Government Cover-Up of JFK Assassination

[John Simkin]

Dawn Meredith has posted two very good articles by Vincent Salandria. I would highly recommend that everyone reads these two articles:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4186

In one article Vincent argues that only the highest levels of the national security apparatus could have accomplished the following:

Using Oswald, a CIA operative, as a patsy.

Killing Oswald while he was in custody.

Spreading a broad pattern of false clues pointing to the Soviets and Cuba as suspects, yet opting for a lone assassin theory.

Ignoring the overwhelming and immediately available eyewitness and other solid forensic evidence in Dealey Plaza.

Ignoring the fact that persons were impersonating Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza where no Secret Service Agent had been assigned.

Ignoring the position of the holes in President Kennedy’s coat and shirt, which precluded an exit wound in the neck.

Ignoring the Parkland Hospital doctors’ opinion that the neck wound was an entry wound and that the wound in the back of the head was a massive exit wound.

Allowing the military officers present at the autopsy to prevent the doctors from tracing the neck and back wounds of the President so as to determine their trajectory.

Allowing one of the autopsy doctors, Commander James Humes, to burn his initial notes.

Allowing Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA who had been fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs debacle, to be appointed to the Warren Commission.

Accepting as unchallenged evidence (Warren Commission Exhibit 399) an essentially pristine bullet that after flying in several directions through two bodies (Kennedy's and Connally's) and shattering several bones, left more metal in Connally's body than is missing from the bullet.

Not allowing the Warren Commissioners to examine the x-rays and photographs of the President’s autopsy.

Cleaning out the presidential limousine immediately after the execution, and then unlawfully shipping it out of Dallas, the jurisdiction of the crime, to be stripped and refitted, thereby destroying the evidence of the bullet impacts upon the vehicle.

Allowing Life Magazine to withhold the eight millimeter film of Abraham Zapruder which showed, inter alia, that following the impact of a bullet on Kennedy’s head his body was propelled leftward and backward onto the rear seat of the limousine, contradicting the Warren Report's contention that the bullet was fired by Oswald from the rear.

Allowing Life Magazine to then lie about the content of the film, and claim that Kennedy had turned completely around to receive a frontal hit from the rear.

Allowing Life Magazine to change a single issue of October 2, 1964 twice in order to conceal the visual documentation of a head shot from the right front.

Deleting from the Warren Commission Exhibits the testimony of Jacqueline Kennedy regarding the wounds of the President.

Allowing Deputy Attorney General Nicholas de Katzenbach send memoranda dating from November 25, 1963 to December 9, 1963 to Chief Justice Earl Warren and others stating that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

[Adam Wilkinson]

Sounds good, I will have a look at that John.

[Tim Gratz]

John, this might be a good thread for an extensive examination of the proposition that JFK was killed by "the government", whether it be "the national security apparatus", "the Secret Team", or whatever you want to call it. I will use your term and abbreviate it as "NSA", not to be confused with the agency.

Your list will provide a good discussion point.

Let me start with a major objection to the thought that it was such a large conspiracy. A major problem, I think, is the common sense expectation that "someone would have talked".

Let us begin with the players necessary BEFORE the assassination. As you know, some theorists even believe JFK's driver Greer was involved. The problem is that if the plotters attempted to recruit even one person who objected to the murder of the president, the plot would have been exposed and stopped. How could the plotters know who would be willing to participate in their nefarious scheme? And how can one believe that numerous people, at all levels in the government, would be willing to participate in an assassination? To me, it strains logic to think that not even one person who was approached would have objected.

How did the plotters convince the recruits to participate and shut up? Was it monetary inducements, threats against family members, or what else?

And presumably other otherwise law-abiding citizens participated after-the-fact by assisting in the cover-up. Yet no one talked.

Some people, such as myself and James I believe subscribe to the theory that a rather small conspiracy killed JFK, consisting of the mafia, renegade CIA agents (perhaps) and pro- and or anti-Castro exiles. In Larry Hancock's book he discusses the various people who have "confessed" their participation in the assassination. Those people included mafioso or mob-related persons (Trafficante, Marcello, Martino); CIA renegade agents (Morales) and perhaps anti-Castro Cubans (if you credit Escalante's stories about Cuesta, etc.)

