Tim Gratz

When I first challenged John's statement that members of the WC were selected because they were susceptible to blackmail to persuade them to do what the government wanted, John derisively called my question stupid and stated:

I would also suggest you read Gerald D. McKnight’s Breach of Trust, for a full account of how LBJ selected the members of the Warren Commission.

Now anyone would read that statement that Professor McKnight's book supports John's assertion that WC members were selected because they were susceptible to blackmail.

I finally got around to obtaining "Breach of Trust" and am I glad I did--I do agree with John's assessment that it is one of the best books available on the assassination and the cover-up. But it contained not a sentence to support John's original statement. I challenged John to state the passages to which he referred. Obviously, that challenge went unanswered.

Now we have the answer straight from the good professor (see his post above).

Intriguing hypothesis. I can't say it didn't happen. My sense is however that it was not necessary. [see Professor McKnight's response to John's question in the "Discussion with Authors" section.]

In other words, although Professor McKnight finds John's speculation "interesting" he has no information to either support or refute it.

Let's look again at what John did here, but changing the theory a bit.

Let's assume a member of the John Birch Society joined the Forum and posted as fact the following statement: "Members of the WC were chosen because they were all secret members of a Communist cabal and could be counted on to "cover up" any evidence of the communist conspiracy that President Johnson feared had killed President Kennedy." When challenged to offer support for that assertion, the JBS member posts:

I would also suggest you read Gerald D. McKnight’s Breach of Trust, for a full account of how LBJ selected the members of the Warren Commission

That response would imply the book offers support for the lunatic JBS hypothesis.

Not everyone will read "Breach of Trust". (Although IMO everyone interested in the assassination should.) The book does NOT support the proposition asserted by John, although he clearly implied it did. And now Professor McKnight himsellf states he found no evidence for that proposition when he researched the book, although he cannot say it did NOT happen.

My assessment of John's integrityy will change dramatically if he has the moral courage to:

a) apologize to me for characterizing my challenge to his statement a stupid question; and

admitting that he has no support to offer for jis "hypothesis", and that is all it is--an interesting hypothesis but with no evidence to support it.

When anyone posts a book or other source for a statement he or she makes, the reader SHOULD be able to accept that the source cited actually supports the proposition advanced. One should not have to independently verify every source cited.

Deleted and reposted below.

"Answered b4 and you know it."

No, sir, I do not recall--or I would not have asked. If that is the case, you need not bother reposting but just post a url to the thread where it was posted.

Now let's see . . .

Jack White is only five years younger than David Atlee Phillips.

They both grew up in Fort Worth, Texas.

Guilty by city association!

Mr. Carroll may not think that character evidence is probative but Peter Tillers, a very distinguished professor of criminal law at Cardozo Law School thinks it is:

http://tillers.net/character.html

I would also suggest that the proximity of time between the Walker shooring and the Kennedy assassination is something a court would look at in deciding whether to admit the evidence.

If you had only two candidates as potential assassins of JFK, and the only information you knew about either of them was that one had previously attempted a presidential assassination which one would you select as the more likely assassin of JFK?

It absolutely amazes me that Mr. Carroll cannot see this.

Now an ad hominem attack on character would be if Oswald had been convicted of attempted murder of walker, and had served his time (never having killed JFK of course) and went back on the lecture circuit arguing Marxist socialism. If his opponent attempted to inject that he had once tried to shoot someone, that would be a logically irrelevant ad hominem attack.

Let's carry Carroll's argument to an extreme. You have a just released serial killer who it has been determined killed fifteen women using a certain modus operandi. Does that person have a charcter likely to commit sex crimes? Of course and he should be on everyone's watch list.

Tillers and McKnight are correct. Mr. Carroll is not.

What are the logical possibilities re the M-C rifle?

Let's start with the WC position on the rifle.

Oswald ordered it. Oswald brought it in to the TSBD in a package that he said carried curtain rods. Oswald used it to shoot the President.

Now let's back up one short sentence. Assume Oswald did all but shoot at the president. If all else is true then either Oswald was involved in the plot or (my scenario) he thought it was to be used in a simulated attack on JFK. I suggest the latter the only possibility consistent with Oswald's innocence.

Now we will back up yet another sentence. Oswald ordered the rifle but he never transported it. Someone else retrieved it presumably without his consent and used it to help make Oswald the patsy he claimed to be. Obviously if this happened it had to be someone aware of Oswald's ownership of the rifle. Perhaps this person was even aware of how Oswald had ordered it and how easily it would be traceable to him.

Or we start all over and assume Oswald did not even order the rifle but someone ordered it in his name (wasn't it in Hidell's) back in March. But was there a plan to make Oswald the patsy that early on?

