Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Larry,
On an earlier post, you mentioned that Ruby recieved an injection of cash days before the assassination and he had visitors from LA. I was unaware of this. Can you tell me where I can find more info concerning these matters?
-
"Forgive your enemies but never forget their names".
-
The plans for LHO after the assassination are an interesting point of conjecture. For my part, two things seem apparent, 1. The actions of Ruby were not part of the original plan. That had all the hallmarks of a hastily cobbled together measure
and 2. Despite being estranged from them, I agree with Bill that I doubt LHO would have agreed to fly out of country, leaving his family--although he might have been told that they would be flown out later. This indicates the plotters intended to dispose of him, in Dallas, suitably framed, shortly after the assassination. Under the circumstances, I would assume the most ideal person for this would be someone in the DPD, given their access to swift mobility and a reliable communications network.
That leaves J.D.Tippett and/or the mysterious pair of possibly bogus cops seen by Earlene Roberts in a police car outside the rooming house while LHO was inside. It's possible that's how LHO got to the theatre, although more likely he was picked up by the same vehicle he left Dealey Plaza in. I don't believe he walked (the bus and taxi trips were WC inventions--a simple affair when the subject is deceased--and the wallet and jacket discoveries were plants). Witness statements concerning the Tippett shooting are confusing and contradictory but my best guess is that two were involved, LHO the non-shooter. The bogus police car, escorting the first vehicle from behind, witnesses the whole thing, follows LHO--now on foot -- and radios the base the minute he walks into the theatre. The real shooter arrives at his liason unmolested. As for who and where for LHO, I lean towards the theatre being the preordained place, a touch of historical irony, a little in joke that only the real conspirators can share. Enter the DPD, "Johnny come lately" hats firmly in place, to prove to the horrified conspirators that they can't be trusted to carry out the simplest of murder plots. Despite belated attempts at provocation, Houdini gets taken into custody alive. Martinis get angrily slammed on to wood panelled desks, "Someone get hold of Ruby, goddammit!"
-
the absence of the codebooks on AF1
Mark,
The White House codebook was missing from the Cabinet flight to Japan, not from AF1.
As events played out that day, the missing codebook was not significant, as it did not prevent the Cabinet members aboard the flight from communicating with the White House. They did have to ask in at least one instance, however, who they were talking to by name because they didn't have the codebook.
I think that deliberate removal of the codebook from the plane would have been significant only in the event of a worst case scenario that day (i.e. the necessity of an overt military coup in Washington), in which case the Cabinet members might have no idea who were they were talking to, if anyone, in the White House.
This would point to some military person, or someone acting on the military's behalf, having removed the codebook. But I'm not sure what difference the codebook would really make, since any military interlopers in the White House wouldn't have White House code names anyway.
Ron
Ron,
Thanks for that. For some reason, I thought the codebooks were on AF1. For this, I blame Tim
. Anyway, I think it all still points to the military having foreknowledge, or more. What are your "prognostications"?
-
I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.
John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?
Hi Mark-
I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!
Greg,
As you can see, Ron's answered your question. Ron's a mine of information and a very helpful forum member. If you have a question re the assassination and he's online, you'll have your answer in no time. I must confess I haven't read Bloody Treason so I didn't know about Dinkin's lawsuit. This whole thing's a steep learning curve for me but I'm in for the long haul and as Maxwell Smart would say, "And loving it!". Like your posts, by the way.
-
I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.
John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?
-
Tim.
If as you belive, Castro was behind the assassination,in what way does Ruby tie in
to your scenario? I think we both agree, that somebody forced Mr Ruby's hand, as
LHO had to be silenced. whoever this was must have had something BIG on old
Jack. Who do you think put his feet to the fire, and how do they tie in to Castro?
McWillie had Ruby knock off Oswald because Lansky and Fidel were such good buddies.
Stan,
Very nice. Yes, it won't be long before Tim provides us with "very cogent evidence" that Lansky and Fidel collaborated to kill JFK and that often after 18 holes on the testing Royal Havana course, they would meet up with Trafficante and Marcello and the four of them would dine and drink the Havana nights away, telling stories of times past and playfully ribbing their host about how things were much better before he lobbed.
-
Steve,
Ruby's boyhood chum Barney Ross (Barnet Rosofsky) went on to win world boxing titles in three weight divisions.
