Gerald McKnight

As to AMHINT I have a few fugitive thoughts. Clearly Drain had some kind of scenario which involved a kind of Hollywood special Rambo-type of operation involving Rip Robertson. In short, an all-American "executive action" operation. In his interview with Pfeiffer he pleads ignorance of any Agency concpiracy to take out Castro by using the Mafia concurrent with Operation Zapata. (Perhaps "concurrent" was the weasel word here).

As you say Drain is head of WH/4 and Cuba is part of the Western Hemisphere, etc., etc.

As I recall by 1963 when John Whitten ("Scelso") I believe held that post he was not privy to any assassination programs against Castro.

Assuming he is being honest with Pfeiffer (perhaps a giant leap of credulity in this case) then I'd conclude for the following reasons that the CIA was running several separate and independent operations (all on need to know at the very top) to take out Castro and settle the Agency's grudge fight with Castro ignited by the Bay of Pigs disaster.

In May 1962 the Kennedys learned for the first time that the CIA was running an assassination operation against Castro. The program involved CIA cooperation with the Mafia (Rosselli, Giancana most prominent figures). When Bobby confronted Sheffield Edwards he was told that this program was a tightly held agency operation involving only six persons; and that the project was never part of Operation Zapata, etc. There were no written documents or memoranda or written agreements, etc. This project had former FBI agent Maheu as the go-between the Agency and the Mafia chieftans, etc. I am not telling you anything new here, I know.

Apparantly all this was new to the Kennedys. Apparantly the presdent's pay scale was not high enough to warrant bringing him into the picture. The memo I am familiar with written by Edwards was dated May 15, 1962. As far as I know this was the first time the Kennedys were made aware of the "Executive Action"programs targeted against Castro. In the Edwards memo the good colonel asserted that this CIA-Mafia program was not an integral part of Operation Zapata.

A possible conclusion is that at this time the CIA was in a kind of intra-agency competition to settle its grudge fight with Castro and there were independent "need to know" seperate and independent half-ass operations targeting Castro. I'd like to believe that all that patina of super-cool associated with the first generation of spooks was largely Cold War hoopla. A bunch of aging frat boys with self-asserted liscences to kill in an intramural contest to see who could nail Castro's hide to the barn door and bask in Cold War glory for the rest of their days.

By 1963 my sense is that Des Fitzgerald and the, what, the Special Affairs Group (no more than 6 heavy breathing members) or something were in exclusive control of the Agency's get-Castro crowd.

Newman has done some critical good work on Oswald in the past and I think his reasoning here is nothing to sneeze at.

For example, an FBI Hq officer by the name of Marvin Gheesling, a supervisor in Soviet espionage section at FBI HQ, turned off the alarm system on Oswald on October 9, 1963. Had it remained on the Dallas office would have been alerted to warn the Secret Service and Dallas police of Oswald's presence and he would have been placed under observation before JFK came to Dallas. In short, Oswald would have had the best alibi in the world when the shooting went down.

Gheesling was one of 17 FBI agents who were disciplined for the Bureau's greatest intelligence failure (or perhaps, second, the other being its boggling the early warning of the Japanese atteck on Pearl Harbor.) That was the failure to alert the Kenendy White House. (I have to add parenthetically, that elements of the Secret Service had to be involved in Dallas by stripping away Kennedy's security. There can be no other explanation considering the serious death threats in November that the government---FBI and SS--knew about and conveniently ignored).

Newman was the one who brought Gheesling's name into the literature. The whole Gheesling thing illustrates that those who were involved in the planning and execution of the "Executive Action" against JFK could go behind Hoover's back and hit the right levers to make Dallas possible.

There are still over a 1,000 CIA documents related to JFK assassination that will not be released until 2017. That's just a statement of fact. It probably will have no meaning in that any pertinent documents supporting Newman will have been deep sixed.

But I applaude Newman and his work on this "The Who Done It" aspect of the case. I am totally convinced that JFK was a victim of the military-industrial-intelligence elements in American society.

Shine perishing Republic, shine.

Kaiser's book is a vast disappoitment as far as I am concerned. I was somewhat put off by his self-promotion, in that either he or Harvard Press flaunted the work as the first undertaken by a professional historian, etc. using the archival records. I don't know if that is run-way arrogance or just plain naivete about the great body of work on the JFK assassnation he is clearly unaware.

He has done some useful work with his book but he simply has no grasp of the forensic evidence. For him to conclude that the "single bullet" theory is bullet-proof sound because the WC and the HSCA so attest is scandalous.

It suggests to me that he is innocent of any grasp of the evidence in the case.

I think he was one of the first to examine the FBI Mafia records at NARA and then planted his flag on this terra incognita hoping to astound us with his discovery.

