Jim Root

As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza, "Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?" Jim Root

Tim Ron I continue to believe that McCloy was America's "C" (the person at the top of all intelligence organizations under US control). It seems to me that Hoover may have been one of the few people in the world that would be aware of that information if in fact it were true. Within this context the statement, "I'm not so certain as to the matter of the publicity that he might seek on it" could have an interesting interpretation. Perhaps the type of publicity that might be focused upon McCloy could backfire and the significance of his position on the Warren Commission could compromise the fact that the US did have a serious problem with Oswald and his relationship to US Intelligence. But then again perhaps that is the information that we wanted to be understood by the Soviets who also may have had there own intelligence dilemma. What type of publicity did McCloy seek by being on the Warren Commission is a perplexing question that I have spent a great deal of time mulling over. I am bothered by the fact that in the discussions that occured before the atomic bomb was dropped during WWII McCloy comes off as the "cooler head" who spoke against the total destruction of Japan by providing information that was made available to him via John B. Hurt. Also in an interview with Epstein that occured shortly after the Commissions Report was finished McCloy leaves open the possibility that at some time it might be discovered that Oswald was some sort of agent. What exactly McCloy knew, how he knew it and when he first knew it will continue to facinate me! Jim Root

John Thank you for the comment. I posted the Everready information as a factual example that a person that I believe to be a potential conspirator had the willingness, the resources, the experience and the ability to put together a plan of this type. If there was some sort of conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, we could assume that it would take a person or persons with experiences similar to General Taylor's to successfully control the event and its aftermath successfully. As the motorcade began in Dallas, General Maxwell Taylor was engaged in a meeting with some German NATO officers at the Pentagon. As the time of the assassination approached Taylor would take a break from this meeting and retreat into his personal office, alone. It was in this office that Taylor would be informed of the assassination of the President. Rather than cancel the meeting, that was scheduled to continue after this short break, Taylor returned to the NATO meeting and conducted the business of the day without informing the Germans of the tragedy that had occurred. It was not until later that Taylor would move the nations military resources to a higher, albeit not very high, state of alert. One could speculate upon how General Taylor would have handled this same event if he had been aware of, or was prepared for, what was about to occur in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Jim Root

Tim wrote: "This is worse that the worst abuse of Joseph McCarthy, IMO." I believe he meant to use "than" where he had written "that." Except for my statement #3 (Potential Oswald - Walker meeting while Oswald travels to Helsinki (along with the dates of the Helsinki Embassy notes that coincide with Oswald's travels) each of the 17 other points in the timeline that I presented are facts! My number 3 states clearly that there is the "potential" that Oswald and Walker could have met while Oswald traveled to Russia (see research done by Antti and myself paying particular attention to the Finn Air flight records that Antti was able to uncover in Helsinki). This point number three centers upon an area that the Warren Commissioners (McCloy included) failed to investigate despite the fact that the names of persons on potential flights that Oswald could have used were readily available to the CIA and the Warren Commission at that time (see research done by Chris Mills). Tim continues with: "BUT none of his three principal suspects had anything to do with the assassination." If you are making the contention that none of my three potential conspirators pulled the trigger then I will readily agree with you Tim. If you can categorically eliminate them as potential conspirators where is your proof? On the other hand all three persons that have become potential suspects through my research (McCloy, Taylor and Walker) are closely linked to the assassinated President and/or the investigation that took place after the fact: Taylor's military career is revived after Kennedy is elected President. Taylor is associated with Walker beginning in 1927. Taylor is associated with McCloy beginning in 1941. McCloy is the first person that Kennedy introduces to the press at his very first press conference upon becoming President. McCloy is associated with Taylor beginning in 1941. McCloy is associated with Walker beginning in 1943. Walker is first associated with Kennedy during the "Pro Blue" controversy. Walker is distanced from Kennedy and the military at exactly the same time that Oswald is beginning to attempt to return to the United States from Russia (if Walker passed information to Oswald while Oswald was "defecting" to the USSR and if, upon Oswald’s return to the US, Oswald could identify Walker, this might have been a prudent thing for all involved in these sordid affairs). Walker repeatedly is the point man for General Taylor in some of Taylor's most delicate Cold War successes. Walker is associated with McCloy beginning in 1943. All three (McCloy, Taylor and Walker) would be associated with a NSA employee named John B. Hurt and just by coincidence, perhaps, Lee Harvey Oswald would attempt to contact a person with this same name while in custody after the assassination. (The information about this attempted phone call would never make it into the Warren Commission Report and would only become public during the HSCA hearings, WHY? The fact that McCloy, in particular, can be so closely associated with John B. Hurt is, IMO, of great interest and would, perhaps, provide McCloy with a vested interest in making sure that information about this attempted phone call to a person named John Hurt would never be presented to the public within the Warren Report). John J. McCloy becomes a Warren Commissioner five months after he writes a note to Edwin Walker distancing himself form the General. As a Warren Commissioner, McCloy would neglect to participate in the questioning of Walker and it would not be pointed out that Walker, during WWII, had carried out at least two mission of particular significance to McCloy. Instead the Warren Report chooses to neglect the military career of Edwin Walker despite his connections to people such as McCloy and Taylor (etc.), WHY? The Warren Commissions claim that Oswald attempted to assassinate Walker would be central to the findinds of the Commissioners that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. Yet the commission neglected, perhaps just by chance, to investigate the associations and career of General Walker pre 1961. No one ever questioned the fact that Walker was traveling in Europe and in the same direction that Oswald was traveling at the time of Oswald "defection" to the Soviet Union. Instead the Warren Report failed to identify the route Oswald took when traveling from London to Helsinki, WHY? Tim goes on to ask: "Why kill Kennedy after the test ban treaty was ratified? Just for revenge? If the motive was to stop the test ban treaty, Jim's conspirators acted a bit too late, don't you think?" Almost immediately upon Kennedy's death McCloy is returned to the negotiating table for the US in talks that do in fact lead to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1968. While both McCloy and Taylor were openly opposed to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of August 1963, they both did ultimately see the success that they were striving for (a cmprehensive treaty) become a reality after Kennedy was eliminated. To paraphrase Tim's question another way one could attempt to make a case for the absurdity of the involvement of Cuban refugees in the assassination story by asking, "Why kill Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs operation failed? Just for revenge? If the motive was to over through Castro, the conspirators acted a bit too late, don't you think?" We all are led to our suspicions by the research that we have gathered or perhaps by our own prejudices and "gut" feelings. But to assume that a person or group of persons are beyond suspicion based upon their being great American patriots may just blind oneself from ever reviewing the facts with a clear and open mind. Jim Root