Once Welterweight champ though, Mark, he refused, on the advice of Light Heaveyweight champ, Maxie Rosembloom, to fight Australian Jack Carroll.
As with Ross, he had changed his name due to due family disapproval of boxing. He had been born Arthur Hardwicke.
Ross may have been brave, but in dodging Carroll, he showed he was also no fool.
Greg,
Quoting from Ross's autobiography, "I woulda moidered dat bum"
-
John, perhaps we can approach some common ground.
It is most important (I am sure you would agree) first to get our facts in order.
You have been quick to dismiss my theory of Cuban involvement in the asssassination because you felt Castro had no motive. Therefore, my position was illogical. Now, I gather from your post, that you are not familiar with the plans for the second invasion of Cuba. They are discussed both in "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Live By the Sword". I will prepare to post on them at greater length tomorrow. Clearly RFK was following these plans very closely.
I would assume you might concede Castro motive if I convince you of the seriousness of the plans.
You wrote:
What was the point of JFK carrying out secret negotiations with Castro in 1963? (I assume you are not claiming that the documents released in 2003 were not forgeries.) Why would he take all the risks that this strategy entailed? After all, if his Cuba strategy was exposed he could have lost the 1964 election.
Your last point is very good. Clearly, if the public (which hasd gone through the missile crisis) had learned that JFK was going to "sell out" to Castro, even Barry Goldwater might have been able to defeat him. Had he successfully removed Castro, on the other hand, his re-election would have been assured. JFK, being the political animal that he was, realized this, of course.
So how does one reconcile the peace talks (of course I agree they existed) with the invasion plans? There have been several suggestions.
One is that the peace talks were insincere, an effort to lull Castro prior to the invasion. Similar to what the Japanese did to the Americans prior to Pearl Harbor. This is what Lisa Howard concluded.
Another possibility is that it was a deliberate "two track" policy and if JFK could negotiate with Castro a solution that was politically acceptable, i.e. that would not doom JFK at the polls, then the invasion plans would be cancelled. It may have been unlikely that Castro would have kicked the Soviets out of Cuba, but an imminent invasion would certainly give him incentive to consider it to guarantee the survival of his regime.
There are many intelligent people who accept the possibility of Cuban involvement in the assassination. Some have had access to inside information. If forum members are unwilling to read "Live By the Sword" it does not surpise me they are not willing to consider my scenario.
Tim,
To me it doesn't make any sense for JFK to plan to invade Cuba. The first attempt was half hearted at best. JFK then goes on to establish direct contact with the Kremlin, followed by a nuclear test ban treaty in August, and engages in covert discussions with Castro's regime. So then he's going to throw all this away by invading the Soviet Union's close ally? As a politician he would be regarded as a person not to be trusted and this would be something JFK would want to avoid at all costs. Why go to all the trouble of establishing mutual trust with the Eastern bloc only to squander all that hard earned goodwill? It doesn't matter how many books you have based your interpretation on--the scenario makes no sense and represents a inexplicable departure from logic on Kennedy's part. It's wild and mischievous speculation.
-
I believe the HL HUNT / BUNKER HUNT sponsored TREASON circular was an essential part of the assassination.
It expresses the rationale for EXECUTIVE SANCTION, and was part of the propaganda program about Oswald, Edwin Walker and the assassination.
The Wanted poster only painted the broad strokes.
The joint agency executives had no motive to present their own rationalizations in full.....
Kennedy's "incapacity" caused by acid trips with Mary Meyer and other classified NSA/ONI material was obviously not appropriate material to include in the advertisement.
The Edwin Walker tale, the backyard photos, the CHRISTCHURCH early release material, and this Wanted poster all were parts of a PSY/OPS PROGRAM.........
[the CHRISTCHURCH early release material of 11/23/63 is the newspaper Fletcher Prouty read in New Zealand soon after the assassination. It immediately caused him to suspect the joint agencies complicity, as the Oswald material was too detailed and complex to be reported so quickly] -------
Shanet,
Thanks for that. Yes, the release of all Oswald's background details was done with embarrassing and even incriminating alacrity. I loved Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Prouty in the film. You've probably spelt it out on another thread, but does your theory include East Coast financiers? Even though Nixon was from California, I believe he was largely sponsored by East Coast banking interests.