But not a single one of the members of the vast NSA conspiracy proposed by Salandria and others have confessed.

Why is this?

How do you explain that the plotters could enlist numerous otherwise law-abiding citizens and not a single one would object to joining a criminal conspiracy, and after the fact, for over forty years, not a single member of this vast conspiracy would "talk" (for money, to clear their conscience, to brag, or for any other reason)?

This question in my mind is almost sufficient in itself to rule out a vast NSA conspiracy.

I await members' comments on this before I address some of the points you raised.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

I also feel that a widespread conspiracy of willing participants is unlikely. But unfortunately I know that most people are like sheep and are easily controlled by those with "authority" or "expertise."

Still, Salandria really stretches things to make a point. At least half of the things he finds mysterious can be easily explained. His paranoia hurts the credibility of his argument. The government's allowing Dr. Humes to destroy his notes, for instance, is not indicative of anything. I mean, how were they gonna stop him? It's not as if he asked permission. Furthermore, since the only way we even know that he destroyed his notes is that he told us, how suspicious are his actions really? If anything, Humes' action indicates he may have changed his interpretation of the wounds after writing his report--this doesn't fit with a widespread conspiracy, in which he'd have been briefed beforehand and told what his findings should be, and in which he would never admit to destroying any notes.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, excellent post. I agree with you that most of the points he raises are rather easily explained.

In addition, if the cover-up was created for fear of finding a foreign conspiracy, then none of the people involved in the cover-up were involved in the plot to kill JFK. Note that LBJ COULD have been involved and used the fear of a foreign conspiracy to persuade Earl Warren to "cover up". Or, LBJ could have been blackmailed by the perpetrators to order a cover-up and he then used the foreign conspiracy as an excuse for the "cover-up". Or Johnson could have genuinely feared a foreign conspiracy (either because it really existed or because false evidence was planted to suggest a foreign conspiracy). Even if false evidence of a foreign conspiracy was planted that does not necessarily require the participation of the vast NSA conspiracy Salandria envisions.

Your point about Hume was excellent. How could Hume have been stopped unless he had in advance communicated his intention to burn his notes?

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote in another thread:

I believe it is a matter of record that the Nation printed a number of articles over the years which questioned the official government line on the assassination, some of them as early as December 63. The magazine was not part of Mockingbird or any other conspiracy. Just because the WC told a bunch of fibs, and the HSCA told a bunch of fibs, doesn't mean that every institution in America was part of some grand lie. It is this kind of thinking that alienates so many.

It seems clear to me Salandria is paranoid. In light of what he's seen and what he's been through, it's understandable. But it's destroyed his ability to see the case clearly. I believe he subscribes to the theory that the reason why the WC and HSCA reports don't make sense is because the CONSPIRATORS want us to know that logic no longer has meaning, because we are under THEIR control now, or some such thing. Yeah, and that' why O.J. left his blood on the fence.

[Ron Ecker]

I see a "vast" conspiracy, if you want to call it that, in that the national security state (NSS) aka the military-industrial complex assassinated JFK. The powers that be did it. How many people that would require as participants I really have no idea. But I would think they would carefully choose which individuals they approached to participate (approaching only those who were needed, of course). They would want to approach people who were likely to participate willingly, so to speak, but in any case they would know which buttons to push. Once a person was approached, he was either in it or dead, and that person would know it. If he didn't know it intuitively, he'd be told, you're in it or you're dead, you talk and you're dead. This would induce people, almost all of whom had families to worry about also, to participate and not to talk. (Look at the Mafia. In the Mafia this is a way of life, there's no need to explain how it works.) Many were probably gung-ho participants, and died proud of what they did, but others would live in fear for the rest of their lives. You would have to be in such a situation to appreciate fully what it's like. To me this is the best explanation of how it was managed in terms of containment. I may be wrong, but I will not reject clear evidence of something (in this case, a coup d'etat by the NSS) because I don't know the details of how they pulled it off. One thing that seems certain is that they had the unchallenged power to commit the crime and cover it up, and the NSS remains unchallenged to this day. And there were enough people connected to the NSS who knew about what was going to happen in Dallas without necessarily being participants that they showed up just to watch.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

. . .I may be wrong, but I will not reject clear evidence of something (in this case, a coup d'etat by the NSS)

Ron, where is this "clear evidence?"