Is anyone familier with the details of this "Plan?" According to John M. Taylor (son of Maxwell) Taylor's headquartes in Korea was assigned the task of revamping a contingency plan to deal with Korean President Syngman Rhee if he choose to make moves to obstruct the armistice talks being conducted to end the Korean War. The Plan was approved by General Mark Clark. The third "contingency" within this plan would involve getting the President out of the capital and into a situation where "he would be held in protective custody, incommunicado." (this according to Joseph C. Golden, Korea, The Untold Story of the War, 1982, pg 636). I have been unable to find much additional information other than the two sources cited above. Apparently the "plan" had first been proposed by General McArthur and was revamped several times, the last being the Taylor version. Of interest is that Taylor was capable of and had experience in putting together a plan to "silence" a "president." Second point of interest is that the "plan" was dependent upon getting the "President" away from the capital in order to control the events neccessary for success. Third point is that the ultimate contingency, the "draconian measure," would only be used if the "President" presisted in his attempt to obstruct the ongoing negotiation with the Soviets and Chinese. Is it to far off to draw a parrallel between a "Plan Everready" scenerio and the change of direction that Kennedy followed (with opposition from Taylor and McCloy) in Arms negotiations with the Soviets. Jim Root

Gerry I to am interested in the identity of T-2 in particular. You said: "I stated to the judge (during a sidebar) that "T-1 & T-2" must have been telephone taps, and/or room "bugs" placed inside Walker's home at that time. I was told later (during 1963) that he had "grown a brain", and had paid to have his residence swept by countermeasure experts on more than one occasion." Do you still believe that they were taps? If so this exchange of testimony with Agent Hosty becomes more important: Mr. HOSTY. It says, "On April 21, 1963, Dallas confidential informant T-2 advised that Lee H. Oswald of Dallas, Tex, was in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to T-2, Oswald had a placard around his neck reading, 'Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel.'" This would suggest that within days of the assassination attempt on Walker that Walker would be informing the FBI about Oswald via taps placed in his home. This contridicts Walker's testimony before the attorneys for the Warren Commission where he denies knowledge of Oswald. It also would call into question his transatlantic telephone conversation with the German newpaper that printed a story about Oswald shooting at Walker on April 10, 1963 that appeared in their Nov. 29,1963 edition (the same day the Warren Commission was formed). The T-2 informant information is also what generated the reopening of the Oswald file for the FBI. This reopening helped the FBI keep tabs on the movements of LHO in the months preceding the assassiantion of JFK. As Jefferson Morley has discovered these FBI memos were directed to the office of Richard Helms. You also state: "General Frederick (1967) and Duff Matson (1970s) would only comment that: Despite their personal dislike for Walker, they had been made aware of a few specifics; which indicated that he was operating in accord with the directives of "the highest authority" -- which I think, meant persons in the "White House". This would also go along with what I have suggested, that Walker may have been a plant into the "right wing" movement in America. I had the opportunity to review the papers of General Frederick (stored in the Hoover Library at Stanford University) last summer and have done "some" reseach on him and his relationship with both Walker and Maxwell Taylor. While I have found that he seems to have disagreed with Walker's politics post 1961 he would, when Walker was in the area, attend his lectures and visit with the resigned General. The Frederick papers also included a photo (one of very few) of Walker and Frederick together. What I am saying is that I am led to believe that the relationship between both Frederick and Walker remained cordial if not close for the remainder of Frederick's life. Just as a curiosity Frederick was associated with Thomas Karamessine while he was in Greece. Jim Root