-
Mark,
Thanks for the kind words. I don't doubt that the handbill and/or ad may have been a signal. What I said about the DMN lawyers was in relation to the time lag involved in getting the ad in print. I didn't mean to suggest that the lawyers might veto it. But if it was a signal, I don't think it was a vital one. Something more immediate (like a radio transmission) might be needed in terms of proceeding or not as the fateful day progressed.
The handbill or ad could have been a signal saying everything is still go as of now and good luck. Like the presence of Nixon in Dallas that day, it was like a sign of moral support. And the fact that Walker may have had a hand in both the handbill and ad certainly adds to the sinister possibilities.
Ron
Ron,
Jim Root would certainly agree that Walker's involvement in the handbill and ad has sinister overtones. I do too.
On the ad being a signal, you may be right. One thing I hadn't considered was the decision on the bubbletop wasn't made until that morning. I believe Ken O'Donnell had the last word on that---beyond the reach of the conspirators. Nixon's interesting, even if you say his lawyers weren't responsible for the ad. His presence and subsequent amnesia reeks.
-
All of the above is very interesting, but gets away from my original point, was jack
Ruby psychologically capable of commiting murder, for the reasons he stated.
If this act go's against his previous known nature,Then some form of psychological
pressure has been brought to bear, to ensure the deed is done. Psychopathy, by
the nature of the illness,renders the sufferer incapable of experencing empathic
reactions towards others in distress. Yet Ruby claims he committed first degree
murder, to spare Mrs Kennedy further trauma. Jack was impulsive, aggresive,
unable to learn from past mistakes, manipulative, ready to blame others for his
problems, & it seems a very good actor. coupled with his troubled upbringing this
is the classic, background, & symptomology of the Pschopathic individual.
As Jack was fond of saying,"You all know me, im Jack Ruby"But how many knew
the real man.
Steve,
Sorry for the apparent hi "Jack" ing of your thread on Ruby but you must understand that it belongs to us now. Joking. I'm no shrink but I believe he certainly was a psychopath. Ruby had a record of violence which included people in his employ. He reportedly often waited until customers were drunk before assaulting them. He was moody and capricious, capable of acts of violence and generosity by turns. Not all psychopaths are murderers, of course. Many can be found in offices and workplaces, people incapable of empathy.
As you outlined, the suggestion that he murdered LHO to spare Jackie a trial is ridiculous given his apparent inability to display empathy. Equally ridiculous is the notion that he did it out of patriotic indignation. If the conspirators needed a fallback plan, they had the perfect vehicle in Ruby. Violent, moody and most important of all, his mind was fertile ground for influencing by suggestion. He was obviously ordered to murder LHO. Being a member of the underworld, that was enough to make him comply. However, just to reassure his fragile and chaotic emotional state, he was also told that he would be a hero, he would receive a minimal sentence by dint of securing him a benevolent jury and importantly, he would receive generous financial compensation. Having planted all that in his head, all that remained was for the conspirators to make certain that he was given every assistance by those fearless upholders of justice in the DPD. He enters the basement at 11.19, the DPD, ever efficient, deliver the victim at 11.21. Beautiful. My guess is that intermediaries told Ruby he was to kill LHO on the orders of Meyer Lansky. I have no evidence to support this.
-
I believe that Ruby’s claim about doing it for Jackie was clearly BS, and he was probably telling the truth when he told his attorney that Howard told him to say it.
On the handbill and/or newspaper ad possibly being a signal for the assassination to proceed, bear in mind that there was a time lag involved. The handbill appeared a day or two before November 22, and the ad that appeared in the 11/22 newspaper did not run until the Dallas Morning News ran the ad past their lawyers. The ad had to have been submitted to the DMN at least the day before. So if either the handbill or the ad were a signal, what if on the morning of 11/22 the hit needed to be called off? How were they going to recall the handbill or the newspaper ad?