As far as I can tell his assertion of Oswald's relationship to the underworld rests on Oswald's limited relationship with New Orleans uncle Charles Murret. That's a weak reed to try and build a gestalt around the tragedy of Dallas. Murret had four children--a dentist, a professional ball player, a school teacher, and a Jesuit priest. Hardly a prototype of Tony Saprano.

My advice to Kaiser is take a few years and try and master some of the arguments surrounding the evidence in the case.

Isn't it possible that LBJ was providing an alibi for the cover-up? He probably feared that the story of the cover-up would eventually get out. What better motive could he have that he saved the world from a nuclear war? However, it is based on the idea that the Soviets would launch a nuclear attack if the US invaded Cuba. The Soviet Union would never have done that and LBJ knew it. LBJ knew that if he blamed Castro for the assassination and launched an attack on Cuba, the international community would have demanded to see the evidence. Any full investigation would have exposed the role that the CIA had played in the assassination. I suspect information about LBJ's corruption would also have come out during any real investigation. It was therefore in LBJ's interest for the lone-gunman theory to be accepted.

I see you have a point on LBJ. My sense of the dynamics as they existed immediate post 11/22/63 that Lyndon was hearing from the FBI about a Oswald imposter in Mexico City, etc.... And he was getting an earful about Oswald as a Castro and possible KGB source from McCone via Helms and those CIA knuckle-dragers like Des Fitzgerald along with the unalloyed support for any opportunity to execute SAC's pre-emtive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, etc. Recall that in 1963 it was SAC and not the president that controlled our nuclear arsenal. The post-1962 Cuban missile crisis introduction of Permissible Action Links giving the president the keys to control of all warheads had not been introduced as of yet. LBJ did'nt know whether he had control over the military and CIA. This was the situation that existed with Kennedy as well.

It would have been easy for Johnson to have let the CIA settle its grudge fight with Castro by going along with the myth of Oswald's Red connections and special asset of the Castro government. Of course if the US went ahead in Cuba the Russians would certainly have had to respond in some fashion. The most likely response would have been for Khruschev to move against West Germany. . . . .The rest would have been end of story of the world.

I think LBJ "bought off" the JCS by giving them their head in Vietnam ("Rolling Thunder" to begin) and he turned away from Cuba. (Of course the CIA continued its own unauthorized war against Castro).

Dave Talbot sets some of this out in most readable fashion in his "Brothers." There is a book due for release by Orbis Press by a James Douglass entitled "JFK and the Unspeakable." I did a little review of this book and I think Douglass does a solid job in laying out all the meta political force field surrounding LBJ as he assumed the presidency. Another excellent source that deals with these very dynamics is Peter Dale Scott's essays in his "Deep Politics II."

In any case that's my two cents. It's an essential (maybe existential) question about LBJ and what he faced over that two week period following Dallas. The more dialogue on the question the better.

As far as Goldberg (the resident historian w/ the Commission) I only mentioned sparingly. He had no significant influence on the Warren Report as far as I could determine. Warren or Rankin called on him to try and get the F BI to bolster Howard Brennan's description of Oswald as the man in the sniper's nest. Brennan, one of the Commission's most ludicrous and self-subverting witnesses, was the Commission's source of the description of the shooter that allegedly went out over the police radio.

Hoover in effect told Rankin to stuff his request. Hoover, miffed at the Commission, left the Commission hanging.,

It was this official story that allegedly prompted offikce Tippit to stop "Oswald" and was shot and killed for his troubles.

The long and short of it all was that Brennan could not have been the source for the police which left the Commission with an embarrassment. That was, the very likely explanation was that the police message re: Oswald's id,came from soneone who was in on putting Oswald in the frame.

My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting hee was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository. He is the man at the exrtreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgeld's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady.

Also, do you know anything about the contributions to the Warren Report made by Warren Commission staff members Alfred Goldberg or Adolph Winnacker?

As far as Goldberg (the resident historian w/ the Commission) I only mentioned sparingly. He had no significant influence on the Warren Report as far as I could determine. Warren or Rankin called on him to try and get the F BI to bolster Howard Brennan's description of Oswald as the man in the sniper's nest. Brennan, one of the Commission's most ludicrous and self-subverting witnesses, was the Commission's source of the description of the shooter that allegedly went out over the police radio.

Hoover in effect told Rankin to stuff his request. Hoover, miffed at the Commission, left the Commission hanging.,

It was this official story that allegedly prompted officer Tippit to stop "Oswald" and was shot and killed for his troubles.

The long and short of it all was that Brennan could not have been the source for the police which left the Commission with an embarrassment. That was, the very likely explanation was that the police message re: Oswald's id, came from someone who was in on putting Oswald in the frame.

My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting he was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository. He is the man at the extreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgeld's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady.