Nathaniel Thank you for keeping this thread alive with your informative post. You have provided additional information for what I believe is an important aspect of the life of John J. McCloy; his involvement in the question of nuclear proliferation. I have seen some documents from 1945 (before the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima) that indicate that this question was already confounding the minds of many great Statemen and scientists. What has been nagging me lately is how well this issue overlaps the Oswald story that leads to Dallas. In early November 1959 the US was preparing for the Paris Summit that was to take place in May of 1960. There was fear that the US was being pushed into an adverse position by public opinion in the area of nuclear testing. (Document 19: State Department memcon, "Meeting of the Secretary's Disarmament Advisers," 3 November 1959 Source: National Archives, RG 59, decimal files 1955-1959, 600.0012/11-359) In this meeting (with McCloy's participation) the fear of a Test Ban Treaty forced upon the United States by international opinion was discussed. It seems that the US did not believe that a Treaty, at that time, would be in our best interest. Only days before this meeting Oswald serendipidously enters the Soviet Union through the only Soviet Embassy in Europe that can issue a visa within 24 hours. On May 1st, 1960 Francis Gary Powers is downed while flying over the USSR. The Paris Summit is doomed from that moment. Did Oswald's defection to Russia play a roll in this event? If Oswald's trip did play a roll in this event we have an impact upon a group of people that may have been pleased with the results of Oswald's "defection." That group would include John J. McCloy. Was Oswald aware of the association of the U-2 incident and the failure of the Paris Summit? Shortly after the assassination attempt on the life of Edwin Walker, Lee Harvey Oswald would give a speech at Spring Hill College. It seems that Oswald did in fact make the association between the U-2 incident and the failure of the Paris Summit and that it was important enough for him to put this into the "main body" of his talk (Spring Hill College Speech). Some people, myself included, feel that the failure of the Paris Summit was a contributing factor in the election of John F. Kennedy to the Presendency, in a very close elction, the following November. On January 25, 1961 John F. Kennedy would give his first press conference. The first two paragraphs from that conference show the significance of arms negotiations and the position John J. McCloy was to play in this sphere: Kennedy's remarks, "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." Is this, perhaps, another reason why McCloy would have been pleased by the dowing of the U-2 and the subsequent failure of the Paris Summit? Putting the timing of McCloy's letter to Walker (June 12, 1963) into the historical context of the Limited Test Ban Treaty is interesting: Document 50: Commencement Address by President John F. Kennedy at American University in Washington, DC, 10 June 1963 Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President. January 1 to November 22, 1963. (United States Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. 1964), pp. 459-464 In this famous speech, Kennedy broke the ice with Khrushchev by making a public declaration in favor of peace and arms control. An important influence was the writer and editor Norman Cousins who had met secretly with Khrushchev several times since 1962 in an attempt to get the two powers beyond the dispute over the number of inspections. Even some of Cousin's own language, such as "making the world safe for diversity" found its way into the text. (Note 59) Toward the end of the speech, after Kennedy discussed the test ban negotiations and the problem of nuclear proliferation, he announced that the United States would not conduct any more atmospheric tests as long as other nations refrained from doing so. Drawing upon the understanding that he, Macmillan, and Khrushchev had already reached about high-level talks, Kennedy also declared that Washington, London, and Moscow would soon resume negotiations on a test ban treaty and that United Kingdom and the United States would send a senior delegation to Moscow for the discussions. While Kennedy did not name any names, he quickly settled on Ambassador-at-Large W. Averell Harriman, who had met with Khrushchev before and had the stature needed for a mission of this sort. Document 51: CIA Information Report, "Soviet Reaction to June 10 Speech of President Kennedy," 11 June 1963, excised copy Source: John F. Kennedy Library, box 100, Disarmament-Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations, 4/62-8/63 That President Kennedy's speech had an immediately favorable impact on Soviet opinion is suggested by this CIA information report based on intelligence gleaned from a Soviet official working for the secretariat of an international organization, probably the United Nations. The source believed that the speech improved prospects for a test ban, although he (or she) was too confident in believing that the problem of inspections could be easily resolved. The source was also overoptimistic in believing that impending Sino-Soviet talks "can only be a step forward" because the discussions turned out to be among the most acrimonious in the history of the relationship. McCloy was out as the lead negotiator with the Soviets and Harriman was in. But the fears of those who had been excluded from having authority in this area was not limited to just McCloy. This memo from John McCone to John J. McCloy is dated two day before the alledged assassination attempt on Walker: Memorandum by Director of Central Intelligence McCone/1/ Washington, April 8, 1963. /1/Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI, ER Subject Files, White Papers-Nuclear Test Ban 3/1/63-1/2/64. Secret. Circulated to McCloy. With respect to the test ban treaty, I have not gone over the last draft./2/ However, it is my understanding that the present negotiating position provides for seven on-site inspections, seven black boxes within the USSR, and an inspection area of 500 square kilometers, and that the treaty deals with all the other issues which have been developed through the years. Some consideration is being given to reducing the seven on-site inspections to six, or even to five. There is also a difference of opinion as to the value of the black boxes. /2/Reference is to a March 23 draft comprehensive test ban treaty. (Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/CRSC Files: FRC 77 A 59, Basic Policy, Pol 3-3, Proposals to President) One would have to make a penetrating study of the results of the Vela experiments to make a final judgment as to the adequacy of the verification provisions of the treaty. However, Mr. Foster, at a recent Executive Committee meeting,/3/ stated that the threshold is on the order of one kiloton in granite, two kilotons in tuff, and 10 to 20 kilotons (and possibly 30 kilotons) in alluvium. He added that this was the threshold for a single test. Based on a theory of probabilities, he further concluded that a series of tests which included a meaningful number of underground shots in a single location would, with a small number of inspections, undoubtedly be detected and identified as nuclear rather than natural. /3/Not identified; the test ban was not discussed in the Executive Committee of the National Security Council during 1963. On the basis of these threshold figures, I have expressed the view to Mr. Foster and to the President/4/ that the degree of verification is not sufficient, as it cannot prove adherence to a suspension of testing in an important area of yields. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that under present political circumstances a test ban between the U.S., USSR, and UK would not, in the final analysis, answer the "proliferation" problem because the Soviets cannot handle the Chinese Communists and we and the British cannot handle the French. /4/In a memorandum for the record, April 4, McCone wrote he had told the President that day that former President Eisenhower had expressed opposition to the present draft treaty "because of inadequate verification, the threshold, etc.," and that he, McCone, agreed with this position and also opposed it because "the Russians could no longer handle the Chinese situation and we and the British could no longer handle the de Gaulle situation, and hence the proliferation problem. The President seemed to agree, and restated that he did not think we were going to get a treaty anyway." (Central Intelligence Agency, Meetings with President, 4/1/63-6/30/63) McCone's memorandum of April 4 of a meeting held with Eisenhower on March 30 is ibid. As for the advantages to the United States of further testing, doing so would yield a continuing improvement in our technology through the further development of small weapons, improvement of weight/yield ratios and increased knowledge of weapons effects. With respect to the first two of these items, improvements are important. Our failure to pursue them while the Soviets do so (clandestinely) would probably deprive us of our superior nuclear position. However, this would not necessarily affect the military balance as the improvements are expected to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, although important information would be provided. With respect to effects of testing, more study would be necessary before I would have an opinion. There is a great danger of engaging in a treaty, living under it for a number of years, and permitting our laboratories to go downhill (which they undoubtedly would do) while the Soviets covertly pursue developments in their laboratories. The Soviets could then abrogate the treaty for some reason they claim provocative, and confront us with a situation under which they had made a significant forward step in their technology. This, as will be recalled, was exactly what they did in 1961. I do not see how we can avoid this risk if we engage in a treaty unless the treaty is subscribed to by all world powers and contains substantial penalties for such abrogation. The Plowshare problem must be considered. Meaningful Plowshare experiments involve our most advanced weapons technology and, if the inspection arrangements outlined in the treaty are undertaken, it would mean exposing to the Soviets our most advanced weapons technology. This might mean abandoning Plowshare and therefore one must consider whether Plowshare is important to our national interest. Intelligence will make some contribution to the verification of a test ban. Some indicators which have been meaningful in the past are now lost to us, some useful indicators are still available but they, too, could be lost. Aerial surveillance might help in some circumstances, and clandestine penetrations might also help. Soviet fear of the latter might also serve as a deterrent. No useful figure can be placed on the contribution of intelligence. It seems to me that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of the test ban treaty and the whole issue of testing for many years, and most particularly, during the last two or three years. The issue at first centered around fallout. The most responsible scientific judgment seems to indicate that the effects of fallout were vastly overemphasized by the test ban advocates. I feel the whole issue should be brought into proper perspective and question whether much is to be gained by an agreement to stop testing so long as the United States, Soviet Union, and the British continue the production of fissionable material, nuclear weapons, and delivery systems at a high rate, and in addition, the French and the Chinese Communists pursue an independent and uncontrolled program, and rumor has it that the Israelis are now doing likewise. Hence, stopping testing does not slow down the arms race, does not remove the dangers of a nuclear holocaust, and does not end the proliferation problem. One important consideration is that if we reach an agreement with the Soviets, we have "broken through" in our effort to negotiate with the USSR on an issue of disarmament, and this might lead to other more meaningful agreements. This consideration is important and we could sacrifice a great deal to accomplish such a "break through". However, this consideration is of value only if the test suspension agreement provides reasonable means of verification and reasonable guarantee for conformance with all treaty terms, including some protection against unilateral revocation or abrogation of the treaty. If, however, we are reckless on the question of verification, then the "break through" will be a decided disservice to the United States' security interests because it will establish a precedent for further steps in disarmament without adequate means of verification. I have not personally studied the most recent developments in detection and identification techniques and cannot render a judgment on the proposed treaty. However, Mr. Foster's disclosure of the threshold set forth in the second paragraph of this memorandum represents a drastic departure from US policy so often stated, i.e. we will only agree to a suspension of tests which can, in the opinion of responsible and informed people, be verified with reasonable assurance. Two days before the attempted assassiation of Edwin Walker the head of the CIA is writting to McCloy about his opposition to the proposed Test Ban Treaty. Coincidence? Maxwell Taylor would have a problem with this treaty as well: Document 56: Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Glenn Seaborg, Journal Entry for 9 July 1963 Source: Journals of Glenn T. Seaborg, Volume 6, July 1, 1963-November 22, 1963 (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1989) Early in the evening of 9 July, Kennedy met with the NSC to discuss the Harriman mission. Still unsure whether a limited three environments test ban treaty was negotiable, the participants briefly discussed an agreement that permitted a quota of underground tests. Nevertheless, if an atmospheric test ban was feasible, Rusk wanted Harriman to be able to conclude an agreement "on the spot." Bundy wondered whether the French should be consulted, which raised the question of whether it would be possible to induce Paris to sign a limited test ban treaty. Maxwell Taylor's comments questioning the advantages of an atmospheric test ban raised the continuing problem with the Chiefs, but Kennedy declared that the issue was settled: "such a ban is to the advantage of the U.S." Nevertheless, Taylor vainly pushed away on the issue. Once again it is the overlapping dates that continue to intrigue me. Perhaps, more importantly, it is the high powered opposition (by persons with substantial power such as McCone, McCloy, Taylor) to the position being dictated by President Kennedy. Some of these same people would be charged with investigating the assassination of the man whom they had recently had a substantial disagreement with. That "disagreement" would be centered around the long term security of the United States. Could this be considered as a possible motive for assassination? Could it explain the ability of a group of conspirators to "cover-up" their plot? Jim Root

