for his daughter!

(Oops! Research concluded Dillon had no children!)

So he had no reason to kill his friend.

Sorry, gentlemen, this dog won't hunt!

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, you are leading me to believe that you are apparently not as mentally sharp as I initially gave you credit for being...or else you have an ulterior motive. When I was stating reasons that a friend would kill a friend, I was using common examples, and not compiling a list of the only reasons that such murders occur.

That you are unwilling to grasp that point shows that you are unwilling to explore avenues that were unresearched before [closed-minded], apparently as much so as the Warren Commission was.

I realize that, as a lawyer, YOU are trained to fight for your client, as opposed to actually seeking the truth. As for the REST of us here, I'd venture to say that most of us HAVE no case to prove; rather, we ARE seeking the truth.

Again, I doubt Dillon's complicity in the assassination...primarily due to the fact that, as the head of the Treasury Department, he simply considered himself above the mundane details of the day-to-day operations of one little corner of his department [secret Service], instead trusting his subordinates to do their jobs and to make sure nothing they did reflected badly upon the Secretary.

Sometimes, I wish you showed as much indignation regarding other "suspects" as you do Dillon...it would make your position a lot more defensible, in my opinion. As it is, you make me suspicious that you might even be RELATED to Dillon, as your "righteous indignation" is disproportionate to the level at which most of us view the odds of Dillon's alleged complicity [virtually nil]. Those of us who DO doubt that any conspiracy included Dillon still don't have ironclad proof that totally exonerates him...so it's my suggestion that we SEEK OUT that evidence, rather than attempt to quash any investigation that MIGHT reveal the truth. I believe that, once the evidence is gathered and examined, Dillon WILL be found guiltless; but it would be intellectually dishonest of me--or anyone else who is seeking the truth--to cry "foul!" whenever anyone suggests we look at the evidence in more than simply a perfunctory glance.

Edited by Mark Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×