Isn't it possible that LBJ was providing an alibi for the cover-up? He probably feared that the story of the cover-up would eventually get out. What better motive could he have that he saved the world from a nuclear war? However, it is based on the idea that the Soviets would launch a nuclear attack if the US invaded Cuba. The Soviet Union would never have done that and LBJ knew it. LBJ knew that if he blamed Castro for the assassination and launched an attack on Cuba, the international community would have demanded to see the evidence. Any full investigation would have exposed the role that the CIA had played in the assassination. I suspect information about LBJ's corruption would also have come out during any real investigation. It was therefore in LBJ's interest for the lone-gunman theory to be accepted.

I see you have a point on LBJ. My sense of the dynamics as they existed immediate post 11/22/63 that Lyndon was hearing from the FBI about a Oswald imposter in Mexico City, etc.... And he was getting an earful about Oswald as a Castro and possible KGB source from McCone via Helms and those CIA knuckle-dragers like Des Fitzgerald along with the unalloyed support for any opportunity to execute SAC's pre-emtive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, etc. Recall that in 1963 it was SAC and not the president that controlled our nuclear arsenal. The post-1962 Cuban missile crisis introduction of Permissible Action Links giving the president the keys to control of all warheads had not been introduced as of yet. LBJ did'nt know whether he had control over the military and CIA. This was the situation that existed with Kennedy as well.

It would have been easy for Johnson to have let the CIA settle its grudge fight with Castro by going along with the myth of Oswald's Red connections and special asset of the Castro government. Of course if the US went ahead in Cuba the Russians would certainly have had to respond in some fashion. The most likely response would have been for Khruschev to move against West Germany. . . . .The rest would have been end of story of the world.

I think LBJ "bought off" the JCS by giving them their head in Vietnam ("Rolling Thunder" to begin) and he turned away from Cuba. (Of course the CIA continued its own unauthorized war against Castro).

Dave Talbot sets some of this out in most readable fashion in his "Brothers." There is a book due for release by Orbis Press by a James Douglass entitled "JFK and the Unspeakable." I did a little review of this book and I think Douglass does a solid job in laying out all the meta political force field surrounding LBJ as he assumed the presidency. Another excellent source that deals with these very dynamics is Peter Dale Scott's essays in his "Deep Politics II."

In any case that's my two cents. It's an essential (maybe existential) question about LBJ and what he faced over that two week period following Dallas. The more dialogue on the question the better.

As far as Goldberg (the resident historian w/ the Commission) I only mentioned sparingly. He had no significant influence on the Warren Report as far as I could determine. Warren or Rankin called on him to try and get the F BI to bolster Howard Brennan's description of Oswald as the man in the sniper's nest. Brennan, one of the Commission's most ludicrous and self-subverting witnesses, was the Commission's source of the description of the shooter that allegedly went out over the police radio.

Hoover in effect told Rankin to stuff his request. Hoover, miffed at the Commission, left the Commission hanging.,

It was this official story that allegedly prompted offikce Tippit to stop "Oswald" and was shot and killed for his troubles.

The long and short of it all was that Brennan could not have been the source for the police which left the Commission with an embarrassment. That was, the very likely explanation was that the police message re: Oswald's id,came from soneone who was in on putting Oswald in the frame.

My own research on Oswald's whereabouts convinces me that at the time of the JFK shooting hee was standing on the front steps of the Texas Depository. He is the man at the exrtreme left at the top of the front steps that we see in Altgeld's famous photo. Oswald in the man in the doorway, not Billy Lovelady.

We know from the transcripts is that LBJ used emotional blackmail with Earl Warren and Richard Russell when they initially refused to serve on the commission. LBJ seems to be saying that if you don't cover this up, then I will have to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba. What are your views on why he used this strategy? Do you think Warren and Russell believed him?

I think the documentary evidence is there to make the case for LBJ's authentic fear that possible nuclear war was a close thing. The info he was getting from Hoover and from the CIA over the assassination weekend was that Oswald or an impostor had been in touch with the KGB's wet acts expert in Mexico City. LBJ was increasingly aware that elements in the government, especially the CIA, were pushing hard for Oswald as a Castro-Soviet asset who just killed JFK. This was then to serve as the opportunity for the US to launch an attack on Cuba and if the Soviets wanted a piece of the action SAC was ready to exercise its long-planed all-out pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia and everything Red. I touch on this a little in BOT. But when LBJ pressured Warren and Russell to join the commission he wasn't just blowing smoke, he really believed that he had two alternatives: to go along with the military/CIA campaign to settle the Cuban problem (and the Cold War) in one fell swoop; or to move quickly with Hoover's help to cover up the truth of Dallas with the mythology of a lone nut explanation.