Pat Thank you for the information. When it comes to the slaying of Officer Tippit, as I understand it, the balistics were never able to be positivly associated with the pistol that Oswald had when arrested. I believe it was .38 vs .38 special ammunition of something like that. I must admit that I have trouble with an assassin that loads his weapon with the wrong amunition. Do you have anymore insights on this information. As you know my research centers around the Edwin Anderson Walker. This research has led me to Maxwell Taylor and John J. McCloy etc. as potential conspirators. I will usually defer to other researchers, many of whom have researched in a great deal more depth than myself, when it comes to the events of November 22, 1963. Jim Root

Brian I believe that Gary Mack did a History Channel program where it was demonstrated that Oswald could in fact have made it to the scene of the Tippit crime in the limited amount of time that was available. The problem, as I recall, was that there was a discrepancy in eyewitness accounts. Two separate accounts (the one Wrone sites and another) had Oswald traveling on two different streets toward the scene of the Tippit murder. Since both eyewitnesses each claimed that Oswald traveled different routes at the same time, one must be wrong. One route is shorter and more direct. This direct route would have allowed Oswald plenty of time to make it to the scene of the Tippit murder. The other, less direct and longer (Wrone) route would not have allowed Oswald the time to make it to the scene of the crime. One fact is for certain. Between where Oswald was living and the movie theater where he was arrested Jefferson Davis Tippit was killed. What I find most interesting is not the possibility of "if" Oswald could have made it to the scene and was therefore the killer but the inconclusive ballistics evidence gathered from the scene. Jim Root

John Simkin wrote: "No, but I suspect it had more to do with the way they were paid. It is worth pointing out that the OSS became involved in the drug trade before the CIA was established in 1947. It also marks the beginning of their relationship with Tommy Corcoran and Chaing Kai-shek. I will write more about this on the thread: Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-1990." Of course I have to point out that in the 1950's General Maxwell Taylor, as Chief of Staff of the Army would assign General Edwin Anderson Walker to be the US Military Advisor to Chaing Kai-shek. Just another coincidence? Jim Root

Owen Tim Gratz wrote: "My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist)." You replied: "The key word here is "evidence," isn't it? There is indeed a good deal of evidence of *American* involvement (you mention the fact that these people are Americans, as if it is somehow more okay to accuse non-Americans of the crime, i.e. Castro)." Thank you Owen for this response. A day or two ago Tim replied to a post I had made about my three primary suspects in the assassination of JFK, John J. McCloy, Maxwell Taylor and Edwin Walker (although I do not consider Walker in the same league as McCloy and Taylor). Qouting Tim: "It seems your entire thesis comes down to the fact that McCloy met Walker during WW II and McCloy had a major policy difference with JFK. That seems scant evidence upon which to besmirch the reputation of a very well-respected member of the Washington "establishment" who provided yeoman service to his country. Perhaps you should consider what your grandchildren would think if years after your death some one claimed you were a murderer on essentially no evidence whatsoever. If someone claimed my father was a murderer, I'd be pretty tempted to deck him for such slander." My question would be, "how do we consider anyone as a suspect without suggesting that they may have committed the crime?" I agree with Tim that it is improper to make an accusation without evidence and that we should all consider the fact that, well, we might be wrong about where our research has led us. With some 400 + posts I would challenge anyone to find a situation where I said that "X" did it. I have gone to great lengths over the past year and a half to say things such as "may have," could have," "in my opinion," "it intrigues me that.." etc. On the other hand I would challenge anyone to prove the opposite question about certain people in a position to have committed the crime. Can anyone prove to me that McCloy, Taylor or Walker were, without a doubt, not involved in the assassination of JFK? On the other hand, once again, to suggest that a person could not have committed this heinous crime for the simple reason that they were "a very well-respected member of the Washington "establishment" who provided yeoman service to his country" might well be an attitude that would keep us from ever establishing the truth. Sorry to ramble, I too enjoy this website to a fault! Jim Root

