Jump to content

The CIA, the JFK Assassination and the death of David Kelly


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

One needn't be too imaginative to wonder if the notorious Hoover might have sought such information as insurance that the Commission wouldn’t deviate from Hoover’s lone nut theory – one that he announced within 2 hours of Oswald's arrest and before he'd lifted an investigative finger, and one that conveniently exculpated the Bureau and Hoover for not shielding JFK from a successful plot.

Gary, with all due respect, Hoover wasn't pushing a lone nut scenario

hours after the hit -- far from it.

And Hoover held nothing but contempt for the WC version of the lone nut

scenario -- the FBI had its own. The WC lone-nut-theory was presumptively

based on the final autopsy report, which was not a legitimate medicolegal

document.

The FBI autopsy report was a legitimate investigative document.

Hoover never bought the single bullet theory -- he simply pretended

the James Tague wound didn't exist.

As to the afternoon of 11/22/63...Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked:

4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer has

"Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover also related

and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald "went to Cuba on

several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for."

From Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, pg 24:

Ambassador Thomas C Mann reported to the White House, FBI, and

Justice Department that he and CIA Station Chief, Winston ("Win") Scott, had

uncovered evidence that Castro, with possible KGB complicity, had paid to

assassinate President Kennedy.

There were dueling cover-ups afoot on 11/22/63: the Oswald-as-lone nut scenario,

and the Oswald-as-Castro-op scenario.

The latter was pushed by Hoover and CIA MEXI, the former by McGeorge Bundy

and Averell Harriman.

Vincent Salandria, from The Tale Told by Two Tapes

McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful

afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from

Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim,

The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy

as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia

and/or renegade elements.

No, Bundy certainly didn't take orders from renegades.

From Joseph Trento's The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As [Pentagon aide William R.]Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell

(JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the

national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman

and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a

young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with

Harriman.

McGeorge Bundy took orders from Averell Harriman.

So did Lyndon Johnson.

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

So in the hours following Kennedy's death, Hoover and CIA MEXI were pushing

the Castro-did-it line, while the Yale Boys were enforcing the lone nut scenario.

The only way Averell Harriman could responsibly claim as a fact -- a mere five hours

after the shooting! -- that the Soviets weren't involved was if Harriman had foreknowledge

of the plot.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the sequence of events here:

John started Post #3 with this statement, addressed to me:

Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me.

It was in that post that he implied that "Breach of Promise" supported his statement that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail.

Then, twelve days later, on December 8, 2007, he writes to Professor McKnight:

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?

His question to Prof McKnight demonstrates beyond ANY doubt that when he made that November 26, 2007 post he knew full well that there was not a word in "Breach of Trust" that supported his proposition.

Note that his Nov 26 2007 post never EXPRESSLY states that "Breach of Trust" supports his position but when he cites it in response to my challenge any reader would believe he is asserting it does. That is, I suggest, disingenuous to put it charitably.

Again, if John has integrity he should apologize to me. There are others on the Forum who know far more about the case than I do but I am quite well-read in the literature and normally do not make factual errors in my posts. Consider these two examples where I have spotted factual errors in others' posts:

(1) I corrected Bill Kelly's statement that JFK had discussed with Ian Fleming how to deal with Castro.

(2) I also corrected Bill when he stated that Alexander Rorke was the nephew of Sherman Billingsley. (He was his son-in-law.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I actually said on 26th November, 2007:

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.

As you can see I did not say that Gerald D. McKnight argued that LBJ used blackmail to select the members of the Warren Commission.

In the same posting I said:

As I said at the time, it was just another example of

Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me. I know you are desperate to put your name at the end of every thread but surely you could have come with a better question.

This is what this is really about. You plant yourself at the end of each thread and demand people answer your questions, demanding apologies, etc. In this way the thread becomes about you. You are like the naughty boy in the classroom demanding attention. I am unwilling to allow you to continue to disrupt this forum. The moderating committee are currently discussing what we should do about you. Because of my past history with you I will not be voting on this issue. The decision will be based on a majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the sequence of events:

John started Post #3 with this statement, addressed to me:

Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me.

It was in that post that he implied that "Breach of Promise" supported his statement that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail.

Then, twelve days later, on December 8, 2007, he writes to Professor McKnight:

His question to Prof McKnight demonstrates beyond ANY doubt that when he made that November 26, 2007 post he knew full well that there was not a word in "Breach of Trust" that supported his proposition.

