Blame it on the Bobby

[Don Jeffries]

Paul,

If you agree with my premise, I'm not sure what you're saying. If "rightists" like Walker were behind the assassination, and the motive was overthrowing Castro, how come they stopped trying to do that once JFK was dead? There were no further assassination attempts, no second Bay of Pigs under LBJ's administration. Cuba, in fact, was never a national political issue in America again.

How did General Walker and other "rightists" have enough power to kill the President, enlist the most powerful government officials in the coverup, get the mainstream media to lie about the facts, but fail to even attempt to oust Castro- when that was the reason behind it all? A "rightist" conspiracy couldn't have been happy with what happened after JFK. Culturally, we drifted much farther left with the Civil Rights legislation, feminist movement, sexual revolution, etc. They certainly didn't "win" anything in this regard by killing JFK. So what did they accomplish, in their twisted minds?

The mainstream media didn't like General Walker and his ilk in 1963, and they still don't like anyone with those kinds of "rightist" views. Why then, would they continue to coverup for this "rightist" conspiracy, nearly fifty years later? That just makes no sense to me. For some reason, even knowledgable researchers are reluctant to face the fact that the most powerful forces in our society conspired to kill JFK and are still covering it up, all these years later. The Secret Service stood down in Dallas, and allowed the assassination to happen, imho. Were they controlled by General Walker and co.?

We know Hoover orchestrated the coverup. We know McGeorge Bundy was inexplicably assuring cablnet members there was no conspiracy, only a few hours after the assassination and when he could not possibly have been in a position to know that. We know Katzenbach wanted to "assure the public that Oswald was the assassin" before Oswald's body was cold in his grave. We know the mainstream media continues to lie about this subject, when many of those doing the lying weren't even born in 1963. We are dealing with extremely powerful elements here. I think it's a mistake to blame the assassination on right wing "extremists," or "anti-Castro Cubans," or "renegade" CIA agents. This was a huge conspiracy.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Don Jeffries

[Guest Tom Scully]

There are good reasons why unelected V.P. and POTUS Gerry Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his unelected V.P. then appointed Rockefeller to chair the "Rockeller" Commission -

Nelson Rockefeller : Biography - Spartacus Educational

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrockefeller.htm

by John Simkin - More by John Simkin

History, Football, Directory, Spartacus Review, Books .... Other members of the Rockefeller Commission included C. Douglas Dillon, Ronald Reagan, John T...

....and why Ford appointed George HW Bush, in the midst of house and senate investigation on intelligence agencies' activities and histories, to the position of Director of Central Intelligence, and why Jock Whitney and other members of his family were so prominent in broadcasting and print media, and media writers, reporters and other pundits, and in investment activity including prefab homes, sports, horse racing, polo, Pan Am Airways, and in a host of areas in which details are still emerging.

I see much to suspecf about members of these two families related to secret intelligence agency and foreign policy activities, through Rockefeller Lawyers like McCloy and Debevoise & Plimpton, including coups in foreign countries, complicity in distortion and cover up of assasssinations of both Kennedy brothers, but I see little or nothing to indicate Edwin Walker was an integral part of the activities and priorities of these two families, but Bush, Devine, Macomber, Johnson and her husband, Macmillan, Lovett, Davison, Meyer, Crown, William HG Fitzgerald, Clifford, and Dillon, do all figure deeply in these investigations.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

If you agree with my premise, I'm not sure what you're saying. If "rightists" like Walker were behind the assassination, and the motive was overthrowing Castro, how come they stopped trying to do that once JFK was dead? There were no further assassination attempts, no second Bay of Pigs under LBJ's administration. Cuba, in fact, was never a national political issue in America again.

How did General Walker and other "rightists" have enough power to kill the President, enlist the most powerful government officials in the coverup, get the mainstream media to lie about the facts, but fail to even attempt to oust Castro- when that was the reason behind it all? A "rightist" conspiracy couldn't have been happy with what happened after JFK. Culturally, we drifted much farther left with the Civil Rights legislation, feminist movement, sexual revolution, etc. They certainly didn't "win" anything in this regard by killing JFK. So what did they accomplish, in their twisted minds?

The mainstream media didn't like General Walker and his ilk in 1963, and they still don't like anyone with those kinds of "rightist" views. Why then, would they continue to coverup for this "rightist" conspiracy, nearly fifty years later? That just makes no sense to me. For some reason, even knowledgable researchers are reluctant to face the fact that the most powerful forces in our society conspired to kill JFK and are still covering it up, all these years later. The Secret Service stood down in Dallas, and allowed the assassination to happen, imho. Were they controlled by General Walker and co.?

We know Hoover orchestrated the coverup. We know McGeorge Bundy was inexplicably assuring cablnet members there was no conspiracy, only a few hours after the assassination and when he could not possibly have been in a position to know that. We know Katzenbach wanted to "assure the public that Oswald was the assassin" before Oswald's body was cold in his grave. We know the mainstream media continues to lie about this subject, when many of those doing the lying weren't even born in 1963. We are dealing with extremely powerful elements here. I think it's a mistake to blame the assassination on right wing "extremists," or "anti-Castro Cubans," or "renegade" CIA agents. This was a huge conspiracy.