In my opinion if we carefully consider these hypotheses we can consider matters e.g. when the frame started, who was involved, etc. For instance, if Oswald never owned a rifle that makes RP a party to the frame but if he did and someone stole it to frame him then her testimony could have been correct.

Appreciate your thoughts on this line of reasoning re Oswald's relationship (if any) to the M-C.

What Scott said certainly constitutes the conventional wisdom re the Hoffa death. But the CV can and is sometimes wrong.

If I recall correctly the Hoffa death came within thirty daus of Giancana's death.

And regardless of the dispute over whether ST confessed to Ragano, Ragano does also report delivering an urgent request from JH to STR and CM that it was time to get rid of JFK. And we know that JR had at least one phone call to a Hoffa enforcer shortly before that tragic day. And in "Ultimate Sacrifice" the authors report a witness (located by Pierre Salinger) to a pay-off from a Hoffa associate to none other than JR as I recall oin the first Sunday in November of 1963. One of the authors interviewed this witness. In "Brothers" DT states that Walter Sheridan had received info on either the same or a similar payment very shortly after the assassination.

Perhaps there was more than one reason why someone thought it was time for Jimmy Hoffa to be gone if not forgotten.

BK wrote:

My assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

I respectfully differ. If each picture is worth a thousand words, I posted references to pictures worth about ten thousand words which destroyed that shibboleth.

BK is as wrong in asserting that windows were normally secured on presidential motorcades as he was in asserting that JFK spoke to Ian Fleming. JFK did not.

In no way do I accuse BK of making intentionally false statements of fact but I am unaware of any historical record that JFK met with Fleming. And BK also misstated the relationship between Alex Rorke and Sherm Billingsley (he states he got that from an FBI record, which must constitute one of the few FBI records he trusts). So I would only credit a BK statement if he provides a source for it. Again, I do not accuse him of posting intentionally false information but these examples indicate to me his research ought to be verified.

I noticed in the Recommendations of the ARRB it recomended just such a memorandum involving the NARA, the CIA and the FBI.

In the Morley v CIA appellate opinion the court lists the parties executing the memoranum are identified as ARRB, NARA and the CIA. What happened to the FBI?

Suggest you now read the summary of the appellate court opinion in the preceding post.

John, what is your reference to JFK-supported civil rights bills?

In what ways did the LBJ supported civil rights bills "water down" the bill(s) supported by JFK?

This is a reference to CIA/DRE documents from the Final Report of the ARRB:

5. Anti-Castro Cuban Groups, Including DRE, Alpha 66, SFNE, JURE, FRD, CRC, and Commandos-L

In an effort to gather and review records relating to the activities of prominent anti-Castro Cuban groups who might have had some involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, the Review Board requested the FBI to provide access to files on the above-referenced anti-Castro Cuban groups for Headquarters and the New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, New York, and Dallas field offices. The FBI kept voluminous files on each anti-Castro Cuban group. Review Board staff members reviewed hundreds of volumes of records in search of assassination-related material. The files did yield approximately seventy assassination records.

The Review Board also requested the CIA to provide files on the above-referenced groups, to the extent that the CIA had not already processed such records under the JFK Act. The Review Board identified additional records from 19601964 in contemporary working files of a CIA office concerned with Latin American issues. Most of the relevant CIA records concerned the existence and activities of the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami. The Review Board also identified a small number of records pertaining to U.S. anti-Cuban activities in the Directorate of Plans files and in the files of DCI John McCone. The Review Board marked relevant records and requested that CIA process the records for inclusion in the JFK Collection at NARA.

Why didn't the ARRB indicate the DRE-related files that the CIA had reported to its Executive Director had "gone missing"?

The dog ate them is good. One reason every kid should have a dog.

Now do we know any high-ranking CIA officers who had dogs?

How about they were used to test the CIA's new paper shredder?

John, I do not want to repeat myself but the proven disposition of the arch-segregationists to use violence and murder to prevent the integration of the South makes them in my mind a far more likely group of interest than say the oil barons. I just want to note that if your suspicions are correct the arch-segregationist conspirators sure shot themselves in the foot. I think one of the reasons LBJ was able to obtain passage of the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965 was because of the changed atmosphere following the death of JFK. I am not sure that had he lived JFK would have been able to accomplish what LBJ did.

The death of JFK also led to: (1) the greatly decreased efforts to rid Cuba of Castro; and (2) marked decrease in DOJ prosecutions of organized crime.

Perhaps we could come work together and come up with a list (ala Letterman) of the ten most logical reasons those monthly reports are missing.

I await Ron Ecker's reply here.

I learned from the decision of the Court of Appeals in Morley v Central Intelligence Agency that despite the fact that the monthly reports of DRE case officers exist prior to December of 1962 and after April of 1964, those records are missing for the period December of 1962 through April of 1964, the very period during which Jeff Morley argues Joannides was the DRE case officer. (The CIA has refused to either confirm or deny that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE during the period in question.)