Also, a word on the online ad for a copy of the “Wanted for Treason” handbill. To begin with, this was not what appeared in the newspaper as the ad claims, this was the handbill that appeared on the street. Secondly, the ad’s claim that it was written by lawyers from Richard Nixon’s law firm at the bottler’s convention is pure fiction. According to the WC Report (though itself a work of fiction in many places), the “Wanted for Treason” handbill was written by Robert A. Surrey, the business partner of General Walker, in whose station wagon a copy of the handbill was seen by Bernard Weissman, one of the authors of the “Welcome, Mr. Kennedy” ad in the newspaper.
Indeed there may also be a Walker connection to the newspaper ad. Weissman and two other of the ad’s four authors were in the U.S. Army together in Munich, Germany. They got out of the service in 1962. Assuming at least a two-year hitch, they were presumably in Munich when Walker was there. By November 1963, all three are living in Dallas (with Weissman apparently taking at least one ride in Walker’s station wagon), and join the John Birch Society, of which Walker was a member. And the fourth author of the ad was Joseph P. Grinnan, JBS coordinator for the Dallas area.
Finally, if George Surrey wrote the “Wanted for Treason” handbill under instruction of his partner, the fringe right-winger Walker, then it’s correct to say that the handbill was written by a Surrey with the Fringe on Top.
Ron
Ron,
Interesting post. Very witty. I'll have to check out the reflections on life in Ron's Little Acre again. Not enough trees on that acre, btw--has it been cleared for grazing?
On your other points, I don't think the necessity of running the ads past the DMN's lawyers necessarily represents an insurmountable problem. It seems that half the officials in Dallas were bent in 1963. There were members of the DPD, the DA, the Mayor, postal inspectors (someone should start a thread on the ubiquitous but enigmatic Harry Holmes), newspaper proprietors and politicians all willing to follow orders and put LHO in the frame, so why would the conspirators think they would suddenly discover beacons of integrity within the DMN's legal team? They would do what they were told just like everyone else in Dallas apparently did in '63. After all that's been written and said about Dallas in '63, I assume, unapologetically, corruption.
As for the necessity of submitting the "Wanted for Treason" ad the day before, I'll just say this: the assassins murdered JFK in broad daylight, right in front of his Secret Service agents and before about 200 witnesses, the event was filmed and photographed, four "investigations" have taken place, millions of words written about the matter and still we are none the wiser as to who the assassins were. If they were smart enough to accomplish this, then I don't believe a mere newspaper deadline would have tripped them up. If the ad was a signal, and that's still an "if", then they would have had it inserted at the last possible moment. I don't know how and I don't really care. All I'm sure of is that the normal rules and constraints which apply to mere citizens did not apply to the people who murdered John F. Kennedy.
Ron, you're a walking encyclopedia of assassination facts and figures and one of the most helpful members on the forum, but you've got to start being more controversial. I say this tongue in cheek, of course. Seriously though, the people responsible for the assassination and coverup have dicked us around for nearly 42 years and like the cowards they are, have hidden behind the machinery of law which was designed to protect the innocent and expose the guilty, not the other way around. If a theory or suggestion looks plausible, then I think it's worth pursuing regardless of perceived incongruities. For example, I believe the existence of Operation Mockingbird to be an established fact, despite any official denials by "respected journalists or publishers". If we're always tripping over technicalities, we'll never see closure.
-
So...taking the next logical step in the process...giving Mark credit for the idea that perhaps the newspaper ads WERE a signal that the hit was "on"...
Does anyone know whether the Paine household received a newspaper delivery prior to Oswald leaving for his ride to work?...and, if so, did Oswald read the newspaper prior to leaving the Paine house?
IF the ads were a signal...and IF Oswald didn't have access to a newspaper that morning...might possibly let LHO off the hook. Yet another angle to consider.
Mark,
I think it's unlikely that LHO was in the real conspiracy loop. The unstated message in those ads, if there was one, would be directed at others. It would be a clever way of signaling a green light, obviating the need for dozens of potentially risky phone calls. Barring the discovery of some written record (most unlikely) or a deathbed confession by someone involved (again unlikely) we'll never know.
-
I agree, John. After the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's mistrust of the military and their cold war strategy was cemented. The MIC knew it, LBJ knew it and selected insiders knew it but the public didn't. I believe you are correct in your assertion that JFK was also being influenced by Mary Meyer. Things were about to change. JFK knew that if the Republicans nominated Goldwater he would defeat him easily. Just mosey on down to Texas and tie up a few administrative problems and everything's looking peachy for the campaign. Can't find a fault in your reasoning.