Certainly not in Salandria's articles. As Pat points out, every point he raises can be easily refuted.

As I noted above, the "cover up" can easily be explained without having to resort to the fact that the "cover uppers" were hiding a government conspiracy.

The only question, then, is whether there were actions taken leading up to the assassination that could only have been accomplished within the government. I fail to see one such action that could not have been accomplished by "outside" conspirators.

Absent a pre-assassinaction action that could only be accomplished by an insider, and absent a confession by a member of the NSS conspiracy, as you call it, what is the "clear" evidence to which you refer?

Your article about Osborne was excellent. It would certainly appear he was part of the conspiracy and was either communicating with or watching Oswald or an Oswald impersonator. And it certainly appears Osborne had ties to an intelligence organization. The question is: whose?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

.

Edited May 14, 2007 by John Dolva

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, where is this "clear evidence?"

Tim,

The evidence is largely circumstantial, and there is a mountain of it. The basic questions have been asked over and over (e.g., who had the power to tamper with the autopsy materials, control or sabotage every investigation, etc.), and there's no point in listing them all again. The answers all point in the same direction. It is obvious that powerful people were at work here, and all the motives are known.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

Once a person was approached, he was either in it or dead, and that person would know it. If he didn't know it intuitively, he'd be told, you're in it or you're dead, you talk and you're dead. This would induce people, almost all of whom had families to worry about also, to participate and not to talk.

Ron you may remember a post what seems like ages ago about someone who had knowledge of the Bobby Baker scandal (or was it Billie Sol Estes) and he sought advice and the person from whom he sought advice gave him the best possible advice: the best way to protect himself was to come forward with the information. So he did so.

If this vast conspiracy was persuading its accomplices to participate through death threats, someone would have surely gotten the same advice the person did in the Baker or Estes: protect yourself by going forward.

And why has someone not talked now when the threat of death must be far less since most of the big fish are presumably dead? Why was not one of the forced accomplices told his story to a family member?

The fact that you cannot explain how this vast NSS conspiracy worked strongly suggests it is bit a figment of Salandria's paranoid imagination. Talk about boogeymen under the bed!

[Tim Gratz]

But Ron everything you suggest relates to the cover-up and as I have noted the cover-up is rather easily explained. People were induced to cover up not by death threats but for reasons of "national security" (fear of war if there was a foreign-generated conspiracy). Unless you believe that everyone who participated in the cover-up actually knew who really killed JFK but that is awfully hard to believe. Was Katzenbach, for instance, a murderer, or was he acting for reasons of national security? Hard to believe Katzenbach was a conspirator.

[Tim Gratz]

To Ron:

I don't want to repeat my entire "Scenario" here but what is wrong with this scenario?

Trafficante is urged by Hoffa and Giancana to whack Kennedy.

Trafficante calls Rosselli to enlist his skills.

Rosselli decides to recruit Morales to "muddy up the waters". He suspects Morales will go along with it because he knows Morales hates Kennedy.

Ruby is enlisted to supply intelligence information on Dallas, police uniforms, a safe house.

Morales enlists some anti-Castro Cubans as shooters. Rosselli has been training them and he knows who are the best sharpshooters.

Trafficante hires a pair of Corsican hit men as back up. A lot of the scenario in "the Corsican connection" re how the Corsicans enter the US and how they make their escape is true.

Morales knows about Oswald. Knows his connections to Castro. May know he is a CIA operative. So they decide to make Oswald a patsy and pin it on Castro.

Their plan includes blackmailing LBJ into covering it up. They do so either by involving Malcolm Wallace and/or by threatening LBJ with exposure of his payments from Halfen.

So the plan involves compartmentalized teams of Cubans and Corsicans. The number of people involved in the actual operation are probably only twelve or even fewer (shooters and spotters). The Cubans who are involved are slowly eliminated. (Perhaps Vidal Santiago is sent on a suicide mission into Cuba.)

The operation is funded by the Mafia.

All of the above is consistent with the people who have "confessed" to involvement: Trafficante, Marcello, Martino, Morales. And it is also consistent with Christian David's story and at least some of the story as told in "Doublecross".

Castro may have also asked Trafficante to kill JFK for him. If so perhaps his DGI agents are only in DP to watch. Cuban involvement is not necessary in the scenario, however. Nor is Morales' involvement necessary (assuming his statement was only drunken braggadocia or, for instance, if his buddy Rosselli told him about it only after the fact.)

I think it fits all the known evidence; it is a "tight" conspiracy; and it all "hangs together".

This scenario fits all the known evidence and it avoids the problem of how law abiding citizens were induced to participate in a heinous murder and keep quiet about it.

No NSS is needed.

Other than the easily-explained cover-up, what evidence do you have that refutes this KISS scenario that is consistent with all the known evidence?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Larry Hancock]

I'm going to weigh in with Pat on this one. Having invested a good deal of "skull sweat" and research on the details of the cover up I presented a case in my book that one can isolate LBJ as the single driving force behind the all the key elements of the cover up, including medical via Burkley, the FBI's evidence management via Hoover and the quashing of objections like those raised by Mann. According to Mann himself LBJ was supported (for whatever reason) in this by RFK who also used his influence to quash pursuit of conspiracy immediately following the assassination. Beyond that other elements were covered up for security and CYA reasons within the agencies involved - e.g. intelligence contact with Oswald covered up by both FBI and CIA, Ruby's crime connections and extensive associations in site the DPD covered up by DPD senior officers etc. SS negligence covered up by the service itself, think of the effect of the late night drinking session on national news. And we know directly from the Johnson tapes how he alone drove the legal cover-up, the formation of the WC and the manipulation of the press.

So after written about all this minutia in boring detail I'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who managed to wade through it....grin.

-- Larry

I also feel that a widespread conspiracy of willing participants is unlikely.  But unfortunately I know that most people are like sheep and are easily controlled by those with "authority" or "expertise." 

Still, Salandria really stretches things to make a point.  At least half of the things he finds mysterious can be easily explained. His paranoia hurts the credibility of his argument.  The government's allowing Dr. Humes to destroy his notes, for instance, is not indicative of anything.  I mean, how were they gonna stop him?  It's not as if he asked permission.  Furthermore, since the only way we even know that he destroyed his notes is that he told us, how suspicious are his actions really?  If anything, Humes' action indicates he may have changed his interpretation of the wounds after writing his report--this doesn't fit with a widespread conspiracy, in which he'd have been briefed beforehand and told what his findings should be, and in which he would never admit to destroying any notes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Knight]

Anyone who has read the transcripts of the LBJ tapes should certainly have the same question in mind as I:

Why was LBJ initially so adamant that there would be NO presidential commission, and NO congressional investigation into the JFK assassination, and then ABRUPTLY change course 180 degrees?

I can understand, from a political standpoint, LBJ's objections to a congressional investigation. As a career politician, LBJ understood that he had to get some legislation through Congress--and into the headlines--if he was to be elected in '64 [can't say "re-elected," because he wasn't elected president to begin with]. And if Congress was tied up with an assassination inquiry, Johnson wouldn't get the press he needed to be elected.

But his initial response--that, since there was no federal law broken, the "Great State of Texas" should conduct any investigation--was most likely the correct way to go. It was TEXAS laws that were broken, so that made it a TEXAS crime, and called for a TEXAS investigation. The plus to THAT scenario was that, while the investigation would still garner national headlines, it wouldn't push LBJ and his political agenda--and his hopes of winning in '64--off the front pages all across America.

So the question that comes to MY mind is STILL: WHO [person or group] got to LBJ and convinced him to change his mind? Johnson was initially ADAMANT that there would be no federally-led investigation; yet a few short days later, he was EQUALLY adamant that there MUST be a federal investigation.

LBJ's change of position would be analagous to Tim Gratz suddenly deciding that Castro WASN'T involved, and that the assassination was part of a coup led by C. Douglas Dillon...yet it apparently doesn't raise many "red flags" among other researchers.

My question is: WHY NOT?

Edited June 29, 2005 by Mark Knight