Of course the fact that these monthly reports are missing for the period leading up to and after the assassination and in which Oswald had his confrontaton with the DRE is purely a coincidence and it would be most unfair to the CIA to reach any sinister conclusions about the missing records.

The Court of Appeals notes that the CIA's brief explained (in a footnote) that it had addressed these missing monthly reports in a memorandum it had sent to the Executive Director of the ARRB.

Interestingly but perhaps parenthetically, one can infer that the Court of Appeals itself was sceptical about these missing monthly reports because it put quotation marks around the word missing in two separate places. Here is the first:

The CIA's brief explains in a footnote that it had addressed these "missing" monthly reports etc etc Morley v CIA, Slip Opinion at page 15.

The Court went on to note that the CIA neither supplied Morley with a copy of its memorandum to the ARRB Executive Director nor did it provide any explanation in affidavit form.

The Court then said:

It does not suffice for purposes of [granting the CIA] summary judgment that the CIA has written a memorandum to NARA [interestingly this may be an error in the court's opinion, on the immediately preceding page it states the memoradum was to the Executive Director of the ARRB] that "may explain" the lack of responsive documents; rather the court must be able to ascertain if it HAS explained the records' absence. . .The evidence here , , ,indicates that there is a factual question as to whether the "missing" [again note the court's use of the quotation marks for a second time] monthly reports still exist. Although the CIA indicates these documents are responsive, it has provided neither Morley nor the Court with an explanation regarding the reports' whereabouts. . . On remand the CIA must supplement its explanation. Morley v CIA, Slip Opinion at 16.

If any one reading this wants to suggest a non-sinister explanation the CIA can provide why these particular DRE case officer monthly reports happen to be "missing", I am sure the CIA would appreciate and consider any such suggestions.

John wrote:

It's not hard to make a case for JFK assassination = anti Civil Rights action

I suggest it is indeed hard to make a case without evidence. But hey when has the lack of evidence ever stopped us before? I will admit that despite the lack of evidence a theory that arch-segregationists, who clearly were prepared to use violence to further their objectives, is at least far less daft than many theories that have been posted here. And I do agree that Milteer had connections to the people John would consider as suspects so that could constitute some evidence, I suppose.

For reasons that I will develop in this post, the appellate court decision was far from a victory for the forces of truith and justice, although it does at least keep the case open.

I am going to edit this post throughout the night as I work on it. You might want to wait reading it untik I have finished it. I will post right below this sentence, in bold, when it is finished. Thanks!

My summary is complete enough for now. Tomorrow I will try to give a quick summary of the exemptions to disclosure relied upon, in most instances successfully, to refuse document production.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals dealt at length with the adequacy of the CIA's search for Joannides related records. It was in this area that Morley won some victories.

First, the court ruled the CIA must search its operational files for Joannides-related documents.

The CIA did not search its operational files because the CIA Act exempts such files from FOIA disclosures. Morley argued that an exception to that exemption applied, specifically sub-section (3) of section c of Section 431 of Title 50 of the United States Code:

Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, exempted operational files shall continue to be subject to search and review for information concerning—

. . .

(3) the specific subject matter of an investigation by the congressional intelligence committees, the Intelligence Oversight Board, the Department of Justice, the Office of General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for any impropriety, or violation of law, Executive order, or Presidential directive, in the conduct of an intelligence activity.

The Court determined that the Chuirtch Committee fit into the exception to the exemption of CIA operational files and ruled that on remand to the district court the CIA must search its operational files for Joannides documents. Note however that the search itself does not trigger automatic release of the files so identified.

Second, the court ruled the CIA must search for Joannides files even if it had already turned such files over to NARA.

There is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that holds that a government agency has wrongfully "withheld" a document under its control when it denies an otherwise valid FOIA request by directing the requester to a "pace outside the agency where the document may be piblicly available." If you want to see the reference to the US Supreme Court case, see the Morley Slip Opinion at Page 13. Despite this clear Supreme Court directive, the CIA refused to search through documents it had turned over to NARA. The Court of Appeals ordered the CIA to conduct such a dearch. If nothing else, the search will held Morley find Joannides files within the numerous NARA records.

Third, as noted in a different thread, the Court of Appeals ordered the CIA to submit a detailed explanation re why the monthly progress reports of the DRE case officer were missing from December of 1962 through April of 1964.

Fourth, the Court of Appeals concluded that the CIA had provided too cursory an explanation of how it conducted its search for Joannides documents and ordered the CIA to "expand the description of the search it conducted.

Fifth the Court of Appeals ruled that the CIA need not identify the statutory exemption under the FOIA for each redaction in a released document. It was adequate if it supplied exemption exceptions applicable to all the redactions in a singe document.