Tim You ask and state: "Do you have any information that McCloy ever violated the speed limit or was ticketed for jaywalking? And yet you brand a man with a splotless record of service to his country as a murderer, a traitor." The answer is yes. The Korematsu Case (dealing with the relocation of an American citizen during the relocation of Japanese-Americans during WWII) demonstrates just such a proclivity on the part of John J. McCloy. As an interesting side note: During the process of relocating the Japanese-Americans during WWII McCloy first worked with Earl Warren. From an article by Harvey A. Silverglate and Carl Takei that appeared in the Boston Pheonix: "In the spring of 1943, the Supreme Court was preparing to hear two cases — Yasui v. United States and Hirabayashi v. United States — challenging a wartime curfew for people of Japanese ancestry. A third case, Korematsu v. United States, which challenged the internment of this group, was coming down the pike as well. 'The War Department knew it would have to provide military justification for these racially discriminatory measures. However, a month before oral arguments in Yasui and Hirabayashi, it encountered a problem. General John L. DeWitt, who directed the internment of Japanese-Americans, submitted a report to justify the program. In it, he wrote: "It was impossible to establish the identity of loyal and disloyal with any degree of safety. It was not that there was insufficient time in which to make such a determination; it was simply a matter of facing the realities that a positive determination could not be made, that an exact separation of the ‘sheep from the goats’ was unfeasible." He grounded this assertion on the notion that the Japanese race was "a potentially dangerous element" with peculiar traits that made their loyalties and intentions inscrutable. This rationale, War Department officials realized, was legally indefensible. 'Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and several Army officials asked DeWitt to rewrite the report so as not to jeopardize the Supreme Court cases. DeWitt complied; he removed the racist language and replaced it with the assertion that wartime circumstances demanded immediate action, that there was no time to investigate the loyalty of each Japanese-American. McCloy then forwarded the doctored report to the Justice Department for use in the upcoming Korematsu case. The War Department destroyed all copies of the original, racist report, except for one that was accidentally misplaced and which eventually made its way to the National Archives, only to be rediscovered nearly a half-century later. 'The Supreme Court issued opinions in the Yasui and Hirabayashi cases on June 21, 1943, and in Korematsu on December 18, 1944. In all three, the court ruled for the government, relying heavily on the Justice Department’s assertion (which the lawyers derived primarily from the doctored report) that the exigencies of war demanded immediate action, and that there had been insufficient time to separate loyal from disloyal Japanese-Americans. 'In his dissent in Korematsu, Justice Robert Jackson expressed concern that the court, "having no real evidence before it, has no choice but to accept General DeWitt’s own unsworn, self-serving statement, untested by any cross-examination." Encouraging a whitness to change his testimony before the highest court in the land to protect the "integrity" of the government, distruction of the records that would prove this violation of the highest tenets of our Constitution......I figure this could be considered more serious than speeding violations or jaywalking tickets. How large of a leap is it from a lie to the Supreme Court and distruction of evidence to the assassination of a President is a good question. Would McCloy be willing to sanction murderers. Let us examine the record. Justice Robert Jackson and McCloy would differ on another occassion. Jackson would preside over the Nuremburg Trials, McCloy would overturn or change the sentences of many of those that had been convicted. This would occur seven years after the 1944 opinion in the Korematsu Case was written. In "The Legacy of Nuremberg," a documentary project of Minnesota Public Radio we find this statement about McCloy and his part in "reconsidering" Nuremburg "judgments." "The man who appointed the review board, John McCloy, stressed that the board was not reconsidering judgments but would examine fairness in sentences imposed by the tribunal. Many prosecutors suspected that politics were involved, though John McCloy always denied that he was acting on any political directives from Washington, according to prosecutors and historians. "Between 1949 and 1958," says William Caming, "all of the prisoners had sentences reduced and were then released. Including, surprisingly enough, four of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen death squads. It was a political measure. No members of the prosecution staff and none of the judges at Nuremberg were even consulted." 'Among the first released were the German industrialists, including Alfried Krupp and Karl Krauch, the I.G. Farben executive. Many of the former prisoners, like Krupp, would re-establish their wealth and positions in German society. Years later, a handful of the convicted war criminals would be tried again in a series of war crimes trials in Germany that continue to this day. The German government and German industry also paid out billions of dollars in compensation to victims of Nazi crimes. And beginning in the 1960s, a post-war generation of German writers, intellectuals and politicians confronted many of the demons of Nazism. 'In addition, 20 of the 24 Einsatzgruppen officers convicted by Benjamin Ferencz were released, including nine men originally sentenced to death, according to historian Peter Maguire. The last two left Landsberg prison in 1958. Recently declassified U.S. documents and CIA files obtained by Peter Maguire suggest that at least two former Einsatzgruppen officers later may have worked as spies for western intelligence agencies, including the CIA." Would John J. McCloy do "anything" to protect the "integrity" of the US Government and its intelligence activities? I can imagine Judge Jackson, if he had lived till 1964, writting his "opinion" of McCloy and the Warren Commission Report. He might have said, ""having no real evidence before it, THE NATION has no choice but to accept THE WARREN COMMISSIONS own..., self-serving statement, untested by any cross-examination." For the other questions.....it takes more than one person to make a conspiracy. I will get back to you on the letter and how it fits in. Jim Root