When ole Lyndon threatened Warren that 40,000,000 American deaths were at stake I don't think he was whistling Dixie.

We know from the transcripts is that LBJ used emotional blackmail with Earl Warren and Richard Russell when they initially refused to serve on the commission. LBJ seems to be saying that if you don't cover this up, then I will have to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba. What are your views on why he used this strategy? Do you think Warren and Russell believed him?

I think the documentary evidence is there to make the case for LBJ's authentic fear that possible nuclear war was a close thing. The info he was getting from Hoover and from the CIA over the assassination weekend was that Oswald or an impostor had been in touch with the KGB's wet acts expert in Mexico City. LBJ was increasingly aware that elements in the government, especially the CIA, were pushing hard for Oswald as a Castro-Soviet asset who just killed JFK. This was then to serve as the opportunity for the US to launch an attack on Cuba and if the Soviets wanted a piece of the action SAC was ready to exercise its long-planed all-out pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia and everything Red. I touch on this a little in BOT. But when LBJ pressured Warren and Russell to join the commission he wasn't just blowing smoke, he really believed that he had two alternatives: to go along with the military/CIA campaign to settle the Cuban problem (and the Cold War) in one fell swoop; or to move quickly with Hoover's help to cover up the truth of Dallas with the mythology of a lone nut explanation.

When ole Lyndon threatened Warren that 40,000,000 American deaths were at stake I don't think he was whistling Dixie.

Prof. McKnight,

Many thanks for sticking around to answer all these qustions. Most authors move on quickly.

In regards to other historians taking on this subject, have you ever met, talked with or corresponded with Max Holland, who is reportedly writing the difinitive history of the Warren Commission?

I have been on a panel or two with Max Holland. In a way Max is the Great White Hope of those elements in our society who want very much that Max's views on the JFK assassination will triumph over all those of us who regard the Warren Report as mythology.

Holland invents freely. But he also has done some fine work when it comes to his editing of the LBJ correspondence related to the JFK assassination. He simply refuses to draw the right conclusions from what he lays out.

All I can say is that I have done some work on the Commission and there is no way (except tricky and dishonest writing) that he will ever turn that sow's ear of the Warren Commission Report into a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Not possible. The bullet-proof evidence that the Commission Report is a fraud is too easily demonstrated.

In any case, that's my story and I am sticking to it.

Professor McKnight, I have just had an exchange with Professor McAdams on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup. He said he doesn't trust Weisberg re the controls Weisberg acquired. If you have been able to locate them and/or can help me figure out how to locate them, it would be most appreciated.

(Note: in September 2007 I acquired the Weisberg material from the Hood College Archives. I write about this in chapter 4c at patspeer.com.)

I must say I have no idea what you mean by "controls." If you can be more explicit I'll try and respond.

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 McKnight's book supports John's assertion that WC members were selected because they were susceptible to blackmail.

When you were researching Breach of Trust did you find any evidence that LBJ selected the membership of the Warren Commission because he had information that would enable him to blackmail them into producing the report he wanted? There is definitely evidence that LBJ and Hoover were involved in swapping information at this time to apply pressure on potential witnesses. For example, the New York Times exposed LBJ of using information from FBI secret files to apply pressure on Don B. Reynolds.

I can't say it didn't happen. My sense is however that it was not necessary. Let's be real. It is almost certain that all the men who served on the Commission knew that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy and probably they all had a pretty good idea of the reasons why and what state actors were involved in Dallas. They all were of a mind to come up with a politically safe answer to the crime. That is, tranquilize the body politic into accepting that it was a senseless and random act of a mad man that inconveniently interfered with the workings of our democracy, etc.

They all saw it as their role to go ahead with this agreed upon mythology and do their best to make sure that Lyndon received a clear title to the presidency so that the system would no lose the trust of the people and its legitimacy, etc.

JFK's problem was that he took on the military-industrial-congressional complex and was searching for an end to the Cold War. As he said, after the Missiloe Crisis was resolved without the US Military solution of nuclear war, he should have chosen that night to go to the theatre. Kennedy knew he was living on borrowed time. And so the rest, as they say, is history as this imperial republic heads for smash up on the rocks of its own mad dreams of empire and world hegemony.

When you were researching Breach of Trust did you find any evidence that LBJ selected the membership of the Warren Commission because he had information that would enable him to blackmail them into producing the report he wanted? There is definitely evidence that LBJ and Hoover were involved in swapping information at this time to apply pressure on potential witnesses. For example, the New York Times exposed LBJ of using information from FBI secret files to apply pressure on Don B. Reynolds.

Intriguing hypothesis. I can't say it didn't happen. My sense is however that it was not necessary. Let's be real. It is almost certain that all the men who served on the Commission knew that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy and probably they all had a pretty good idea of the reasons why and what state actors were involved in Dallas. They all were of a mind to come up with a politically safe answer to the crime. That is, tranquilize the body politic into accepting that it was a senseless and random act of a mad man that inconveniently interfered with the workings of our democracy, etc.

They all saw it as their role to go ahead with this agreed upon mythology and do their best to make sure that Lyndon received a clear title to the presidency so that the system would no lose the trust of the people and its legitimacy, etc.

JFK's problem was that he took on the military-industrial-congressional complex and was searching for an end to the Cold War. As he said, after the Missiloe Crisis was resolved without the US Military solution of nuclear war, he should have chosen that night to go to the theatre. Kennedy knew he was living on borrowed time. And so the rest, as they say, is history as this imperial republic heads for smash up on the rocks of its own mad dreams of empire and world hegemony.

I am on the last chapter of the book and have to say well done on all your hard work. Not knowing that much about the medical and technical evidence, I found the chapters on the autopsy and magic bullet excellent. It's one of the most thorough and well researched books I have read on the case.I wanted to ask you , you refer a lot to the FBI report of the assassination, CD 1, was it ever released to the public and is it available to read anywhere?

As to CD 1. To clarify there were in effect 2 FBI CD 1s. The one I refer to in "Breach" and a supplementary that came out well after the first appeared.

Both are in the public domain. They should be avilable at NARA. We also have them at the Weisberg Archive. The CD 1 I refer to is about 90 pages of text and several volumes of exhibits. My take on the whole enterprise is that it is mostly a diatribe against Oswald. Which, of course, is wholly consistent with the conspiracy to foist on the public a counterfeit explanation of Dallas.

A fair indication of the scandalous ineptitude of the FBI Report (which Katzenbach called "sensational") is the description of the shooting in which the report fails to describe all of JFK's wounds and does not even mention Connally. CD 1 should have been in the 26 volumes but because the FBI insisted that there were three shots and three hits the Commission deep sixed it because it contradicted the so-called "single-bullet" theory. . . .On and on it never stops. . . . .This snub infuriated Hoover. It was one of the reasons he launched a secret defamation campaign against the Commission after it published its report. I didn't have this in "Breach" but I hope to include it in the next one I have in the works.

While it is true that the history profession has exhibited a thin diet where some conspiracies are concerned, yet I would have to say that American historians do more to write about the ugly and disgraceful aspects of our history then is true of any other historians fromm around the world.

For example, I thionk it is to our credit that some 60 plus years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that American historians still write, agonize, and question the decision to lay these terrible weapons on the Japanese.

While it is true that the history profession has exhibited a thin diet where some conspiracies are concerned, yet I would have to say that American historians do more to write about the ugly and disgraceful aspects of our history then is true of any other historians fromm around the world.

For example, I thionk it is to our credit that some 60 plus years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that American historians still write, agonize, and question the decision to lay these terrible weapons on the Japanese.

While it is true that the history profession has exhibited a thin diet where some conspiracies are concerned, yet I would have to say that American historians do more to write about the ugly and disgraceful aspects of our history then is true of any other historians fromm around the world.

For example, I thionk it is to our credit that some 60 plus years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that American historians still write, agonize, and question the decision to lay these terrible weapons on the Japanese.

I think they fear being labelled a "nut." The reality is, of course, that while not all history is a conspiracy there are conspiracies in history. It is a topic that has as much validity as say the politics of railroad building or migration patterns in Missouri. The JFK thing is largely verboten among the professoriate because it has attracted so many loose canons and dishonest elements. One wonders if the CIA didn't have a central casting and set loose a lot of these nut jobs just to poison the well, so to speak. Of course even that sounds paranoid. The other factor, and it is real, is that the available documentary body of material available is overwhelming. Consider that the holdings at National Archives 2 in College Park, Maryland, is in the area of 4 to 5 million pages. Not all of it is absolutely relevant but still. . . .it intimidates.

My feeling is that unless the republic turns into a closed authoritarian state that there is going to be a strong reaction to the political radicalism of the current administration and a resurgence of interest in how we came to this state of affairs. Of course the fact is that basically what - only 5% of the population reads books. How the hell do we change this?

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian?

I started college with the idea that I wanted to be a veterinarian. Then came the Korean War and I got caught up in "History." I spent some time in Korea and saw war up close. Enough said on that score. But it changed all my plans. When I got back to college I decided that I wanted to go into history. I had seen history close up and now I wanted to understand how things really work. Also, I'd have to say that during my last year in high school I feel in love with books.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

Investigating journalists are focused on breaking news, contemporary events, etc. Good investigating journalists (like Seymour Hersh and the late Izzy Stone) do rely on history for context and, in return, historians who are studying a topic by going back to the roots of the matter and carrying it forward can and do at times cite the works of a Hersh or a Stone. Sources for the Hersh's of this world in most cases are live and associated in some way with the object of his study. For historians most of their sources are from those who have passed on or from records and documents.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

I came to political consciousness during the 1960s. I believed then as I do now that the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X were defining events of that decade. That the beginning of the decline of the US to the current "Dark Ages" we find ourselves today had its roots in that decade. So I had an abiding interest in the Kennedy and King assassiantions and their impact on American politics.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

No. I am just a college professor (emeritus) who happened to write a book or two that has attacted the attention of a few interested and well-informed readers. I am sure I am on some list held by the FBI because I have said unflattering things about the bureau. But considering the current status of our civil liberties in the last stages of America's empire I don't think I am any more vulnerable than any one else the government wants to hassle. Having said that, I do not take much comfort in the current state of things. We should worry.

No it never harmed my career. I taught at a small liberal arts women's college for more than 25 years. I never felt any pressure about my line of interests. On the contrary, I was supported by Hood College administration and by my colleagues. Now, had I been at one of our prestigious universities it is more than likely that my line of research interest would have been discouraged and if I persisted I would never have received tenure. I only say this on the basis of other peoples experience that I am aware.

(5) Did you have any problems having The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI and the Poor People's Campaign (1998) and Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation (2005) published?

I had no trouble getting "Last Crusade" Published. It was snapped up right away. It was supposed to go into paperback edition and be plugged as the kind of source useful for supplementary reading in upper level college courses. The publisher was bought up by a German source and I never heard any more about it.

As for "Breach" that was another story. It was turned down by half a dozen trade publishers. Generally the comments I got back from by agent was that the initial reader gave it a thumbs up but the collective board said no. I got the impression that all these idiots had read Posner and as far as they were concerned the case was closed.

University of Kansas Press snapped it up right away because the editor-in-chief was a guy with a social conscience and recognized that the JFK assassination was a valid subject for academic research and publication. He is a rare bird I am sad to say.

I think the way establishment thinkers or conventional thinkers best handle a work like "Breach" is basically to ignore it. Pretending it does not exist or is not worthy of a review in the mainstream press or even the self-proclaimed "progressive" journals or even the E-book circuit is to render it harmless and the author ineffectual. Nothing new in this.

(6) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

No. My career was advanced by "The Last Crusade" and I wrote "Breach" after I had retired from college teaching. However, my college was a small liberal arts women's college and it had progressive leadership and my colleagues were almost all of the same political persuasion. I even taught courses in "The Politics of Assassination" for many years. Once again I was very fortunate in my 27 years at Hood.

(7) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

I think they fear being labelled a "nut." The reality is, of course, that while not all history is a conspiracy there are conspiracies in history. It is a topic that has as much validity as say the politics of railroad building or migration patterns in Missouri. The JFK thing is largely verboten among the professoriate because it has attracted so many loose canons and dishonest elements. One wonders if the CIA didn't have a central casting and set loose a lot of these nut jobs just to poison the well, so to speak. Of course even that sounds paranoid. The other factor, and it is real, is that the available documentary body of material available is overwhelming. Consider that the holdings at National Archives 2 in College Park, Maryland, is in the area of 4 to 5 million pages. Not all of it is absolutely relevant but still. . . .it intimidates.

(8) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

First off I was lucky again. I lived but minutes away from Harold Weisberg. Weisberg, as far as I am concerned, knew more about the JFK assassination than any other living person. He forgot more than I will ever know. Moreover, his personal collection of JFK documents was available to me at any time. Now his archive is housed at Hood College and I am the on-site archivist and have ready access. All this made it almost a no-brainer to go ahead with the business of writing "Breach." Under any other circumstances I would probably never have undertaken this task. And now I am planning to write a second JFK book dealing with the first three weeks after the assassination before there was a Warren Commission.

(9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies: assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Do you think this is basically true? Perhaps. My feeling is that unless the republic turns into a closed authoritarian state that there is going to be a strong reaction to the political radicalism of the current administration and a resurgence of interest in how we came to this state of affairs. Of course the fact is that basically what - only 5% of the population reads books. How the hell do we change this?

(5) Did you have any problems having The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI and the Poor People's Campaign (1998) and Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation (2005) published?

I had no trouble getting "Last Crusade" Published. It was snapped up right away. It was supposed to go into paperback edition and be plugged as the kind of source useful for supplementary reading in upper level college courses. The publisher was bought up by a German source and I never heard any more about it.

As for "Breach" that was another story. It was turned down by half a dozen trade publishers. Generally the comments I got back from by agent was that the initial reader gave it a thumbs up but the collective board said no. I got the impression that all these idiots had read Posner and as far as they were concerned the case was closed.

University of Kansas Press snapped it up right away because the editor-in-chief was a guy with a social conscience and recognized that the JFK assassination was a valid subject for academic research and publication. He is a rare bird I am sad to say.

I think the way establishment thinkers or conventional thinkers best handle a work like "Breach" is basically to ignore it. Pretending it does not exist or is not worthy of a review in the mainstream press or even the self-proclaimed "progressive" journals or even the E-book circuit is to render it harmless and the author ineffectual. Nothing new in this.

(6) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

No. My career was advanced by "The Last Crusade" and I wrote "Breach" after I had retired from college teaching. However, my college was a small liberal arts women's college and it had progressive leadership and my colleagues were almost all of the same political persuasion. I even taught courses in "The Politics of Assassination" for many years. Once again I was very fortunate in my 27 years at Hood.

(7) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

I think they fear being labelled a "nut." The reality is, of course, that while not all history is a conspiracy there are conspiracies in history. It is a topic that has as much validity as say the politics of railroad building or migration patterns in Missouri. The JFK thing is largely verboten among the professoriate because it has attracted so many loose canons and dishonest elements. One wonders if the CIA didn't have a central casting and set loose a lot of these nut jobs just to poison the well, so to speak. Of course even that sounds paranoid. The other factor, and it is real, is that the available documentary body of material available is overwhelming. Consider that the holdings at National Archives 2 in College Park, Maryland, is in the area of 4 to 5 million pages. Not all of it is absolutely relevant but still. . . .it intimidates.

(8) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

First off I was lucky again. I lived but minutes away from Harold Weisberg. Weisberg, as far as I am concerned, knew more about the JFK assassination than any other living person. He forgot more than I will ever know. Moreover, his personal collection of JFK documents was available to me at any time. Now his archive is housed at Hood College and I am the on-site archivist and have ready access. All this made it almost a no-brainer to go ahead with the business of writing "Breach." Under any other circumstances I would probably never have undertaken this task. And now I am planning to write a second JFK book dealing with the first three weeks after the assassination before there was a Warren Commission.

(9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies: assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Do you think this is basically true? Perhaps. My feeling is that unless the republic turns into a closed authoritarian state that there is going to be a strong reaction to the political radicalism of the current administration and a resurgence of interest in how we came to this state of affairs. Of course the fact is that basically what - only 5% of the population reads books. How the hell do we change this?

Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies: assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Investigating journalists are focused on breaking news, contemporary events, etc. Good investigating journalists (like Seymour Hersh and the late Izzy Stone) do rely on history for context and, in return, historians who are studying a topic by going back to the roots of the matter and carrying it forward can and do at times cite the works of a Hersh or a Stone. Sources for the Hersh's of this world in most cases are live and associated in some way with the object of his study. For historians most of their sources are from those who have passed on or from records and documents.

I came to political consciousness during the 1960s. I believed then as I do now that the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X were defining events of that decade. That the beginning of the decline of the US to the current "Dark Ages" we find ourselves today had its roots in that decade. So I had an abiding interest in the Kennedy and King assassiantions and their impact on American politics.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian?

I started college with the idea that I wanted to be a veterinarian. Then came the Korean War and I got caught up in "History." I spent some time in Korea and saw war up close. Enough said on that score. But it changed all my plans. When I got back to college I decided that I wanted to go into history. I had seen history close up and now I wanted to understand how things really work. Also, I'd have to say that during my last year in high school I feel in love with books.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

Investigating journalists are focused on breaking news, contemporary events, etc. Good investigating journalists (like Seymour Hersh and the late Izzy Stone) do rely on history for context and, in return, historians who are studying a topic by going back to the roots of the matter and carrying it forward can and do at times cite the works of a Hersh or a Stone. Sources for the Hersh's of this world in most cases are live and associated in some way with the object of his study. For historians most of their sources are from those who have passed on or from records and documents.

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

I came to political consciousness during the 1960s. I believed then as I do now that the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X were defining events of that decade. That the beginning of the decline of the US to the current "Dark Ages" we find ourselves today had its roots in that decade. So I had an abiding interest in the Kennedy and King assassiantions and their impact on American politics.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

No. I am just a college professor (emeritus) who happened to write a book or two that has attacted the attention of a few interested and well-informed readers. I am sure I am on some list held by the FBI because I have said unflattering things about the bureau. But considering the current status of our civil liberties in the last stages of America's empire I don't think I am any more vulnerable than any one else the government wants to hassle. Having said that, I do not take much comfort in the current state of things. We should worry.

No it never harmed my career. I taught at a small liberal arts women's college for more than 25 years. I never felt any pressure about my line of interests. On the contrary, I was supported by Hood College administration and by my colleagues. Now, had I been at one of our prestigious universities it is more than likely that my line of research interest would have been discouraged and if I persisted I would never have received tenure. I only say this on the basis of other peoples experience that I am aware.

Hello Mr. McKnight,

Congratulations for writing and publishing Breach of Trust. Much respect to you for your approach to documentation; you have a right to be proud of that. In my opinion, your efforts have culminated in a significant contribution to understanding the historical failings of the Warren Commission.

The way I see it, you have carried on in the tradition of Harold Weisberg..... he was a true patriot, a warrior for the truth, a genuine American hero, and a good and brave man. You took a subject that unfortunately was largely moribund and given it life, regardless of how well the book sells or the amount of national attention it receives. I wish Mr. Weisberg was still alive to read Breach of Trust. I'm sure he would admire what you have accomplished.

Breach of Trust is a compelling read, made all the more so by your excellent writing. I can't say it was an enjoyable read, I was haunted by the same strong feelings of anger and futility that I felt forty years ago when I read Whitewash and Accessories After the Fact. As I write this, I'm disgusted that Arlen Specter could become a Senator, Gerald Ford a President, and John McCloy continued to enjoy his servants and fine steaks.

The concluding sentence of your book reads: "The government did not want to delve into the heart of darkness of the Kennedy assassination because it feared what it would uncover: (emphasis mine) the brutal truth that Kennedy was a victim of deep divisions and visceral distrust over how to solve the "Castro problem," and that his assassination was carried out by powerful and irrational forces within his own government."

So it was fear that caused so many to go to such extraordinary means to cover up a crime of which they were not even guilty. I am reminded of your account of Darrell Tomlinson, "deeply agitated and probably more than a little scared," as you put it, under intense pressure from Arlen Specter and telling Specter, "I am not going to tell you something I can't lay down and sleep with either." Tomlinson overcame his fears. How did all these other bastards sleep at night? How did so many of them maintain such a fraudulent pose for all of their lives? Whatever sinister and powerful forces you referred to certainly intimidated Robert Kennedy, David Powers, and Kenny O'Donnell, and countless nameless, honest people within the ONI, CIA, FBI and the nation's Capital. that knew or suspected the truth.

I agree with you that absent a smoking gun, and the failure to uncover answers 40 years ago means that no seamless explanation as to the "who" and "why" of Dallas is possible. Although I have felt that way for what seems like a lifetime, the feeling of despair from not really knowing what happened has lingered like a bad taste in the mouth. Your book awoke feelings long suppressed, and made that awful taste as bitter as ever.

Please tell me this if you know, Mr. McKnight. So many people at so many levels were so instrumental in obsfucating the truth during this fraudulent investigation that you so aptly termed "little more than an improvised exercise in public relations." So precious few of them expressed their knowledge of a conspiracy privately, and virtually none publicly. As the years passed, and principal players continued to die, why didn't more of them come forward? Larry Hancock has indicated how some of the conspirators involved in President Kennedy's murder talked. I've always found it odd that almost to a man, the ones that apparently had first hand knowledge of the mechanics of the coverup remained silent.

Thanks for a truly great book. Are you at liberty to give us an indication as to what the manuscript you are working on will be about?

Mike Hogan

Thank you for your kind words and for the passion with which you expressed yourself.

"Breach" tells part of the story, but only part. It is most telling that most of the main stream newspapers and some of the top periodicals all received review copies of the book and as far as I am aware it was ignored by all of them. University of Kansas Press did all it could to try and get some attention from the top of the so-called "respectable" avenues of opinion but very little happened. Most of the reviews were in on-line sites and periodicals I have never heard. One way to kill a book is to ignore it to death. Although I have to say the response from serious people has been pretty good according to book sales.

I don't know if we will ever get the government to admit that the Commission Report was a counterfeit of our history. I think its still up for grabs. But the general willful ignorance of the American population about all political matters does not bode well. Have you read or heard of Morris Berman's stunning recent work titled "Dark Ages America." If not, let me recommend it to you.

On the brighter side (I hope) there are several books in the works by unknown authors. One of them will make a unbreakable argument that Oswald was on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository when tghe shooting took place. This was Oswald's own testimony, of course. He is the face in the doorway in Altgens' historical photo, taken at about the time after the 3rd shot. There were at least 3 more shots after this.

I am working on what I sort of call Part I to "Breach' s" Part II. In short, Iam looking at what was taking place at the heights of the government during the 3 weeks before there was a Warren Commission, showing how the case of Oswald's guilt was locked into cement before the Commission could plug in its xeroxes and coffee machines.

Never weary, never falter, never dispair. Take some satisfaction from the thought that the bastards did not fool you. I remember our asshole president who cracked wise once when he said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones who get all our attention."

I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?

The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.

I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?

The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.

I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?

The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.