Sixth the court ruled that the district court erred in failing to determine whther there were segments of a withheld document that were "reasonably segregable" and thus producible. The Court of Appeals cited two of its previous rulings in FOIA cases that such a determination MUST be made whenever a court approves a government withholding. So the district court failed to follow the rulings of the D.C. Court of Appeals! (Note such rulings are not binding on other district courts but they are binding on the D.C. district court.)

For tonight I am going tyo simply summarize the court's ruling on the exemptions the CIA proferred for refusing to release documents. The CIA relied on Exemptions 1, 3 and 7(E) of the FOIA. The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the CIA's release on these exemptions.

The Court of Appeals ruled it had insufficient information to determine if the CIA's reliance on Exemptions 2, 5 and 6 was appropriate. It ordered the CIA to "supplement" its explanation why these exemptions applied.

BOTTOM LINE HERE: IF THE CIA PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION ON THE SEGRABILITY ISSUE AND PROVIDES A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THREE OF THE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ON WHICH IT RELIED, THEN THE CIA HAS ESSENTIALLY WON THE ENTIRE CASE.

Don't stand up and applaud. Sit down and weep.

The Court of Appeals decision in the case of Morley v CIA refers to a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Continued Obligations of the CIA under the JFK Act", dated September 30, 1998 and executed by the ARRB, NARA and the CIA.

Does anyone have a copy of this document?

The Court of Appeals states that under its terms, NARA itself should be making claims for the Joannides documents.

To Scott:

Sam Jr. may not have been brought in for questioning in the Rosselli murder but per "All American Mafioso" two independent informants had linked him to the murder. If that report is true, why he was never questioned about it is baffling.

I am glad you cleared up that Sam Jr. was not a blood relative of Santo.

James, do you have any knowledge or even speculation why the Walker shooting was "staged"?

It is a theory I do not casually dismiss.

I find it very interesting that Gen Walker was adamant that the bullet slug shown by Robert Blakey during the televised HSCA hearings was not the slug obtained by the DPD that he had held in his hand. (Per "Breach of Trust.")

Michael Douglas' father was Kirk Douglas.

Also I might be wrong about this but I do not believe it is usual for a writer to share in a profit participation.

Also since I have been accused of posting matters not directly related to the assassination (which I sometimes do but they are at least related to JFK) how does Helliwell's involvement in this have any bearing on whether he was involved in the JFK case?

Speculative no doubt but most interesting, Gary. Is there any way to follow up on the story, as you suggest, other than through an exhumation of Shaw's body, or talking to the sources that you cannot identify?

Is there any public evidence (i.e. apart from unnamed sources) that Vidal was acquianted with Shaw? I hesitate to use the term "knew" considering the potential connotations of that term.

To Jim Root:

Thanks for pointing out the Epstein interview with McCloy. Can you provide a reference so I can include it in my class materials?

McCloy's point is interesting. Many believe LHO's left-wing politics were feigned and he went to the Soviet Union as an agent of some US intelligence organization, and I think that position has a lot of merit for reasons that we do not need to rehash.

But what if we are wrong? Or what if he was "doubled" while in the Soviet Union and sent back to the US on SOME KGB mission--but not a mission to kill JFK. And then he "goes off the reservation" and does kill Kennedy (with or without help or encouragement of others). What fear and consternation that would have caused in the Soviet Union. Which could explain why they sent Nosenko.

You see I believe the timing of Nosenko's coming to the US while the WC was still operating and with claimed information re LHO raises rather interesting questions particularly when one looks at the questions on the earlier Nosenko polygraphs that Nosenko flunked.

To Mr. Caroll and Mr. Knight:

You may not think that whether Oswald shot at Walker has any relevance to whether he shot JFK but Professor McKnight, who has produced one of the most important and best-written books on the assassination and clearly put in thousands of hours reading documents, many of which you have not even heard of let alone read and examined, thinks that whether Oswald shot Walker is a key to whether he participated in the Kennedy assassination. So do I.

It is as simple as this: a man who has attempted to commit a political assassination is a good candidate for a subsequent successful political assassination. The man has proven he is capable of political murder.

To show you, gentlemen, how illogical your position is that the Walker shooting has no bearing on the Kennedy case, let us assume the DPD had very good reason to believe that Oswald had shot at Walker but for whatever reason were unable to prove it. Let us assume that they had shared that belief with the Secret Service. Should the Secret Service have then put Oswald on its "watch list" with JFK coming to town? By your "logic" the answer would be "no" since there is (your argument) no reason to believe that because Oswald had attempted to shoot a right-wing political candidate that he would attempt to shoot JFK. Now how many people in the world do you think you can convince of THAT?

Should the ladies who shot at Gerald Ford been removed from the SS watch list once Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency?