Who killed JFK?

[Stuart Wexler]

Hi all,

First let me say that I believe we have a lot to learn, and that while I'm rather well convinced in my own mind of what happened, I'd be hard pressed to prove it or convince someone else. So here goes:

I believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy involving exiles (the primary movers), the mafia and some rogue CIA guys (most notably Morales). I believe that the plot to kill Castro was turned against Kennedy starting in early October of 1963, after the plotters failed to insert Oswald into Cuba (at which point they would have attempted to frame him for the murder of Castro.) I believe that Oswald had actually tripped over several intelligence "wires" including an RFK attempt to kill Castro. I believe that much of what we see prior to September of 1963 was Oswald being manipulated into an RFK-sponsored *Castro* plot. I believe that Larry Hancock has come the closest I have seen to reflecting my views of the case. The ultimate goal of the plot was to incite an invasion of Cuba. The plot failed largely because it was too convincing: higher ups were convinced that Castro was behind the plot, and engineered a massive cover-up. Others covered up for selfish reasons; the FBI because Oswald was an informant; the Secret Service because they bungled advanced warning reports; the CIA as an institution because Oswald had been manipulated by them before; RFK because he now was confronted with the idea of blowback.

-Stu

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. The assassination was a well planned as well as well executed event.

2. All shots fired in the assassination* came from the sixth floor window of the TSDB.

3. LHO was either the actual assassin, or else was the designated "rabbit" who was to be chased.

Either way, he was in on it up to his "A".

4. The WC is an intentional lie and obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination.

This lie has absolutely nothing to do with the actual event, and is directly related to political matters.

Attempting to correlate the WC investigation in with the actual event has lead many persons down the completely incorrect trail/path/road.

5. Those items which appear to have lead directly to the final decision to eliminate JFK, appear to center around the following:

a. Integration of Tulane University

b. The Bay of Pigs

c. "Turn-a-round" as regards Fidel Castro's position, negotiations with Castro, and thereafter progressive elimination of those who continued to operate from US soil and fostered anti-Castro raids, etc;.

d. Airplanes----------

e. Loss of property & assets in Cuba.

*All shots which struck any of the occupants of the Presidential Limousine were fired from the sixth floor position, and from a single rifle.

One can not "disprove" that there were not from 1 to 15 other shooters in Dealy Plaza.

However, if there, none of their shots struck anyone within the Presidential Limousine.

[Dennis D. David]

I am certain that I received the body of JFK, in a plain shipping casket, at approximately 1840 hrs. I know I typed a memo describing four pieces of lead that were removed from JFK's head during the autopsy. I know I saw photographs and a film of the autopsy on Monday, November 25. I know that the ambulance with Mrs. Kennedy and a fancy bronze casket, allegedly containing JFK's body, arrived nearly 30 minutes after I and my crew took the shipping casket into the anteroom of the morgue.

WHY he was killed I can only speculate. 1. He wanted to get us out of Viet Nam. 2. He indicated a desire to reduce the oil depletion allowance, a lucrative benefit enjoyed by oil millionaires. 3. He made signs of returning the dollar to a silver standard, which would have played a little havoc with some banking interests. 4. I believe J. Edgar Hoover did not want to retire. 5. I believe a power-hungry LBJ wanted to be President and knew he would never make it as long as JFK and RFK were alive. 6. I believe there were a number of powerful people who blamed JFK for the Bay of Pigs and wanted revenge. 7. RFK's pursuit of the criminal elements in our society, I believe, gave them incentive to seek revenge.

These are just my own personal thoughts, nothing I can prove.

[Nick Bartetzko]