-
Had Oswald escaped, given the climate in Dallas, everyone would have assumed it was a right-wing plot, particularly given that ad.
Food for thought, perhaps.
Possibly even: Oswald killed escaping, blame it on Castro.
Oswald escapes, the right-wing is blamed.
Who knows but what there was also a "right-wing" patsy waiting to be framed as well?
If there was a right-wing plot, one can, I think reasonably conclude one of the following: a) the sponsors of the ad were not aware of or involved with it; or
if they were their stupidity cannot be described in mere words.Shanet, it is your theory that the "Executive Sanction" could not succeed without a publication of the grievances? But there were far greater issues that could have been raised against JFK by insiders if it was "Executive Sanction" such as you propose.
Tim,
What if either the "Wanted for Treason" or "Welcome Mr. President" ads (with black border) were a preordained signal for the hit to go ahead as planned? It's possible.
Your criticism of theories other than your own is welcome. All scenarios proposed by forum members should be subjected to rigorous critical analysis. However, your tendency to view all scenarios through a strictly right wing versus left wing template impedes your ability to logically process new information. Perfectly reasonable arguments fail to permeate this left v. right filter embedded deep within your psyche. I say this with great respect, of course. You are a forthright, knowledgeable and articulate researcher and I always read your posts but because of your instant hostility to any suggestion that this crime was committed by anyone other than Communists or the Mafia, your credibility is being impaired. Personally, I don't mind which position the guilty parties occupy on the political spectrum. Anyone from Dick Nixon to Chairman Mao for all I care. My views on the assassination have changed since joining the Forum, being strongly influenced by views expressed by Shanet Clark, Larry Hancock, John Simkin and Jim Root, among others. Like many others on the Forum, I just want to see the record set straight, hopefully in my lifetime. So give the views of others a fair hearing, would you?
-
Maybe the appearance of the "Wanted for Treason" ad on the morning of the motorcade was some kind of prearranged signal for the assassination to proceed.
-
I have been looking into Jack Ruby's background for the last couple of months,
Jacks father, Joseph, was an abusive,heavy drinker,who beat his much younger
wife Fanny. The marrage was the result of an arrangement in their native Poland.
Fanny Rubinstein, was a woman with her own demons, who beat, and verbally
abused her Children. Eventually, she was committed to a mental hospital, causing
the break up of the family, when Jack was just ten years old. Jack seldom attended
School after this, finally flunking out in the third grade. He much prefered the street,in the company of his friend, Barney Ross,the pair became street hustlers
scalping sports tickets, & running the numbers game for Capone minions.
I belive that Jacks early childhood abuses, and introduction to "Street Life" when
barely an adolescent, left emotional scar's, which later developed into a full blown
personality disorder (Psychopathy) If this diagnosis is correct, an there is much in
his adult behavior to butress my belife, Then his stated reasons for killing Oswald
become even more bizzare, As the main symptom of psychopathy is, reduced
emotional affect, and a loss of empathic feeling. Yet, this is the man who shot
Oswald, thereby effectivly ending his own life, to save Jackie Kennedy the trauma
of attending a trial? Never going to happen.!!!
Steve,
Ruby's boyhood chum Barney Ross (Barnet Rosofsky) went on to win world boxing titles in three weight divisions. Fighting at around 140 pounds he fought nearly 300 bouts and lost only four. He was never kayoed. After retiring from the ring, he enlisted in the armed forces and fought at Guadalcanal. A man of immense courage, he saved the lives of several of his fellow soldiers, earning the Silver Star for his efforts (unlike LBJ who didn't do squat for his Silver Star). Treated in military hospitals with generous doses of morphine for his wounds, he developed an addiction which later caused the breakup of his marriage. Again showing incredible courage, he kicked the habit cold turkey, enduring three weeks of hell. I believe he was regarded as one of Chicago's favorite sons. Coincidentally, he died on January 17, 1967---fifteen days after Jack Ruby. Just thought I'd mention it.
-
Fascinating post, John. I agree with Shanet that there must also have been some help from the top echelons of the U.S. Military and sections of the Executive in order to explain--- A. The Military's hijacking of the body to perform a crooked autopsy and B. The removal of adequate Secret Service protection and protocols, this being the domain of the Treasury Secretary. This, however, doesn't mean the Suite 8F group weren't the original plotters--it just means that they may have had sufficient influence to persuade the other parties to come on board.
The LHO/JDT scenario makes sense and is reinforced by Acquilla Clemon's statement that she saw two men talking to Tippett before the shots. Concerning the involvement of Sturgis, Gonzalez, Martinez and Barker, I always assumed that the principals in the shooting of JFK would have been murdered shortly thereafter, but I suppose you can't murder everyone who assisted in the plot--only those considered a risk of talking.
The main attraction of your scenario, IMO, is that it provides a possible explanation for the decades old mystery of why the Watergate scandal was exposed in all it's murky detail and the JFK assassination investigation ended with the lamest of official explanations, namely "er.... we believe it was probably a conspiracy......er.....probably....maybe.....er.......we dunno".
-
I saw the HC doc on Mr. Rubenstein, IMO, disinformation worthy of Victor Posner. No mention of Jack's Chicago connections at all. Anybody know why Jack had to leave Chicago? He killed a cop! His punishment is exile? Tell me he is not connected. Also no mention of Jack's tearful pleas to Justice Warren to get him out of Dallas and Jack would tell him everything he knew. Plus, no reference to the huge increase in phone traffic at his club in the months prior to the hit. Lots of calls to Chicago and Miami and New Orleans.
I remember reading an interview with Castro, where he was asked about involvement in the JFK hit. His response was along the lines of 'why would I kill my best chance for reapproachment with the US?'.
Castro likely new that JFK pulled the plug on the air strikes, which doomed the invasion. Castro certainly knew that JFK pulled the missles out of Turkey. In the USSR, Kruschev was considered to have won a great victory by getting the missles out of Turkey, why would the KGB or the GRU have wanted to hit the guy who was their friend?
Then go ask various right wing types in the US how they felt about the missles in Turkey being pulled after JFK folded on the airstrikes. Who has the motive now?
Norman,
Good post. I agree 100% with your observations. There were many other candidates with much stronger motives to kill JFK than Castro. Tim will probably reply to your post and say something like, "With respect, Norman....." (I love that one) and tell you to go and read a lot of "Castro did it" material but don't worry---it's a rite of passage on this forum (and despite the rampant right wingery he's not a bad guy).
-
Tim,
The problem with attempting to dissassociate LBJ from the assassination while acknowledging his role in the coverup is this:
LBJ knew in advance of the hit (he may have even urged its expedition)
LBJ approved of this course of events (you don't need evidence to support this, it's self evident)
LBJ agreed to conduct the coverup and kept his word.
Thus, it can be effectively argued that rather than simply agreeing to the plotters demand for an effective coverup, LBJ, by his actions, ensured the event transpired in the first place. Tim, he was guilty of more than just post facto involvement. He may have even organised the event himself, as some have suggested.
-
There's an hour of my time I will never get back. Standard stuff. Posner was wheeled out, Ruby was portrayed as a simple character looking for his 15 minutes and conspiracy themes were not seriously looked at.
To quote Mark Stapleton, "Some of these docos are not what they're cracked up to be."
Add this one to the list, Mark.
James
James,
Thanks for the review--I was a bit sorry that I forgot to tape it but now I don't mind. Was it a History Channel production? If so, it ranks alongside a terrible doco they produced recently which virtually blamed Kennedy for the Cuban Missile Crisis, a "reckless game of brinkmanship", according to the narration.
-
Mark, arguments from analogy can be weak, but:
assume Mark Fuhrman KNEW in his mind that O.J. was guilty so he planted some evidence (the glove as I recall). One could consider such conduct tantamount to a "cover-up". But that does not mean that Fuhrman killed Nicole.
By the same token, the mere fact that the KGB faked the Hunt letter does not necessarily mean the KGB killed Kennedy.
Whether true evidence or evidence manufactured by clever plotters, there was plenty of evidence pointing toward the Soviets and/or the Cubans. The "cover up" could have been motivated by LBJ's unwillingness to open what he saw as a Pandora's box.
And what if LBJ was concerned an investigation would reveal the plotters were linked to him (oil barons, defense tycoons, whoever)? He might have been concerned that would then look like he was involved even if he was innocent. He might have had a not unrealistic concern that a guilty person could try to get bargaining chips by pointing the finger at him.