Don,

I've thought about this for a long time, so let's see if I can explain my speculative position to you.

(1) The rightists who, like Walker were behind the assassination, had the main motive of overthrowing Castro, but their miscalculation was their rightist optimism that as soon as Kennedy was dead, the USA would blame the Communists and demand an invasion of Cuba. I have come to accept this as the root of their plot. Without this, they would have remained in their garages, complaining like Joe McCarthy.

(2) Once JFK was dead, they did not obtain the results they expected. The USA did not respond as they predicted. This was a surprise to their optimistic and naive minds.

(3) It was immediately clear to people in high positions of Government that Walker -- who had been harrassing JFK for years, and making violence in the USA -- was suspect number one.

(4) That meant that the John Birch Society, of which Walker was a representative, was also involved.

(5) The problem for the US Government is that the JBS had hundreds of thousands of members, most of whom were solid, conservative citizens who meant well. Many of their members were professionals in industry, and not a few were leaders in industry, the military and the Government. Some well-known Congressmen (e.g. John Rousselot) were members.

(6) In other words, the US Government saw that the right-wing did this, and their immediate fear was that if the truth were known, riots would break out, or worse, Civil War.

(7) There were already Civil Rights marches starting up all over the USA. Tensions were running high. The Cold War was a tense time all by itself. The U.S. Government, in many respects led by J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI, made a judgment call -- LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

(8) The lie was this -- "It was not the rightists who did this, and it was not the leftists who did this; it was a lone nut who did this. Therefore, Civil War is unncessary."

(9) LBJ loved the idea. The decision was made in November itself, and the Warren Commission was formed as a bipartisan panel to sell this. Leftists like Earl Warren were there, and rightists like Senator Russell were there.

(10) Immediately, tensions reduced all over the USA. The lie worked.

(11) Naturally, since the rightists did not fool the U.S. Government, and the rightists did not fool the American people, there would be no second Bay of Pigs under LBJ's administration. Instead, LBJ successfully took America's attention off of Cuba and placed it squarely on Vietnam.

(12) So, General Walker and the rightists did have the power to kill the President, but the cover-up was not planned by Walker or his few Governmental insiders. Instead, the cover-up was planned by LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover. And this was not because LBJ or J. Edgar Hoover planned to kill JFK (even though they profited in many ways; i.e. they didn't cry much over it) rather, this was because LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover wanted to prevent a Civil War. A Civil War in the middle of the Cold War could have tempted the USSR to meddle in USA affairs, and then tempt the USA into a Nulcear War.

(13) There's my theory: Walker and the rightists planned the JFK hit and carried it out, but they didn't get their wish. They lost control almost immediately. The moderate conservatives in Washington DC took over, neutralized the criminals (without imprisoning them) and carried out a second, unplanned step, the cover-up, under the banner of National Security. (If they had prosecuted the real criminals, riots would have broken out without a doubt, IMHO.)

(14) By the time the Warren Commission was finished, and the Vietnam war started up, and the Beatles captured most of the media attention, and LBJ passed his landmark Civil Rights legislation -- we were living in a new America.

(15) You're right that the rightist conspirators were most unhappy with the outcome. The world simply changed colors on them suddenly. The notion of the KKK, the JBS, the Minutemen -- these became more marginalized than ever before. Only a tiny minority of obvious misfits engaged in them, and this opinion continues even today.

(16) (As for the sexual revolution -- that was ambiguous. Many rightists were closet homosexuals -- perhaps an extraordinary number -- for example, ex-General Edwin Walker and J. Edgar Hoover. Part of their rightist liberation no doubt included their own freedom to come out of the closet. So, I don't think that's an easy call.)

(17) I think you may underestimate General Walker's appeal before the JFK assassination, Don. Certainly before the Ole Miss riots of 1962 Walker had a large following, and a minority even considered him for US President (and I believe H.L. Hunt even considered this at one time.) We must remember, too, that Medgar Evers would be shot in cold blood in June, 1963, and that MLK had not yet met his fate. J. Edgar Hoover was still convinced MLK was a Communist, and spied on him more than anybody else.

(18) It was the racial strife that was still looming large in 1963 that gave Walker his following. It was only after the killing of JFK, and then LBJ's Civil Rights legislation that took all these topics off of the table. The mass media was no longer interested in those problems, and that is why Walker already appeared to be a marginal character by 1965.

(19) Again, J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ did not cover-up the truth because they liked General Walker. They covered-up the truth to prevent a Civil War.

(20) Nevertheless, Walker did not act alone. Other Generals (who had not resigned) were very right-leaning in 1963, and it is not impossible that some of them played a supporting role with their comrade Walker in the field. If their names became public, the scandal of the century would have erupted. J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ certainly did favor all of their General officers, and these had to be protected at all costs as well.

(21) If I'm right, then this would explain why the cover-up continues to this very day.

(22) If I'm right, then naturally the CIA would eventually become the whipping boy for the entire mess. If I'm right, then the truth is still too sensitive to bear. We must wait until all the principals have shuffled off their mortal coil by natural causes.

(23) I think you might underestimate Walker's appeal among the 1963 military and paramilitary, as well, Don. He might have had many powerful friends still in positions of great power -- but he would be the Commander in the Field. That's my theory.

(24) This, then, would explain why Hoover orchestrated the coverup, why McGeorge Bundy assured cablnet members there was no conspiracy so early in the game. This would explain why Katzenbach wanted to "assure the public that Oswald was the assassin, and that he had no accomplices who are still at large" before Oswald's body was buried.

(25) If I'm right, then this would also explain why the mainstream media continues to lie about this subject down to this very day. I think the way to approach this problem is with my theory that there were two conspiracies -- the murder and the cover-up, and that they weren't planned together or by the same people.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 15, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Don Jeffries]

Paul,

You have the same right to theorize as I do. Because the crime was never investigated, all we can really do is speculate. Your theory sounds a lot like the "benign coverup" some has postulated for years; under this scenario, instead of avoiding a civil war, LBJ sold Warren and others on avoiding a nuclear war, because of Oswald's Russian connections. I don't buy either scenario.

I agree that Walker would have had a great deal of support in middle America at that time, much as Joe McCarthy did. However, I don't think either of them had very many friends among the truly elite (especially Walker). We are still locked into this right-left paradigm. Most of those who have covered up the truth about JFK's death have been nominal "leftists." Certainly, the vast majority of mainstream journalists are "left" in an establishment way, but they all believe the official fairy tale. And most of those who attack JFK's reputation, with the sexual allegations, the inference that both he and RFK wanted to "get" Castro, are also supposed "liberals."

While it's possible that loose cannons like Curtis LeMay could have been permitted to organize the assassination, I just don't think it could have happened without the help of those much, much higher on the food chain. Walker and his JBS friends might have applauded the assassination, but I am very dubious about them being the primary conspirators.

[Robert Howard]

There is one really important point that I never have heard, [or seen] made, which, I would imagine exists only among the believers in a large conspiracy, and when I say large, I do not mean large numerically, but large in terms of different parties, Army Intelligence, Secret Service, Washington bigwigs, Dallas connections, CIA, anti-Castro groups.....

Which is, when you look at every piece of evidence amassed over the last, almost 49 years now, does anyone besides myself believe that, at least occasionally in the time-line of events we are seeing different plots, some of which had no relation to the plot that succeeded. In other words, obviously the Chicago and Miami plots didn't succeed, but I am talking about what appear to be highly relevant pieces of the puzzle, which, if we knew everything would reveal it wasn't as an integral part of the puzzle as it now appears to be.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Robert Howard

[Richard Hocking]

Paul,

If you agree with my premise, I'm not sure what you're saying. If "rightists" like Walker were behind the assassination, and the motive was overthrowing Castro, how come they stopped trying to do that once JFK was dead? There were no further assassination attempts, no second Bay of Pigs under LBJ's administration. Cuba, in fact, was never a national political issue in America again.

How did General Walker and other "rightists" have enough power to kill the President, enlist the most powerful government officials in the coverup, get the mainstream media to lie about the facts, but fail to even attempt to oust Castro- when that was the reason behind it all? A "rightist" conspiracy couldn't have been happy with what happened after JFK. Culturally, we drifted much farther left with the Civil Rights legislation, feminist movement, sexual revolution, etc. They certainly didn't "win" anything in this regard by killing JFK. So what did they accomplish, in their twisted minds?

The mainstream media didn't like General Walker and his ilk in 1963, and they still don't like anyone with those kinds of "rightist" views. Why then, would they continue to coverup for this "rightist" conspiracy, nearly fifty years later? That just makes no sense to me. For some reason, even knowledgable researchers are reluctant to face the fact that the most powerful forces in our society conspired to kill JFK and are still covering it up, all these years later. The Secret Service stood down in Dallas, and allowed the assassination to happen, imho. Were they controlled by General Walker and co.?

We know Hoover orchestrated the coverup. We know McGeorge Bundy was inexplicably assuring cablnet members there was no conspiracy, only a few hours after the assassination and when he could not possibly have been in a position to know that. We know Katzenbach wanted to "assure the public that Oswald was the assassin" before Oswald's body was cold in his grave. We know the mainstream media continues to lie about this subject, when many of those doing the lying weren't even born in 1963. We are dealing with extremely powerful elements here. I think it's a mistake to blame the assassination on right wing "extremists," or "anti-Castro Cubans," or "renegade" CIA agents. This was a huge conspiracy.

Good post, Don.

My personal elaboration of the points you discuss in your post, showing groups or elements involved in the assassination/coverup, listed below:

• High ranking Government officials including LBJ and Earl Warren.

• J. Edgar Hoover

• Elements of the CIA (including Anti-Castro Cubans and possibly some Mafia resources)

• Key individuals in the Secret Service

• The Extreme Right Leadership (Walker, Rousselot, Gabaldon, Banister, Oil Tycoons, Lemnitzer, LeMay, Gale, Milteer, JBS, take your pick/add to the list)

• The National Mainstream News Media

Of the six groups listed above, which one had the ability to control all the other groups, plan and execute the assassination and organize a long term coverup?

The answer, of course, is none of them.

None of the listed groups/individuals wielded that level of power.

LBJ, Warren, Hoover, the leadership of the SS, the extreme Right leaders of the 60's, and the mafia Dons, are all dead.

Most of them died many years ago. Yet the coverup continues unabated.