Again, if John has integrity he should apologize to me. There are others on the Forum who know far more about the case than I do but I am quite well-read in the literature. For instance, on another thread I corrected Bill Kelly's statement that JFK had discussed with Ian Fleming how to deal with Castro. I also corrected Bill when he stated that Alexander Rorke was the nephew of Sherman Billingsley. (He was his son-in-law.)

Tim: Would you please get a life. You nit pick here and hold on like a rabid dog. If John's impression of people's actions and intentions is bolstered by reading Porfessor McKnight's work, so be it. Different people view the evidence in different ways. From what has been posted in this thread, and from many other sources, I tend to support John's view and look most forward to reading Breach Of Trust. It is getting very good reviews.

Your completely anal approach to this case is so ego- driven and utterly devoid of a true search for justice,imho. This case is NOT about you, TG. Rise above your petty issues, please.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, as I noted in my preceding post, any reader would assume that you were citing "Breach of Promise" in support of your proposition that LNK appointed members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail.

I wish you had the integrity to just admit there was no factual basis anywhere for the statement you made.

I would point out to the Moderating Committee that your posts in this thread here violated two of the Rules you yourself established:

(1) Not to personally attack a member (your calling me ignorant about the case is such an attack IMO).

(2) Attacking the motivation of a member. When I see a ridiculoius statement, or an error of fact (see the two I pointed out above) do I have the right to comment on the error, or to request support for the statement I considered ridiculous? How about when Bill postyed that it was SS protocol to secure all windows on presidential parade routes and I posted that that was not done of JFK's trips in 1961 and 1962 and it was not even done in 1974 when RMN visited Egypt. Don't you think members and readers should have the right to consider other POV especially when my factual assertions are CLEARLY correct and my POV on the SS window issue at least seems correct based on the evidence I found?

I would also point out my detailed analysis of the Court of Appeals decision in the Morley case, and my discovery, by carefully reading that case, that the CIA monthy reports on the DRE are missing for seventeen months--a most interesting and significant fact that I do not recall previous comment on, at least re the significance of which months are missing.

But I do respect that you recused yourself from the decision.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John's use of the word "full" would be another indication that he wanted readers to believe that "Breach of Trust" supported his proposition.

If "Breach of Promise" is, as John said, a "full account" of how LBJ selected members of the WC, then, because it does NOT mention the possible susceptibility to blackmail, it proves directly contrary to his proposition.

Again, I challenged John for evidence to support his position that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail. In the very next post, after calling ME ignorant, he suggests one read "Breach of Promise" for a "full account" of how LBJ selected members of the WC.

Now he tries to argue that he was NOT citing "Breach of Trust" to support his proposition. But his verbiage "a full account" belies that interpretation.

And Dawn, the point John was making, if supported by evidence, would be very significant. It is not "nit-picking" for me to ask for his basis for the statement. That is why well-written history books have footnotes.

And note that after I read "Breach of Trust" I renewed my question to him just in case I had missed something in my reading of the book.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrestled today whether I was being unfair to John in suggesting that he intentionally IMPLIED in his Post # that Professor McKnight's "Breach of Trust" supported his position that LBJ selected members of the WC because they were susceptible to blackmail to do what the government wanted. That statement was made in the first post after I questioned his rather surprising statement. (Post #3.)

After all, John said in Post #51 on December 10, 2007:

As you can see I did not say that Gerald D. McKnight argued that LBJ used blackmail to select the members of the Warren Commission.

However, consider this:

On December 1, 2007, in Post # 37 I wrote:

In one of the earlier posts John in this thread John suggested I should read "Breach of Trust" by Prof McKnight which he said supports his proposition that members of the WC were selected because they were "susceptible to blackmail."

I just received the book on Wednesday. It is as excellent as people have told me. But I have found not a single paragraph that support's John's proposition. Perhaps John can refer me to the passage(s) in the book that he had in mind.

In response to that post, John could have simply stated on that date or any date thereafter:

I did not say that Gerald D. McKnight argued that LBJ used blackmail to select the members of the Warren Commission.

But he never corrected my understanding that McKnight's book offered support for his proposition.

In fact, he MADE a post on this thread the very next day after I had mentioned finding no support for his proposition in Prof McKnight's book (Post #41 on December 2, 2007). All he needed to do was add that one sentence to that post to indicate that he was not implying that Professor McKnight supported his position.

Rather than correcting MY impression of what he meant, instead, on December 8, 2007 he wrote the following to Professor McKnight:

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?