Like most of you, I've read many books and spent many years studying this terrible lie of American history. I'll give my general thoughts and opinions from memory and not list specific references. It would take many, many hours to do so. I have no idea who organized it, but there are many connections that point to New Orleans. Bob Tannenbaum discussed this and his lead investigator who went to NO came to the same conclusion. Professor Kurtz commented on this also and mentioned the Bannister, LHO, Ferrie connection. Then we have Shaw as well. David Phillips was involved. The Veciana info on Bishop/Phillips is interesting as was his comment of seeing Bishop/Phillips with LHO in Dallas (I believe it was Dallas). There was some SS complicity. Control of the security, control of the vehicle afterwards, control of the evidence and copies of the autopsy photos as Fox had. Vince Palamera did great work on this. He got many to talk, but some refused. Dallas was a great venue for all this. A hotbed of anti-Kennedy sentiment. I heard the Milteer tape. How interesting regarding the claims of foreknowledge of the assassination by Milteer, Rose Cheramie, Eugene Dinkin. There is a definite Cuban connection and possibly the murder of JFK could be used as an excuse to invade Cuba. Whoever set it up picked a good patsy in Oswald and used his involvement with the FBI,CIA and his phony anti-Castro leanings to elicit the right kind of pressure on various agencies. I've been to the plaza a few times. In some ways so open a venue and in others full of prime locations for the deed. Did LHO know about the attempt and did he shoot? He may well have known, but undoubtedly did not shoot. The 6th floor window with crammed boxes and vertical pipe closeby seems hardly a good location other than to attract attention. It seems ridiculous that all those wounds (or any wounds) were caused by any shots from there. Looking at the film, it seems obvious that JFK is first hit in the throat before frame 200, then is pushed forward after being hit in the back at about Z225. Connally is pushed downward by the shot to his back. Sure seems that those different body motions speak for shots from different locations and angles. Connally's wrist may well have been injured around Z 290 and that again suggests a shot from high up due to the position of the wrist. My guess is a Daltex shooter on the lower floor and a Connally shooter from a much higher location. There is pursuasive evidence that the windshield had a hole in it based on Doug's good work, a few eyewitnesses and the interviews with the Ford employee. That suggests a missed shot as does eyewitness testimony regarding the early shot that hit the street behind the car. As for furrows in the grass, a shot striking the manhole cover etc...who knows. Probably the greatest mystery in my mind is the throat shot. It was small and Weisberg's interview of Dr Perry in 1966 +/- clearly establishes a wound of entry. Perry spoke of wiping blood from the trachea and mentioned the ring of bruising. Can't blame Perry too much for denying that years later. These guys have been contacted much over the years and are probably sick of being contacted. It would be interesting if someone, someday showed Perry the quotes to refresh his memory. His denial in his AARB testimony was so firm and absolute against that. There appears to have been a shooter behind the fence. Lots of magic bullets in Dealey that day. One surfaced, some disappeared. Some were hard jacketed and others appeared to be frangible. Then we have Files, Plumlee, Holt, Hemming. They have chosen to speak. Some of these gentlemen appear to be credible. Thanks for taking the time to talk. To me, the Files story isn't believable. If some of the other folks are lying, why would they do it now and why lie to the public and their families? Doesn't make sense to me. I am amazed at all the information that has come to light so many years later. Thanks to Oliver Stone for creating the controversy that allowed for the creation of the AARB and thanks to folks like you, amateurs and professionals alike, who have spent your time trying to gather information and shed more light on this. Too bad the government only cared enough to lie and obfuscate the truth for so many years.

[Jim Root]

My research began with a hypothisis and has continued to center around that hypothisis.

It began when I first read of Major General Edwin Anderson Walker in the Warren Report. Not knowing who he was I started looking for information about him. This simple research led to the discovery of a brief outline of his military career. Two facts jumped out at me:

1) During WWII Walker had been a part of and ultimatly commanded the First Special Services Force.

2) Walker was traveling in Europe at the same time as Oswald "defected" to the USSR.

I knew two things (one form my backround in studying military history and one from my simple backround in statistics): If Walker was involved in the command structure of the First Special Services Force there was a good liklihood that he was also involved in intelligence or covert operations at some time in his career. If Oswald was travelling in Europe at the same time as Oswald it may have been a coincidence just like the alledged assassination attempt by Oswald on the life of Walker. But if Oswald and Walker's travels at the same time in Europe were not a coincidence then Oswalds alledged assassination attempt on Walker would prove the fallicy of the Warren Commission's conclusions.

In the eleven years since I began my research there are several "things" that I am convinced of:

1) Edwin Walker and Maxwell Taylor were long term associates and that Taylor repeatedly turned to Walker when he had an important assignment to be accomplished.

2) That Edwin Walker, from a very early point in his career, began working with military intelligence and then spent a great deal of time in the field of counter intelligence.

3) Walker was associated with William Friedman's group of cryptologist (which included John B. Hurt) begining around 1935.

4) That Maxwell Taylor was associated with William Friedman's group of Cryptologist (which included John B. Hurt) begining around 1935.

5) That Maxwell Taylor was closely associated with John J. McCloy no later that 1943 and very possibly by 1941. Their relationship would continue into Gremany and into the Kennedy administration. Both there association and placement within the Kennedy administration would strategically place them in a position to accomplish and to coverup an assassination of the President

6) That John J. McCloy was closely associated with William Friedman's group of cryptologist (which included John B. Hurt) begining around 1940.