There are just a myriad of reasons why the cover-up is not neccessarily linked to the assassination. Otherwise you might as well include RFK as well as LBJ. RFK had the legal authority over the DOJ after all.
Please read "The Assassination Tapes". With all due respect, it might be helpful if you at first spent time reading the available books and other resource materials rather than posting your theories. I think it significant for instance that it was RFK who requested the presence of both Dulles and McCloy on the WC.
Tim,
On your recommendation, I'll try to find the book and read it, but my interpretation of its content might differ from yours. From the excerpts which have been posted on other parts of this site, it doesn't sound like a vindication of LBJ to me. It only shows that you can't take it on face value. LBJ's bullying of Richard Russell was pathetic, and LBJ constantly reassures Russell that he isn't being forced into anything when the reality, plain as a pikestaff, is.....he is.
While growing up, I always regarded LBJ as kindly old guy who took over after JFK. Research the man's career and you discover a different LBJ. Of all possible candidates for assassination of JFK, his motives were the strongest and his career appears to have been devoted to advancing the interests of his benefactors to the detriment of the country. Given LBJ's infuriating habit of tactical name dropping, it surprises me that you are convinced that it was RFK who requested the prescence of Dulles and McCloy on the WC. You must also believe it was RFK who wanted LBJ sworn in as soon as possible, when it was really RFK agreeing to LBJ's own suggestion. JFK and RFK once said of Lyndon, "he lies, he just lies all the time".
-
Hi Greg.
The short answer is, power recognises power when it acts. I belive that the
original plotters, would have been a relatively small group ( Texas oil IMHO)
but once the deed was done, all the Kennedy haters jumped on board, to ensure
a high level cover up took place. Steve..
And there were sure plenty of haters at the time. That's part of the difficulty... so many people/groups with motive. But good stuff Steve, thanks!
The key here Greg is the nature of political assassination.
Almost always carried out by a small, dedicated, ruthless group. your right in that
we could argue about which group/groups did the deed, as I say my hunch is Texas oil men. but in the end many benifited from Kennedys death, LBJ got to be
president,rather than seeing the inside of a court,Hoover got to retain his power
& job, Oilmen got to keep their profits high( Money, always a good reason for
murder.) The military got its war, & on & on. I belive a small group had Kennedy
murdered for finacial-personal hate reasons, but the many that benifited from
this act of treason, allowed it to go unpunished.
Interesting discussion here. I agree with all those groups listed, Steve. There's others, too. Consider JFK's plan to circumvent the Federal Reserve and print money directly as property of the U.S. Government, with no interest payable to the Federal Reserve. The owners of the Federal Reserve ie. Rothschilds, Rockerfellers etc. wouldn't have been throwing their hats in the air at the prospect of losing this cosy little tax exempt arrangement. The business community were also aghast at the way JFK handled his dispute with the steel industry in 1962. In a classic but effective example of overkill, some industry executives had their expense accounts examined by the FBI while Kennedy ran an aggressive media campaign to force them to back down, which they did. An insight into how many senior businessmen viewed JFK can be found in an interview shortly after the assassination, where a senior executive's opening words to a journalist were, "Now that we have a President who understands business..."
JFK's radical but equitable plans to redistribute wealth were a great concern to many at the fat end of the wealth spectrum. He broke the political speed limit for change. There's nary a power group in the U.S. he didn't alienate. And ol' Tim keeps telling us it was Fidel.
. 
if they were their stupidity cannot be described in mere words.
Jack the Ripper: Latest Theory
in Jack the Ripper
Posted
James,
Very interesting. However, I can't have Barnett. He wouldn't have done that to his ex girlfriend. Also, he lived on in Whitechapel for years. With this kind of serial killer, they just don't get bored with it and move on to something else. IMO, he continues until he dies, gets caught or incarcerated for some other reason.
Steve,
Your wife poses an interesting scenario, more likely than JB committing all the murders, IMO, although I still don't buy it. MK's the ripper's work--only with more time. The locked door business is no mystery--the ripper just locks the door on his way out. BTW, has there ever been a handwriting comparison of MJD's suicide note (or other writing) and the ripper letters?