Only AFTER Professor McKnight answered in the negative did John state that he never meant to imply that "Breach of Trust" supported the proposition he had advanced.

I am a charitable person. I will accept John's word that he never meant to imply that "Breach of Trust" supported his proposition (he now concedes it does not) if he will simply admit that he has no support for the proposition he advanced in Post #1.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I admire my intestinal fortitude for taking the abuse I do on this Forum; perhaps I am a masochist.

But in one respect I admire you for much the same reason, As much as I disagree with you (obviously) I do respect you for not just unilaterally booting me off what really is your Forum but instead allowing somewhat of a democratic process.

Also can you understand that I did not start this dispute to downgrade you or, as you claim, to draw attention to myself. My interest is the truth.

In my opinion, we muck up the search for the truth if we add a lot of stuff that is not supported by any historical or other evidence. Moreover, we waste or time speculating on things when we could more profitably devote our attention and research to matters we can support.

There is SO much outstanding material in "Breach of Trust" that you could start thread after thread about, that would demonstrate not so much to members (like preaching to the choir) but to non-member readers how scant the evidence against LHO really was and how strong the evidence was that there were more than one shooter.

BUT TO MY MAJOR POINT: ON WHAT OTHER FORUM WOULD THE "OWNER" PUT UP WITH BEING CHALLENGED ON ALMOST EVERY POST BY SOME GADFLY WITHOUT BOOTING THAT GADFLY FROM THE FORUM (OR BLOG)?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Sorry. Michael, as much as I admire McKnight's book and research, what happened to Olney is not blackmail either. ... In this case Hoover used the information he had against Olney to prevent his appointment in the first place. ...

It appears to me that this is not the case; see the thread Olney v. Rankin for details and correct me if I'm wrong ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Guest Tom Scully

Earl Warren, crying? All politicians, while acknowledging the handful per century who, to some degree, might be exceptions, are cut from the same cloth, The competition demands it.

Warren got where he got as a result of doing whatever it took.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=803&bih=492&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1974%2Ccd_max%3A1974&tbm=nws&q=chotiner+warren&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Murray Chotiner dies of injuries

Pay-Per-View - Boston Globe - Jan 31, 1974

"Murray said that people remembered him for making Nixon," Mazo recalled Wednesday, "but he would say, 'The real man I created was Earl Warren.'"' Chotiner ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=chotiner+behind+warren&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks&ei=6_DtTd3lKMjq0gHJhvmWCA&start=10&sa=N&biw=803&bih=492

Nixon: The education of a politician, 1913-1962 - Page 124

Stephen E. Ambrose - 1988 - 768 pages - Preview

"23 Murray Chotiner joined the Nixon team at this time. Chotiner had masterminded Earl Warren's campaign for governor, and was currently running William Knowland's senatorial campaign. He had a public-relations firm in Beverly Hills. ...

I've read so many posts over the past 30 months on this forum that portray Warren as a man who almost magically ascended the chair of the Chief Justice of the highest court in the United States.

Warren had solicited and gratefully and cooperatively accepted the assistance and the political savvy, network and clout of one of the shrewdest and bitterly partisan campaign coordinators of the era. Then, Warren postured that he was above "that sort" of politics, even though the history after the 1942 California gubernatorial victory belies the distortion and the Warren "makeover".

http://www.google.com/search?q=chotiner%20cosa%20nostra&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp

Vodka Cola

Charles Levinson - 1978 - 328 pages - Snippet view

and 1952 Chotiner took on the defense of 221 cases of gangsterism, some of them concerning leading members of the Cosa Nostra. It was he who fashioned Nixon for the political world and pushed him up the ladder of the fringe meritocracy. ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=chotiner+hoffa+dorfman&hl=en&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=OvDtTZamGPKy0AGR8oXGCg&ved=0CBIQpwUoBQ&biw=803&bih=492

Haldeman turned key in Hoffa parole

Pay-Per-View - Boston Globe - May 3, 1973

But for year the Justice Dept balked at Hoffa's release and the Parole Board turned him down twice Not until former White House aide Murray Chotiner ...

If you believe Warren Olney would have been a significantly better pick

as the WC counsel than Rankin was, take a thorough look at what Olney actually accomplished as a result of his investigation of organized crime in California and the "crack down". I perceived lots of handwringing in Olney's own description of what was accomplished by it, and what could not be accomplished.

Karl Rove has never put an altar boy into office, and I can assure you, Murray Chotiner never did, either.

Edited by Tom Scully
Changed name/desc. from Jenner to Rankin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...