7) That John J. McCloy either directly or indirectly used Edwin Walker at least twice to conduct some very sensitive intelligence missions.

8) That Oswalds travel from London to Helsinki and interence into the Soviet Union was shrouded in mystery despite the fact that the information necessary to unravel all this mystery was available in 1964 but not presented to the Warren Commission (the passenger flight records have since been lost to history).

9) That John J. McCloy felt a need to distance himself from Walker 5 months before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

10) That Lee Harvey Oswald's movements were being monitored by Thomas Karamessines (a person involved in the Greek Civil War at the same time that Edwin Walker was running the Greek Dest at the Pentagon). Karramessines was assigned to the office of Richard Helms in 1963.

11) That within hours of the assassination of JFK, Walker made contact with a German newpaper, while staying in a Shreveport, LA hotel, that then printed the story that Oswald had shot at him. This story ran days before the FBI developed that same lead and received information about the incident from Marina Oswald.

While I have gathered much much more information than what is listed here, what is of greater importance is that several of these "things" were, it seems, specifically "covered up" within the Warren Report (including the name John Hurt).

A majority of my research years I held to the belief that there were three events:

First) A covert operation that would insure the election of John F. Kenndy to the office of President that involved the downing of Francis Gary Powers and the U-2 on May 1st 1960. This operation was conducted for various reasons centering around the fact that the powers that be were not happy with the Eisenhower administrations movement toward the normalization of relations with the Soviet Union.

Second) That Oswald had been the "patsy" in the scenario stated above, that Oswald had unexpectedly returned to the United States and then had acted upon his anger of having been used by the US, first by attempting to assassinate Walker (the man who may have "helped" him "defect) and second by then assassianting Kennedy when he realized that it was Kennedy that had benifited the most by the failure of the Paris Peace Summit of May 1960.

Third) A coverup of the First event that had led to the Second.

While I have written a piece on the possiblity of a 'Civil Rights Theory," that was done while searching for a reason that would involve McCloy in a "palace coup."

More recently I have come to the conclusion that it is very possible that both McCloy and Taylor had their own reasons for wanting Kennedy dead and that they may have been exactly the same (while each would receive an additional caveat, Taylor - Vietnam, McCloy - Civil Rights Bill). This theory (idea, thaought) would also tie in directly with the "downing of the U-2" and the "failure" of the Paris Summit. Both Taylor, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and McCloy as the top disarmament negotiator, were unhappy with the Limited Test Ban Treaty that had been passed by Congress in August of 1963. They both believed it to be unvarifiable and had both wanted a stronger agreement. That agreement would be achieved in 1968 while Lyndon Johnson was President.

"...There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot. Perhaps one of the most potent reasons why the U.S.S.R. wished Kennedy well was that Johnson was anathema to Khrushchev. Because he was a southerner, Moscow considered him a racist (the stereotype of any American politician from below the Mason Dixon line), an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to the core. Further, since Johnson was from Texas, a center of the most reactionary forces in the United States, according to the Soviets, he was associated with the big-time capitalism of the oil industry, also known to be anti-Soviet."

Arkady Shevchenko, Breaking With Moscow (1985) as quoted from John Simkins Spartacus website.

The first words of John F Kenndys first press conference on January 25, 1961 were:

"Good afternoon. Won't you be seated.

'I have several announcements to make, first. I have a statement about the Geneva negotiations for an atomic test ban. These negotiations, as you know, are scheduled to begin early in February. They are of great importance, and we will need more time to prepare a clear American position. So we are consulting with other governments, and we are asking to have it put off until late March.

'As you know, Mr. John McCloy is my principal adviser in this field, and he has organized a distinguished panel of experts, headed by Dr. James Fisk of the Bell Laboratories -- and Mr. Salinger will have a list of the names at the end of the conference -- who are going to study previous positions that we have taken in this field, and also recommend to Mr. McCloy, for my guidance, what our position would be in late March, when we hope the tests will resume."

McCloy wanted a tougher stance on Nuclear testing and proliferation, Taylor wanted a tougher stance as well. Kennedy used Averell Harriman to do "backdoor" negotiations with Khrushev which led to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Did McCloy and Taylor view Kennedy as weak. Were they angred by the fact that they had placed him in the position of President to do as they told him to do? And now he was not acting according to their plans......

In December of 2004 I posted this information on this Forum:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the day she buried her husband, Jacqueline Kennedy clung to the hands of a Soviet diplomat and urged Moscow to continue working with Washington in an effort to achieve peace, according to newly released Soviet documents.

The documents show a delicate diplomatic dance between the two super powers during the days immediately following the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy 36 years ago. They also reveal that personal letters were exchanged between the U.S. president's widow and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin turned the documents over to U.S. President Bill Clinton during their June meeting in Germany. Copies of the documents, and translations by the U.S. State Department, were released Thursday by the National Archives.

Particularly poignant were descriptions of a White House reception following Kennedy's burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Soviet diplomat A.I. Mikoyan, who was first deputy chairman of the council of ministers, met Mrs. Kennedy at the reception to express his nation's condolences.

Diplomat's perspective

In a dispatch about the reception to Soviet leaders, Mikoyan wrote: "It struck us that Jacqueline Kennedy, who exchanged only two or three words with the persons introduced to her, looked very calm and even appeared to be smiling.

"However, when we were presented to her, and when we conveyed our heartfelt condolences to her on behalf of Nina Petrovna, N.S. Khrushchev, and Rada and Alyosha Adzhubey ... Jacqueline Kennedy said, with great emotion and nearly sobbing: 'I am sure that Chairman Khrushchev and my husband could have been successful in the search for peace, and that they were really striving for that. Now you must continue this endeavor and bring it to completion.'

"She said all this with inspiration and deep emotion," Mikoyan wrote. "During the entire conversation she clasped my hands with her two hands, trying to convey as convincingly as possible her feelings and thoughts ... Her fortitude is most impressive."

New widow wrote of self-control

A week later, Jacqueline Kennedy wrote a handwritten letter to Khrushchev, the Soviet documents show. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin wrote in a telegram to Soviet officials that, "The envelope was slightly glued in one spot. The entire letter was not typed, but written from beginning to end in the handwriting of Jacqueline Kennedy, which is considered here to be a sign of particular respect for the addressee."

In the letter, Mrs. Kennedy thanked Khrushchev for sending Mikoyan to the funeral. But she said that it had been "such a horrible day for me that I do not know if my words were received as I wanted them to be."

So the new widow said she was writing to explain how important her husband had felt Khrushchev was to the peace effort --- and how she hoped those efforts continued.

"The danger troubling my husband was that war could be started not so much by major figures as by minor ones," Mrs. Kennedy wrote. "Whereas major figures understand the need for self-control and restraint, minor ones are sometimes moved rather by fear and pride. If only in the future major figures could still force minor ones to sit down at the negotiating table before they begin to fight!"

Dobrynin concluded his report by suggesting that Khrushchev and his wife reply to Mrs. Kennedy with a personal letter. The ambassador also suggested Mrs. Khrushchev invite Mrs. Kennedy and her children to an unofficial summer vacation on the Black Sea.

Dobrynin said that would "make a very good impression on American public opinion and on U.S. government circles as well. Moreover, it would also be useful to maintain contacts with the Kennedy family."

It would look as if Mrs. Kennedy's phrases, "The danger troubling my husband..." and, "If only in the future major figures COULD STILL FORCE MINOR ONES(emphisis mine) to sit down at the nefotiating table before they begin to fight!" are supportive of the belief that immediately following the assassination she may have thought certain government officials could have been involved.

Jim Root

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The task, at this late date, is not to speculate or theorize but the contrary, to specify, to test, to clarify, to document and, above all, to eliminate suspects..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Jefferson Morley on this one point, so instead of revealing (theorizing about) who was involved in the murders of JFK , J.D. Tippit and Lee Oswald, I have made my top ten list of popular suspects who should be eliminated on the basis that, even after 40 years of intense scrutiny, the evidence and arguments against them do not amount to Probable Cause, IMO. I include Probable Cause that any of these parties engaged in a deliberate attempt to conceal or cover up the truth after the fact.

1/ J. Edgar Hoover, James Hosty, the FBI as an organization

2/ Lee Oswald, Marina Oswald.

3/ David Phillips, John McCone, the CIA as an organization.

3/ Mafioso such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Roselli or Sam Giancana

4/ Winston Lawson and Clint Hill or the Secret Service as an organization

5 General Maxwell Taylor or the Military Industrial Complex as an institution

6/ The John Birch Society, General Edwin Walker

7/ H.L. Hunt or his sons Bunker & Lamar, Clint Murchison & his family

8/ Dallas police chief Jesse Curry or the Dallas police as an institution.