With Iran UN-sealing their nuclear research facilities it might be interesting to note this bit of information from 1945 (before the first Atomic Bomb was used). John J. McCloy, as Asst. Sec. Of War was involved from the beginning in these discussions about the use of and the potential distruction of civilization that could occur from the improper management and development of nuclear weapons and materials. Interim Committee members at their May 14, 1945 meeting: "There is hope that an arms race on this [nuclear] basis can be prevented, and even that the future peace of the world may be furthered, by complete international scientific and technical interchange on this subject, backed up by an international commission acting under an association of nations and having the authority to inspect." (from the diaries of Henry Stimson) During the Kennedy administration McCloy would disagree with John F. Kennedy's willingness to back away from the neccessity of inspections (in the name of peace) to verify compliance with international agreements (Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets). Were members of the govenment willing to sacrifice Francis Gary Powers in order to prevent the Paris Summit and stop those nations that were to attend from signing what was preceived as a flawed nuclear treaty that did not provide for enough "inspections" and varification (Peace in our time)? Was Lee Harvey Oswald's "mission" to Russia involved? I continue to be intrigued by the idea that this particular issue (limiting the spread of nuclear weapons) was of such importance to McCloy (as well as to Maxwell Taylor, John McCone, etc.) and what may have been perceived as a threat to our national survival (Kennedy backing away fromt he idea of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty involving all the countries of the world) could have motivated certain elements within the government to take deadly action against John F. Kennedy. After the funeral of JFK his widow, Jacqueline, conversed with a Soviet Diplomat: 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." There was a follow up letter to Khrushchev from Jacqueline: 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!" Did Jacki have her own suspicions? Some time back Tim Carroll posted: When Bobby Kennedy was murdered, Jackie said, "I hate this country.... I despise America and I don't want my children to live here anymore. If they're killing Kennedys, my kids are number one targets.... I want to get out of this country." In the movement to prevent the development and spread of nuclear weapons was Kennedy perceived as a liability? Did Kennedy's desire to enter into a less than sufficient treaty for political reasons and before the 1964 election, make him a target for the more reactionary elements of his administration? Jim Root

Tim Seems that many areas of interest can be associated with Joh J. McCloy! Jim Root

Howdy Tim "Sorry, Jim, no evidence for that at all . Might as well nominate Howdy Doody." I will agree that my "evidence" is circumstantial but I will suggest that you reread my mitriculating posts over the last year and a half and you will at least find some consistancy in the story that I have discovered. Some of the major points: Belief that McCloy had been and was a major player in the intelligence community since 1940 McCloy's association with Edwin Walker during WWII (two particular assignments) Walker's role in intelligence and counter intelligence throughout his career. Walker's role in the development of Special Forces. McCloy's association with Maxwell Taylor (1943 - 1963 +) The Taylor - McCloy disagreement with Kennedy over nuclear arms talks (motive) The Taylor - Walker connection that begins in 1927 at West Point, Korean War POW exchange, the Straits of Taiwan Crisis and Little Rock (in Korea, Little Rock and Taiwan Taylor assigns Walker to the most delicate tasks) The McCloy - Taylor - Walker association with a little know NSA employee named John Hurt (Oswald would attempt to contact a John Hurt while in custody) The McCloy - Warren connection (begins with the relocation of Japanese Americans during WWII and continues with support for Governor of California, VP and Supreme Court nomination) The McCloy - Dulles connection (begins in Paris in th e1930's continues throughout WWII OSS assignments, transition of OSS to CIA and elevation of Dulles to head of the CIA) McCloys fear over the proposed Paris Summit of 1960 (November 1959 meeting of the principles) There was concern that the US would be, because of international pressure, boxed into a limited nuclear test ban treaty. It is perhaps a coincidence that a U-2 was downed on May 1, 1960 that led to the failure of this Paris Summit and perhaps also just a coincidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine that had operated radar on bases from which the U-2 had flown, had defected to the USSR. The failed flight of Francis Gary Powers helped prevent the Paris Summit that McCloy feared. Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki and the coincidence of both Walker traveling in the area and the lack of infomation provided to the Warren Commission (without question from the commissioners) about this period. The informative message sent from the Helsinki Embassy on Oct. 9, 1959 (one day before Oswald travels to Helsinki) to the State Department providing the exact information that Oswald followed to obtain a visa into the USSR. The involvement of Edwin Walker in the assassination story after receiving a letter from McCloy five months before the assassiantion of JFK, etc., etc. etc. For me, it is the consistancy of this hypothesis that intrigues me. It makes the assassination of JFK the continuation of a long series of events that begins before JFK is elected and centers around a group of people that continue in government after the election of JFK (conspirators if you like). Tim if you wish to "nominate Howdy Doody" please do so but also provide the name of the puppet master. On the other hand if you can factually discredit any of the information above please provide that information and I will examine it carefully. If you can provide an alternative theory that encompasses the above information with a plausible explanation please provide that as well (please do better than coincidence because I would suggest that as I have followed this trail, gathering more and more information, the coincidences have mounted to a degree that is mathematically staggering). Jim Root

Mark On the Amherst College website is an outline of public service for John J. McCloy. Many things overlap the 1961 period. 1947 - 1989 Trustee of Amherst College 1956 - 1969 Chairman of the Corporation (Amherst) 1952 - 1965 Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Ford Foundation 1953 - 1971 Chairman of the Council on foreign Relations 1961 - 1989 Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy 1961 Jan-Oct Advisor to President Kennedy 1961 - 1974 Chairman of General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament McCloy had a falling out with Kennedy on the subject of a Comprehensive vs Limited Test Ban Treaty. By the June dates that you suggest Kennedy had taken a giant step back in the US push for a comprehensive test ban that would push all countries toward curbing the spread of nuclear weapons. Kennedy believed that we could not guarentee the French would approve of such a plan and that the Soviets could not guarentee China's approval so why bother. After the assassination of Kennedy, McCloy was back in Geneva working toward the treaty that was signed by some 70 nations in, I believe, 1968. My research seems to suggest that it is Kennedy that did not have a solid position on the spread of nuclear technology and that it was McCloy who was pushing the tough stance. It was October of 1961 that McCloy was removed from negotiations with the Soviets after they complained to Kennedy about his tough positions. June 10 was the date of Kennedy's major speech spelling out a new negotiating position with the Soviets on testing. The Soviets had always opposed inspections and it is not surprising that their ally, Egypt would take the same position. It would not be a stretch to believe that McCloy would be put in a very delicate position to push for inspections in the Middle East, where the oil companies he represented had special interests, while having been taken off the negotiating team with the Soviets for pushing to hard for inspections. "This attempt by JFK to correct McCloy's failure to accurately spell out to Nasser what his position on the arms race was is the most likely point where JFK and McCloy fell out, IMO." IMO it was JFK's inconsistancy in this arena over several years that I am begining to believe may have played into not only the "falling out" between McCloy and Kennedy but may have led to actions on the part of McCloy that only ended when the Warren Report was completed. Remember that it was during this same period (June 12, 1963) that McCloy wrote his "interesting" letter to Edwin Anderson Walker. Jim Root

John John J. McCloy was partner in the law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy during the period 1961-1989. He represented the major oil companies (known as the Seven Sisters) during this period. His duties included OPEC negotiations, antitrust investigations annd divestitures. What is interesting is that he took this position at about the same time that he ceased being a Kennedy "advison" which dates to October of 1961. As I have stated on other threads McCloy seems to have had a falling out with Kennedy over arms negotiations with the Soviets etc. There seems to be some evidence of McCloy dealings with Bobby Kennedy, as Attorney General, on behalf of the oil companies that were less than productive. I tend to believe that McCloy was a major player in the assassination conspriacy. Does this dovetail in with some of your information? Jim Root

Tim "I understand that Mr. Schwartz is now a partner in the prestigious Wall Street firm of Cravath Swain and Moore. " Just to add to the "historical interest:" John J. McCloy was a partner in the Wall Street firm of "Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood, where he remained for more than 15 years. He dedicated more than a decade of his life to investigating an emotional case of Imperial German sabotage in New York Harbor that dated back to 1916, almost a year before the United States had entered World War I. The so-called Black Tom Island explosion case went on to become a landmark in international law." (American Council on Germany) "Black Tom" was the case that propelled McCloy's career into espionage and governement via Henry Stimson and the War Department. McCloy was to bring into the OSS fold such notables as William Donovan. McCloy would also do the necessary legal work from which the CIA would emerge from the ashes of the OSS. McCloy would also sponsor or help to propel the careers of such Kennedy assassiantion notables as Earl Warren, Allan Dulles and Maxwell Taylor. Small world. Jim Root

Len My source is attributed to Goodwin Knight who became Governor of California upon the appointment of Earl Warren to Chief Justice. "Warren's successor as governor, Goodwin J. Knight, was to relate in later years that Eisenhower had promised Warren the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in return for delivering the California vote to him, but intended to renege when the first vacancy turned out to be in the office of chief justice. The court's leader, Fred M. Vinson, died on Sept. 8, 1953." Taken from http://www.mnc.net/norway/warren.htm Jim Root

Len I will concede that there was not "ever ... a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice..." My point is to demonstrate that Jackson was at one time considered a leading candidate for Chief Justice but the decissions that were eventually made (by Truman, while Jackson was in Nuremburg and Eisenhower who had made a deal before he was elected President, precluded the possibility of a Jackson Court). It is my belief that Jackson would have been a "great" Chief Justice. It does not surprize me that Jackson was at odds with John J. McCloy nor that it would be John J. McCloy's man, Warren, that would eventually become Chief Justice. That Eisenhower was later disapointed by his selection of Warren coincides with other disapointments that he would be confounded by during his last years in office. Eisenhower's "beware of the military industrial complex" speech, his internal fight with his old friend Maxwell Taylor and the failure of the Paris Summit only added to his woes. Tim For myself, how the members of the Warren Commission secured their appointments and positions of prestige continues to be of interest. The McCloy - Warren relationship I find of particular interest. A review of the first meeting of the commissioners is telling. Warren wanted his own man as lead counsel and McCloy didn't. McCloy got his way on the selection of a lead counsel just as he got his way on the "magic bullet." As far as the Patriot Act is concerned it is my opinion that a Jackson Court, if it would have ever existed, would never have accepted many of the provisions of the Patriot Act (yet I would suggest that we might all agree that Jackson was a great American). Jim Root

Tom Dewey is an interesting person. Not to mention that John F. Dulles was Dewey's speech writer, in the 1948 campaign Dewey's VP nomination was Earl Warren. Warren's attacks on Truman, that centered around Truman being soft on Communisim, let J Edgar Hoover to suggest that Truman use the Smith Act against Communist organization in the US. The Smith Act Trials would bring forward an attorney named Jonathan Abt whom Lee Harvey Oswald would later attempt to contact while in custody for the assassination of JFK. As Chief Justice, Earl Warren would overturn the Smith Act convictions of many accused communists in cases that had been argued by Jonathan Abt. The circle continues to intrigue me. On another note: I will continue to suggest that the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice was a "back room" political deal that stinks of political corruption at the highest levels. That Warren would become something other than what a majority of his supporters expected is not the point that I wish to speculate upon. Jackson was, in my humble opinion, more deserving than Warren but Warren had the clout of men such as John J. McCloy behind him (McCloy was of course a leading proponent of the civil rights movement in America). Jim Root

Royce Thanks for the information. In the Hosty testimony before the Warren Commission he makes reference to the 11/4 note that was sent on to the FBI main office and to the State Department just as his privious notes that reached Helms office were. I belive a majority of the Commissioners were there and he was questioned a great deal by them. It is during this testimony that Hosty stated: "After the conference that lasted until about 9 a.m, I then left the office and joined an Army Intelligence agent, and an agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department. We had a conference concerning a case not related to Lee Oswald. This conference lasted most of the morning until about 11:45. At 11:45 the Army Intelligence agent and myself left, and walked over towards Main Street. The motorcade was scheduled to pass down Main Street near our office at approximately noon. I was now on my lunch hour, so I stood and watched the motorcade go by at the corner of Field and Main Street in Dallas. After the President passed by, I then went across the street, started eating lunch. While I was eating my lunch, the waitress came up and told me she had just heard a radio report that the President and the Vice President had both been shot. I immediately stopped my lunch." Am I correct in beliving that this Army Intelligence person would be the Coyle or Powell that you mention? With the information that I have gathered over the years I have always found it interesting that the FBI Agent in Dallas that was involved with monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald and the person that had reported where Oswald was working along the motorcade route, would be with a Army Intelligence person at the time of the assassination. Do you know or can you reference further information about these two Army personel? Jim Root

Since Tim Brought up the Japanese internment I thought I might bring this subject back toward the purpose of this forum. Secretary of War Henry Stimson, with the famous comment about gentelmen don't read other gentelmen's mail, disbanded the "Black Chamber" (American's crypto breaking department0 in the late 1920's. Covertly and I might point out in violation of US law the Army reformed the apparatus under a man named William Friedman who brought together his first team of five members in 1930 (including John B. Hurt). By 1935 Stimson believed that the US would soon be at War with Japan and began to expand this operation in conjunction with another program that had been illegally conducted by the US Navy. The results of this illegal operation was that by the time the US entered WWII we had broker the Japanese codes. By 1942 John J. McCloy was reponsible for who received the "Magic" information discussed above. The "Smith Act" was the Patriot Act of WWII. Interesting that Lee Harvey Oswald wanted the Smith Act Attorney Jonathan Abt for his attorney. I might point out that John J. McCloy was one of the architechs of the Smith Act. Within months of it becomming law the US had, for the first time in its history, created files on millions of Americans. McCloy was also a primary player in the internment of Japanese Americans during 1942. Working with Earl Warren of California, McCloy helped to orchestrate that blight on American History. When cases resulting from the Japanese internments reached the Supreme Court, McCloy would "doctor" the information that was used to present the governments case. (Would this be the only time that McCloy would "doctor" information that would be presented to the American Public?) Supreme Court Justice Jackson (famous for his role in the Nuremburg Trials) distrusted and disliked McCloy because of his willingness to use his power to deceive the American people and judicial system. When in the early 1950's the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court became vacant many believed that Justice Jackson was the obvious choice to become the next Chief Justice. Instead we find that a deal had been structured during the 1952 Presidential campaign between Dwight Eisenhower and Earl Warren for Warrens support for the Eisenhower nomination. In exchange for staying out of the Republicn Primary and an endorsement of Eisenhower, Eisenhower agreed to grant the next seat on the Supreme Court to Warren. By chance the next seat that became open was that of Chief Justice. While Eisenhower wavered he eventually nominated Warren to the court dispite the fact that Warren had never been a judge. It is my understanding that the person that negotiated the deal between Warrren and Eisenhower was John J. McCloy. Food for thought as we discuss the Patriot Act and how it "might" be used. Jim Root

Duke We now know that both FBI agent Hosty and the New Orleans FBI agent's pre assassination notes were being routed to the office of Richard Helms (Morley/Newman). Interestingly the Hosty November 4, 1963 note was, to my knowlege, never given an exhibit number (therefore it has never been retrieved via the FIA. Morley and Newman demonstrated that information about Oswald was making it up the food chain in as little as seven days (Jane Roman story). If this was consistant then we can assume that the Hosty note, which stated where Oswald was working, would have been in the office of Helms by about the 11th of November. Since the route was finalized after that date the "who," that decided which route would be taken, has not been identified, I would suggest that the "big fish" (my reference to those responsible for the assassination) was involved in some way with this decission. If I may speculate, since Senior Military Aid to Kennedy Chester Clifton, as I understand it, kept the Kennedy calander and was responsible for getting Kennedy to and from his daily appointments, he may have had a major imput on the motorcade route decission. This man was assigned by General Maxwell Taylor to this position and Clifton in the motorcade at the time of the assassination. I might also point out that upon graduation from West Point, Chester Clifton's first commanding officier was Edwin Walker. Further, as I recall, Taylor, at the exact time of the assassination had been involved in talks with some German(?)/NATO officers but took a break from that meeting. It was, if memory serves me correctly, during that break that Taylor was informed of the assassination. Taylor then chose to continue that meeting, after the assassination, without interruption. One thing is for certain, the information about where Lee Harvey Oswald was working was available to intelligence agencies before the assassination and before the final route was decided. Can anyone produce an exhibit number for the November 4, 1963 Hosty note? Can anyone produce the name of the Military Intelligence person that was with Hosty at the time of the assassiantion? Jim Root

Robert What intriques me about this line of inquiry is that it is so consistant with the information I have collected over the years. 1) An Oswald connection to the U-2 aircraft 2) Oswalds defection to the USSR in 1959 (within days of his "defection" there was a meeting of the "principals" (including McCloy) where there was fear expressed that the summit meeting, scheduled for Paris in 1960, would force the US into a Nuclear Test Ban that we were not, for scientific reasons, yet prepared for. 3) Potential Oswald - Walker meeting while Oswald travels to Helsinki (along with the dates of the Helsinki Embassy notes that coincide with Oswald's travels). 4) The U-2 is downed and the Paris Summit is canceled. 5) Election of a new President and the announcement of McCloy as chief advisor to Kennedy in arms negotiations at the first press conference of John F. Kennedy. 6) Oswald begins his process of returning to the US 7) Walker begins his Pro Blue Program which leads to his resignation from the military within days of the State Department Decission that stated that Oswald had not renounced his citizenship and would be allowed to return to the US. 8) McCloy is "pushed aside" in the disarmament talks 9) Oswald returns to the US 10) McCone informs McCloy of the dangers of the new US position in disarmament talks 11) Two days later Walker is shot at. 12) Kennedy makes a major speech stating the "new" American position on a Limited Test Ban Treaty on June 10, 1963 13) June 11, 1963 Soviet Primier Kruschev accept the new US position 14) June 12, 1963 McCloy pens a letter to General Edwin Walker 15) General Maxwell Taylor continues to argue with President Kenndy over the Limited Test Ban Treaty. 16) Treaty is passed and signed in August of 1963. 17) Nov. 22, 1963 Kennedy is assassinated 18) December 1963 John J. McCloy is again the chief negotiator for the nuclear disarmament meetings in Geneva and a member of the Warren Commission My three principle characters in this assassination drama, John J. McCloy, General Maxwell Taylor and General Edwin Anderson Walker can all be tied into this whole scenerio. First perhaps to get John F. Kennedy elected while at the same time derailing the Paris Summist and then secondly all can be associated to the assassination in one way or another. Is it also just a coincidence that all three of these follows can be associated with an NSA employee named John Hurt and that Lee Harvey Oswald, while in custody on the night of the assassination, attempted to contact a person named John Hurt? Jim Root