This is the key that unlocks Dealey Plaza. Who owns and controls the MSM?

[Paul Trejo]

Good post, Don.

My personal elaboration of the points you discuss in your post, showing groups or elements involved in the assassination/coverup, listed below:

• High ranking Government officials including LBJ and Earl Warren.

• J. Edgar Hoover

• Elements of the CIA (including Anti-Castro Cubans and possibly some Mafia resources)

• Key individuals in the Secret Service

• The Extreme Right Leadership (Walker, Rousselot, Gabaldon, Banister, Oil Tycoons, Lemnitzer, LeMay, Gale, Milteer, JBS, take your pick/add to the list)

• The National Mainstream News Media

Of the six groups listed above, which one had the ability to control all the other groups, plan and execute the assassination and organize a long term coverup?

The answer, of course, is none of them.

None of the listed groups/individuals wielded that level of power.

LBJ, Warren, Hoover, the leadership of the SS, the extreme Right leaders of the 60's, and the mafia Dons, are all dead.

Most of them died many years ago. Yet the coverup continues unabated.

This is the key that unlocks Dealey Plaza. Who owns and controls the MSM?

Richard, I like your list of six classes of possible conspirators in the JFK assassination/coverup: (1) LBJ-Warren; (2) Hoover-FBI; (3) CIA-plus-Cuban-Exiles; (4) Secret Service; (5) Extreme Rightists; and (6) Main Stream Media (MSM).

I also like your emphasis of the fact that none of the six classes has ever had the ability to control all the other classes. That's insightful and can help to form a plausible conclusion.

This then led to your next good point -- that the key 1963 players in classes (1) through (5) are all dead today, and yet the cover-up in the MSM goes on. Finally, that led to your suspicion that the MSM played and continues to play the most enduring role in the coverup.

Your logic is sound, yet I wonder if the MSM was ever anything else than a panderer to what they perceive their average audience wants to see and hear. Here's my take on it:

(1) Even in this FORUM we occassionally encounter a theorist who defends the Lone Assassin theory. From 1963-1979 the Lone Assassin theory was the official position of the US Government.

(2) It was almost a litmus test of loyalty to the USA from 1963-1979 to accept the Lone Assassin theory, so that an innovator like Jim Garrison could be squashed by the News Media, which is largely conservative (IMHO) and explores liberal ideas mainly within the context of a conservative paradigm (i.e. Jeffersonian Liberty).

(3) However, in 1979, that all changed when the HSCA published their results: that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices, although these accomplices were totally unknowable to Congress in 1979.

(4) Yet even after 1979 we encountered nostalgia writers like Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, Norman Mailer, Priscilla McMillan and others, who are pulled by a wish to return to a simpler time (say, 1963), before Watergate, when Americans trusted their Government more faithfully.

(5) My point is that the MSM does not need to be part of a coverup plot in order to pander to this sort of nostalgia.

(6) I was surprised earlier this year, when watching an HBO serial drama on the CIA in which the heroine calmly stated to a hysterical citizen, "it has been well documented that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy."

(7) And just last week, on the TV news show, Hardball, the commentator exclaimed, "I even believe that Oswald acted alone!" He said this to portray himself as a moderate in politics, i.e. not some leftist radical. This happened just last week.

(8) My point is that there is an inertia in political opinion generally, and this is merely reflected in the MSM; so this isn't necessarily part of a conspiracy.

(9) That is, the vast majority of people -- even educated people -- still resonate with the final, famous "Lone Assassin" verdict they remember from the Warren Commission in 1964, and they probably have never heard a comparable, consistent barrage from sources that the official HSCA arrived at the opposite conclusion.

(10) This is simple inertia. To prove my point, and to change this state of affairs, we would only need to broadcast widely that the actual position of the US Government on the JFK assassination was articulated in 1979 by the HSCA. Once that finally becomes common knowledge, the MSM will begin to reflect it.

All right, now to my next point. What your logic shows quite well, Richard, is that the JFK murder and coverup were too big to have been planned and coordinated by one monolithic entity. That's an important clue, IMHO.

The best way to incorporate this proposition, IMHO, is with my double-conspiracy theory (which I first articulated in my response to Don Jeffries' well-formed objections just last night), i.e. that the JFK murder-plotters were not the same people as the JFK coverup-plotters.

In fact, the JFK coverup-plotters were opponents of the JFK murder-plotters; but the JFK coverup-plotters were caught in a trap in which the truth would have caused a Civil War.

Thus, the JFK coverup was first planned in the first week in which LBJ took office. It was not planned before that. The JFK coverup was planned at the highest levels of the US Government, and that is why this plot was far more successful than the JFK murder-plot, which actually had the ultimate goal of invading Cuba; a goal which fizzled.

If I'm right, then Sylvia Meagher was technically correct when she said that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were "accessories after the fact." That is supported in my theory, although my theory simultaneously exonerates J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ from charges of being JFK murder-plotters.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 16, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Dawn Meredith]

Good discussion here. I maintain that the whole "Cuban" connection to the assassination is another smokescreen, like the mafia. There has been a concerted effort for many years to insinuate that RFK, and even JFK himself, were responsible for the assassination. Virtually every source accusing RFK of being behind, or even supportive, of the efforts to kill Castro are connected to the CIA. Combined with all the hit pieces on the Kennedys by "leftists" like Alexander Cockburn and Seymour Hersh, it should be obvious to all that the establishment still feels threatened by them.

Thanks, Daniel, for quoting from Jim DiEugenio's superb piece on the "posthumous assassination" of JFK. If you bring these things up, you're accused of being a Kennedy fanboy. The more I study history since the JFK assassination, the more I become a Kennedy fanboy. the Kennedys were doing something to really shake the powers that be, and they appear to still resent that. Their attempts to slander JFK's and RFK's memores are laughably transparent. Hopefully, some of us still know better.

If JFK was killed because of "Cuba," whether you look at it as a group of angered "anti-Castro" forces fired up over the Bay of Pigs, or Castro himself annoyed at the Kennedys attempting to kill him, nothing changed with the assassination of JFK. Cuba effectively died as an American political issue after November 22, 1963. Where was the next invasion? The future attempts on Castro's life? Castro not only stayed in power, but still lives on, nearly fifty years later. if "Cuba" was the motive behind the assassination, the conspirators couldn't have been happy.

Don what a great post. I re- read most of that Posthumous article yesterday and it really covers so very much of the crap that gets bandied about here. I would encourage all forum members to read this piece. Not only does it destroy the JFK sex maniac myth and Kennedys were trying to kill Castro lies, it provides the context for how and when this all began, beginning with the Church Committee revelations. Of course the Church sub committee, headed by Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker,. was investigating the assassination of JFK, so that had to be offset with rumor and lie, lest the people actually care.

Certain people who post on this forum-and who believe every JFK sex lie that springs up- would do well to read this piece, twice.

Dawn

[Don Jeffries]

Joan Mellen has done some great work on Garrison, but she has a low opinion of RFK and is willing to believe the worst about him. Of course, I'm sure she'd say I am a starry eyed devotee of the Kennedys who refuses to hear anything negative about them.

The campaign to discredit the Kennedys, which began in earnest with Judith Exner, has clearly worked even on some very honest, respectable researchers. Joan Mellen is one of them. As Jim DiEugenio has pointed out so cogently, just trace the sources back for all these allegations. They are inevitably CIA connected, or originally emanated from the Jack Anderson/ Seymour Hersh/C. David Heymann school of "journalism."

[Robert Howard]

The italicized portion below is from Daniel Wayne Dunn's last post.

There is another unanswered question that has bedeviled me. In April of 1963, Lee Oswald took shots at General Edwin Walker in Dallas. Walker believed to his dying day that the Department of Justice sent word to the Dallas police not to pursue Oswald "for reasons of state." The relevant police file, #F48156, is missing from the Dallas police files, like the 1963 appointment book of Robert Kennedy.

By the mid 1970s, the FBI was still instructing Dallas police Chief Jesse Curry to remain silent about the "handling" of the Oswald evidence. Dutifully, Curry denied he had ever heard of Oswald before the assassination. The missing document purportedly connects Oswald with his own assassin, Jack Ruby, an association made to seem outlandish by the Warren Commission, except that I discovered for A Farewell to Justice that Ruby and Oswald were very well known to each other.

Robert: There have been, over the years a large number of circumstances where, a document has been alleged by a researcher to be missing, destroyed or whatnot.

In a few of these situations the allegation while sincerely stated, has later proved to be erroneous. The most recent case being a Secret Service Report regarding the Tampa, Florida Secret Service report regarding JFK, that was thought to have been destroyed or missing when in fact, Bill Kelly discovered that was not the case.

It may be of some interest to some to know that page 20 of Warren CD 81.1 has an identical number “#F48156.” Page 20, deals with William “Bill” Duff and his connection to the Walker shooting, and the page itself does not seem to address the question being referenced. You also might notice Agent Hostie sic Hosty

is mentioned. Still, considering the document is some 418 pages, those who are “detail oriented,” might be well-advised to go through the document just to make sure it is indeed “missing.”

See

Commission Document 81.1 - AG Texas

https://www.maryferr...84&relPageId=20

Edited July 18, 2012 by Robert Howard

[Paul Trejo]

...There have been, over the years a large number of circumstances where, a document has been alleged by a researcher to be missing, destroyed or whatnot.

In a few of these situations the allegation while sincerely stated, has later proved to be erroneous. The most recent case being a Secret Service Report regarding the Tampa, Florida Secret Service report regarding JFK, that was thought to have been destroyed or missing when in fact, Bill Kelly discovered that was not the case.

It may be of some interest to some to know that page 20 of Warren CD 81.1 has an identical number “#F48156.” Page 20, deals with William “Bill” Duff and his connection to the Walker shooting, and the page itself does not seem to address the question being referenced. You also might notice Agent Hostie (sic Hosty) is mentioned. Still, considering the document is some 418 pages, those who are “detail oriented,” might be well-advised to go through the document just to make sure it is indeed “missing.”

See

Commission Document 81.1 - AG Texas

https://www.maryferr...84&relPageId=20

Robert, that's an excellent source document. One of its benefits is that it tends to completely clear William McDuff of (alias Bill Duff) of the Walker shooting.

It was Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht, who practically lived at Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas, who suspected McDuff and insisted on his arrest.

McDuff was actually a good friend of General Walker -- they might have been lovers. Walker contniued to speak fondly of McDuff, even within his Warren Commission testimony.

McDuff was a vagabond, and in the late Fall of 1962 McDuff drove up to Walker's house one day, introduced himself as a Scotsman in the USA on a student visa, and as a great fan of General Walker (who had recently been released from an insane asylum for his role in the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed). McDuff admitted he was living in his car at that moment, and offered to work for the American Eagle Publishing Company for room and board.

For some reason inexplicable to Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht, who objected strenuously, ex-General Edwin Walker eagerly invited McDuff to stay.

In a few days McDuff tired of working for the American Eagle Publishing Company, and explained to Walker that he had to maintain his reading schedule to keep his student visa current. Over the objections of Surrey and Knecht, Walker said that was no problem. So now McDuff just hung around the house, reading, watching TV, coming and going at will, to the delight of Walker and the angst of Surrey and Knecht.

This went on for a couple of months, until the Mississippi Grand Jury at Oxford acquitted Walker of all charges in the riots of Ole Miss in February, 1963. Then Walker went on his Midnight Ride tour with segregationist preacher Reverend Billy James Hargis, starting in February. Almost immediately, Surrey and Knecht spied on McDuff, seeking all the dirt they could find.

They concluded that he was not really from Scotland (although he really was) and that he was just a con-man. They had evidence that he was an active gigolo, right there in Dallas. They packed his bags and set them outside the door. McDuff took the hint and left.

When Walker returned on 9 April 1963 he was disappointed to learn that McDuff 'decided' to leave. He started his own personal search for McDuff.

Anyway -- enough of the gossip. After the 10 April 1963 shooting at Walker, Surrey and Knecht immediately suspected McDuff, but Walker just laughed them off. They were persistent, though, and they told the police their suspicions. Yet it was two months before Clyde Watts would get involved and finallty locate and arrest McDuff for questioning -- this was in June. As the FBI records show (thanks to your link above, Robert) McDuff was actually a friend of Walker, and no credible evidence of any kind was found to incriminate him in the shooting.

The DPD report of the shooting is the best source we have -- far better than Marina's honest testimony, because all Marina could do was repeat the lies that Lee Harvey Oswald told to her. The only fact in Lee's story to Marina was that he was a shooter at Walker. Lee lied about others being involved, and about being on foot, and about burying his rifle. But how was Marina to know this?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 20, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Dan, I think that the full Vendetta that JFK held against the CIA was fulfilled the day he fired the historical giant, Allen Dulles. That was a major blow to the CIA, and it really showed who was boss.

After that, JFK hired John McCone, and controlled the CIA with far more assurance. No further vengeance was needed for the Bay of Pigs than that. Also, notice the funding for the CIA after Allen Dulles was fired -- it actually rose. JFK used the CIA his way, i.e. covertly, secretly, as secret agents should work. Not like 007, a movie star getting all the fast cars and all the girls.

I would say that the embarrassment at the Bay of Pigs was 99% the fault of the CIA, and JFK stood tall when he took all of the blame. JFK's error was in believing the CIA reports that the Bay of Pigs invasion was carefully planned and would be easy as pie.

As for forcing the President to support the invasion -- that could not have been planned -- the President cannot declare a war -- only Congress can do that. The CIA was being pulled violently by the Cuban Exiles. The need for air cover was a CIA blunder. But it was impossible to tell the Cubans that since they were too emotionally involved (and besides, leadership in Cuba was always autocratic, and that was what they expected).

So, no, I don't believe JFK and RFK wanted to destroy the CIA -- they did enough by firing a giant like Dulles. In actuality they funded the CIA more than ever and they used the CIA more fully. However, their public face was that of choir boys.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I disagree with some of these views. I believe many members here -- people far more knowledgeable on the subjects than I am -- would disagree with the idea that President Kennedy "controlled the CIA with far more assurance" after the firing of Allen Dulles and the hiring of John McCone. In fact, there is reason to believe that much of the posting here over the years involves the very subject of the CIA being a fairly significant power unto itself, which no mere "transient elected officials" could "control" and "really show who was boss" in any number of situations.

The repeatedly expressed belief that President Kennedy wanted to use the CIA "his way, i.e., covertly, secretly" (as "originally intended" and/or as secret agencies "should" work) would seem to be somewhat undercut by the evidence about Operation Mongoose itself -- a fairly large undertaking, with the Miami/south Florida area teeming with CIA personnel and their various contract associates, etc. It was not so secret.

When I suggested that President Kennedy's situation with respect to the Bay of Pigs could be seen as one where CIA officials "forced" him to support the invasion (with a fait accompli, dropping it in his lap as a critical operation being passed on by the previous Administration and its success or failure being of grave importance to National Security in the fight against Communism), I could've understood an objection that the word forced might've been a bit much. But the objection that something like that "could not have been planned" because "the President cannot declare a war -- only Congress can do that" has confounded me so much that I'm still unable to give a coherent response. (Which I'm sure some will think is a positive outcome, and they'd like to see more of it.)

As for the statement that "besides, leadership in Cuba was always autocratic, and that was what [the Cubans] expected".......well, that sort of speaks for itself.

Dan, I'll scan the history of Cuba and CIA problem to see if I can convince you that JFK controlled the CIA better without Allen Dulles than with Allen Dulles.

Although I agree that the CIA was very arrogant during the JFK years, my main point is that it would have been worse with Allen Dulles.

Before the CIA, the FBI attempted to take on an international role, and was too slow at the job, so Harry Truman conceived the concept. Under Eisenhower the CIA flourished -- it came into its own. It seemed that every mission it accomplished was a resounding success for Ike, accomplishing in a few weeks with a few spies something that would have taken years and military actions to complete in the past. They were brilliant.

The CIA was blindsighted by Castro. In the late 1950's some elements in the CIA were actually supporting Castro, before they suspected his Communist tendency -- it would have been useful to give Havana a friendly face and to have Castro owe the CIA a few favors. Patriotic Americans such as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Harry Dean were supporters of Castro in 1958-1959, and the CIA carefully monitored their progress, and sometimes offered aid.

When Castro made it plain that he was a Communist in 1960, and executed both opponents and suspected opponents, sometimes including American supporters, all the men I named above changed sides immediately, and so did the full CIA, when on 17 March 1960 Ike authorized a CIA counter-attack on Castro. Like all CIA operations, this was supposed to be ultra-secret, giving Ike plausible denial, as customary. It was named, the Bay of Pigs invasion.

But in the middle of this authorized plan came the US Presidential Election, and the Republicans lost the election. No matter, the CIA also sold the Bay of Pigs idea to JFK, and it proceeded largley on schedule, under the direction of General Charles Cabell. The plan was to use off-shore military bases in Honduras, including a small air force, to decimate the Cuban air force before the invasion. This part of the plan failed. Rather than cancel the plan, the CIA invaded anyway, and the Cuban air force routed the invaders.

The foolishness that occurred next -- to blame Kennedy for failing to provide air cover -- was unprecedented. The CIA had an eight-year habit of working with a Republican President, and they had no respect for this rich kid from Boston. CIA actions were always secret, i.e. they never involved a publicly seen employment of the US Army (which Constitutionally can only be called into action by an Act of Congress).

It was simply stupid for the CIA to begin a secret invasion, and then pretend afterwards that it was really a publicly sanctioned invasion. Obviously the CIA had been over-influenced by the Cuban Exiles (who, as we agreed, were used to autocratic government, and expected it in this case). The failure belongs to the CIA for eternity. That's the sad truth.

Of course, once it became public, then it became the property of the US President, and he had to take responsibility for the mess.

But why would the CIA, which had nothing but brilliant victories under Eisenhower, suddenly have a ridiculous fiasco in the first four months of the JFK administration?

Disrespect for a Democrat might be one answer. Disrepect for a rich kid from Boston might be another answer. Disrespect for the first Catholic President might be yet another. In any case, the Bay of Pigs was performed in an unprofessional manner. (General Cabell, for example, was reportedly fishing on the day of the invasion.)

The proper response of JFK was to fire Dulles and Cabell. Also, JFK had to publicly condemn the CIA (i.e. splinter it into a thousand pieces and cast it to the wind). But that was for public consumption. In the modern world, for the USA, the heir to the Imperial status of Great Britain, which had been bombed to rubble by Nazi Germany, a covert entity like the CIA was essential for survival.

Now, I'm not saying that JFK and the CIA got along great after the firing of Dulles and Cabell. Not at all. But the CIA could be controlled far easier under John McCone than under Allen Dulles.

There was a famous article in the NY Times on 3 October 1963 which likened the CIA's growth to a "malignancy" which "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone." The NY Times said this came from a "very high American official." Some have speculated that the source was JFK himself, but those speculators also believed that JFK was blindsighted by the CIA with Operation Mongoose.

It is laughable to imagine that JFK and RFK were ignorant of Operation Mongoose. The funds of the US Government demonstrate that far from dismantling the CIA, JFK doubled and tripled the financing for the CIA under John McCone.

The 'tossing to the wind' rhetoric was for public consumption.

Again, I frankly acknowledge that JFK had many enemies in the CIA -- William Harvey, Richard Helms, Howard Hunt, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Frank Sturgis. But most of those enemies were from the old guard -- from the Bay Of Pigs scenario -- Republicans and mercenaries seeking a scapegoat, and intensely loyal to Allen Dulles. They were upset because both Ike and now Dulles were gone; the boys were very sentimental; sulky and petulant.

JFK paid very little attention to the sentimentalists -- perhaps he should have viewed them with more suspicion. But as for the new guard of the CIA under John McCone, JFK had far more control than he ever would have had under Allen Dulles.

You argue, Dan, that Operation Mongoose was not very secret. Well, after the 1991 Oliver Stone movie, 'JFK,' Operation Mongoose was widely known. Otherwise, most Americans would have never heard about it. Before Oliver Stone, JFK researchers had heard about it only from Jim Garrison, who admits that he first heard about it from Jack Martin, an employee of Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street, an alleged headquarters of Operation Mongoose. So, it was very secret in its day.

Yes, the Miami area CIA "Wave Station" was enormous, but it was camouflaged by Front stores and malls, and only insiders knew about it in 1963. It was sufficiently secret, and it was widely publicized only decades later.

Your suggestion that the CIA 'forced' JFK to support the Bay of Pigs invasion was indeed an overstatement. JFK was content to overthrow Castro, IMHO, as long as the operation was completely secret, underground, quiet in the newspaper, with plausible denial of participation by the White House.

I repeat with good reason -- to expect JFK to send in the US Air Force to support an invasion of Cuba was an entirely Cuban expectation -- something that autocrats, and those accustomed to autocracy, would always expect. It was never in the game plan for a CIA operation. Show me proof otherwise.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 23, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Howard]

Daniel wrote..."Robert, thanks so much for that link. You and Ecker have got kind of a dry sense of humor, don'tcha. I guess you thought it would be funny if someone went through all 418 pages; that would be crazy...."

Perks to you Daniel, for going to all that trouble; I know one thing you gained, and that is you know as much about that document as anybody, no sarcasm intended.

I suppose it is minutiae, but John Armstrong wrote a blurb in Harvey & Lee or elsewhere about locating source documents personally instead of relying on what is written or attested to by someone else.

Good work.....

Edited July 24, 2012 by Robert Howard

[Paul Trejo]

Daniel wrote..."Robert, thanks so much for that link. You and Ecker have got kind of a dry sense of humor, don'tcha. I guess you thought it would be funny if someone went through all 418 pages; that would be crazy...."

Perks to you Daniel, for going to all that trouble; I know one thing you gained, and that is you know as much about that document as anybody, no sarcasm intended.

I suppose it is minutiae, but John Armstrong wrote a blurb in Harvey & Lee or elsewhere about locating source documents personally instead of relying on what is written or attested to by someone else.

Good work.....

Daniel, I agree with Robert here. I also prefer to peruse primary documents, no matter how large (e.g. the Walker papers) than to rely on secondary documents. Kudos for the good work.

--Paul

[Paul Trejo]

…it may well be true that "relevant" files are missing; that is, any files that would support the idea that "the Department of Justice sent word to the Dallas police not to pursue Oswald 'for reasons of state,'" as "Walker believed to his dying day."

Dan, these records also exist in the personal papers of Edwin Walker archived at the Briscoe Center in Austin, and in my reading, they show ex-General Edwin Walker continually anxious to know who shot at him on 10 April 1963, and not believing the DPD or the FBI when they repeatedly sent him the same materials over and over again, in duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate and quintuplicate.

Here is an example -- a letter to US Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993, asking for his files yet again:

http://www.pet880.co..._Janet_Reno.JPG

Walker simply would not believe that this material was all of the material that existed about his all-important 10 April 1963 shooting. Perhaps Walker saw that day as his claim to fame, or his red badge of courage. He would not let it go.

So, when Robert Blakey showed a pristine bullet to television cameras in 1979 (in connection with the HSCA) as a model to stand in for the actual, mutilated Walker bullet that the FBI (NARA) still has on file, Walker exploded in a rage.

Walker wrote to his Congressman, his Senator, his lawyer, and to Blakey himself. You substituted my bullet! You are obscuring evidence! Destroy the imposter bullet! What are you trying to hide?! The following link clearly shows a tempest in a teapot:

http://www.pet880.co...r_Blakey_TV.pdf

Yet to this day a mythology persists that the FBI has the wrong Walker bullet, or that some conspirator switched out the bullets in order to frame Oswald. (The charge is absurd because the Warren Commission interviewed four separate ballistics experts to attempt to link that bullet with Oswald's rifle, and the official WC result is that not a single one of them would conclude that this mutilated fragment came out of Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles. So, there was nothing to hide, anyway.)

It's a matter of Warren Commission record that in early 1964 Walker sent an emmisary to meet Marina Oswald to ask for more details about who tried to kill him on 10 April 1963. The ultimate result is that Marina had nothing further to add than what she had already told the FBI, the newspapers and the Warren Commission. But the emmisary was asked -- why does Walker want to know? The response from the emmissary was that ex-General Edwin Walker is very anxious that somebody is still out there who is trying to kill him.

It is well-known that Walker blamed RFK as being behind this alleged Kill-Walker plot. We must also recognize that two Military psychiatrists examined Walker's public record and concluded that he exhibited signs of paranoia already in 1962, and should be officially evaluated by psychiatrists.

A reasonable reader must suspect -- at least a bit -- that Walker was actually paranoid, and that he hid behind his right-wing attitudes in order to mingle with polite society.

Allow me to illustrate this possibility with two exhibits from Walker's personal papers. The first exhibit is a copy of the German newspaper that printed Walker's account the week after the JFK slaying. It's a short read, and gets right to the point:

http://www.pet880.co...d_DNZeitung.jpg

The second is Walker's article from late 1991 (printed in the Kerrville Times in early 1992) which largely repeats the same story he told in November 1963. There are many other examples from the intervening decades, but these two documents show a pattern -- Walker believed this paranoid fantasy for about 30 years:

http://www.pet880.co...ld_arrested.pdf

My suspicion, then, is that any rumor that there are "missing files" regarding the Walker shooting on 10 April 1963 came directly from ex-General Edwin Walker, who was known for spreading rumors, e.g. the rumor about the 'substitute bullet', and also the rumor that Bobby Kennedy let go Oswald free on 10 April 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 30, 2012 by Paul Trejo