9/ Most of the members and staff of the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

10/ Fidel Castro, the KGB.

I realize that many forum members may disagree with some/many/most/all of this list, and I hope you will forgive me if other committments prevent me from defending/documenting (at this stage) the views expressed herein.

Ray

[Mark Stapleton]

The task, at this late date, is not to speculate or theorize but the contrary, to specify, to test, to clarify, to document and, above all, to eliminate suspects..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Jefferson Morley on this one point, so instead of revealing (theorizing about) who was involved in the murders of JFK , J.D. Tippit and Lee Oswald, I have made my top ten list of popular suspects who should be eliminated on the basis that, even after 40 years of intense scrutiny, the evidence and arguments against them do not amount to Probable Cause, IMO. I include Probable Cause that any of these parties engaged in a deliberate attempt to conceal or cover up the truth after the fact.

1/ J. Edgar Hoover, James Hosty, the FBI as an organization

2/ Lee Oswald, Marina Oswald.

3/ David Phillips, John McCone, the CIA as an organization.

3/ Mafioso such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Roselli or Sam Giancana

4/ Winston Lawson and Clint Hill or the Secret Service as an organization

5 General Maxwell Taylor or the Military Industrial Complex as an institution

6/ The John Birch Society, General Edwin Walker

7/ H.L. Hunt or his sons Bunker & Lamar, Clint Murchison & his family

8/ Dallas police chief Jesse Curry or the Dallas police as an institution.

9/ Most of the members and staff of the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

10/ Fidel Castro, the KGB.

I realize that many forum members may disagree with some/many/most/all of this list, and I hope you will forgive me if other committments prevent me from defending/documenting (at this stage) the views expressed herein.

Ray

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I intend to post my theory shortly but I must say that's a comprehensive list of suspects you've eliminated, Raymond. While I disagree with some, I do agree that Hoover was not a conspirator.

Initially I thought he was involved, given his well known antipathy towards the Kennedys, but now I believe he fails the test as an active plotter. His career reveals few examples of stunning creativity and original ideas, just a litany of subtle threats of blackmail and general paranoia.

However, I believe he had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy. Their gripe was with JFK alone. They had no desire to make additional enemies, especially one's who could be so useful in the subsequent coverup.

Naturally they wouldn't have given Hoover the heads up without first being aware of his great antagonism towards Jack and Bobbie. Hoover's intense dislike of the Kennedy's was probably Washington's worst kept secret but just in case the conspirators were unaware, the world's most opportunistic name-dropper would have eagerly stepped in to give them the goss. No prizes for guessing who that would be.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

However, I believe [Hoover] had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy.

Mark, I am aware of no rule of courtesy that required the plotters to give J. Edgar Hoover advance knowlede of the assassination.

As you know, in 1963 shooting the President was not even a federal crime.

If anything courtesy would have required the conspirators to notify the AG of the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Sheriff and Police Chief.

Granted, it might be considered courteous for criminals to give police chiefs advance knowledge of their crimes but I do not think that in practice this happens often.

When it does happen the criminals get a chance to appear on the tv series about the world's stupidest criminals. They are interviewed in their cells.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mark wrote:

However, I believe [Hoover] had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy.

Mark, I am aware of no rule of courtesy that required the plotters to give J. Edgar Hoover advance knowlede of the assassination.

As you know, in 1963 shooting the President was not even a federal crime. 

If anything courtesy would have required the conspirators to notify the AG of the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Sheriff and Police Chief.

Granted, it might be considered courteous for criminals to give police chiefs advance knowledge of their crimes but I do not think that in practice this happens often.

When it does happen the criminals get a chance to appear on the tv series about the world's stupidest criminals.  They are interviewed in their cells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Memo to John Simkin: John, it pains me to write this memo, but can you please advise why Tim Gratz has not yet been barred from this forum? Debra Conway has vastly improved the Lancer Forum because she had the balls to disbar that stupid Von Pein character who, like Gratz, has absolutely no interest in solving the murders of JFK, J.D. Tippit or, last but not least, the murder of Lee Oswald. If any further evidence was needed that Gratz is totally insincere, just read the bullxxxx he has written above. This man is a law school grad, so he can't plead stupidity (of course Dan Quayle was also a law school grad, so you never know) My question is: Do you have the testicular fortitude that the the lovely Debra has? If not, then I don't see how you can show your face in Dallas at NID 2005.

Sincerely,

Ray

[Tim Gratz]

Apparently Mr. Carroll cannot appreciate irony.

I was attempting to satirize Mr. Stapleton's post that the conspirators would notify J. Edgar Hoover of the assassination out of "courtesy", safely believing that, since there was no love lost between Hoover and the Kennedys, Hoover would permit Kennedy's assassination. I am convinced (and I think Mr. Carroll might agree with me) that part of Hoover's cover-up was because he was embarrassed the FBI had not prevented the assassination.

It was Mark's thought that was ridiculous.

Did Mr. Carroll think I was serious? My gosh!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

  I am convinced (and I think Mr. Carroll might agree with me) that part of Hoover's cover-up was because he was embarrassed the FBI had not prevented the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Gratz, please don't pretend that you did not notice that the my very first assertion was that Hoover played no part in a (deliberate) coverup.

Did Mr. Carroll think I was serious?  My gosh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, Mr. Gratz, I did not think you were serious. I have known for some time (and pointed out in earlier threads) that you are NOT SERIOUS. That is why I believe John Simkin should disbar you from the forum. The rest of us ARE serious, however, and you are just wasting everyone's precious time.

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. Carroll:

The waste of time was the drivel that was posted that argued the conspirators informed Hoover out of some sense of courtesy. I mean that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Do you care to defend it?

And by the way what makes you arrogant enough to think you can read my mind?

Essentially I agree with the November 22, 2003 essay by David Talbot in Salon magazine about "The Man Who Solved the Assassination." And I agree with the position of Professor Michael Kurtz.

It is absolutely incredible to me that some of you on the left will countenance no disagreement with your position and philosophy. To not respect another person's point of view is, I submit, an anti-intellectual attitude.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mr. Carroll:

And by the way what makes you arrogant enough to think you can read my mind?

It's not arrogance. I just read some (of your multiude) of posts and assume that they reflect what is in your mind.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

However, I believe [Hoover] had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy.

Mark, I am aware of no rule of courtesy that required the plotters to give J. Edgar Hoover advance knowlede of the assassination.

As you know, in 1963 shooting the President was not even a federal crime. 

If anything courtesy would have required the conspirators to notify the AG of the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Sheriff and Police Chief.

Granted, it might be considered courteous for criminals to give police chiefs advance knowledge of their crimes but I do not think that in practice this happens often.

When it does happen the criminals get a chance to appear on the tv series about the world's stupidest criminals.  They are interviewed in their cells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Despite the fact that John's already warned you about sidetracking this thread, I'll respond to you once and once only.

I don't really understand why you take issue with the aforementioned terminology, unless you are deliberately nit-picking. In a conspiracy of this magnitude, I assume it would be a prudent move for the conspirators to inform certain like minded parties (who held positions of authority) of the impending action. Do you really think that people like Hoover or Curtis LeMay were stunned, shocked and surprised by the assassination? Hoover's phone call to RFK didn't exhibit much shock and surprise. Hoover was overlord of domestic intelligence. He had his turf--and his ego. He had ruled the FBI for forty years and prided himself on knowing every move people made. For him to be deliberately kept in the dark about something like this would, to an outside observer like myself, seem to be an insult of the most egregious kind. Similarly, had the Joint Chiefs not been told in advance that the President was to be executed it would be seen by them as such a breach of their authority and standing as to almost amount to an act of war. Do you think that Hoover and the JCS believed Oswald did it?

Your silly analogy about criminals giving police chiefs advance knowledge of crimes has no relevence. The parties who had foreknowledge were not police chiefs. They were like minded individuals who were happy to see JFK depart.

This thread is for regular posters to put forward their theory. My post was merely a statement of my agreement with J Raymond Carroll on one of his points. I haven't posted my theory yet. Wait until I post it before you start with the ridicule and silly analogies.

[Tim Gratz]

Raymond, where in my posts do you derive the idea that I am not desirious of solving the assassination? Unfortunately, I am pessimistic that it can be solved. I would consider, at this point, "solved" to mean an agreement or consensus among historians re who really killed JFK, provided the solution was TRUE. Absent some "smoking gun" revelations when the still-classified documents are released, or absent a confession by a still-living conspirator, we may be left with this ambiguous debate and the history books may take the easy approach of accepting the Warren Commission with perhaps a passing nod at conspiracy theories. And as each year passes it is less and less likely that there still will be a living conspirator left to tell what really happened.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz