Jump to content
The Education Forum

Reflections of an agnostic...


Recommended Posts

My interest in the JFK assassination goes back to a couple of years when I was an exchange student for two years in Sacramento, California. At this time, in the mid-seventies, there was a heated debate in the US about the assassination and whether to have an another official look at this case. That came about a couple of years later, as we all know. Those hearings ended up with the strange result that there are now two official conclusions.

I've probably spent a few thousand hours over the years of following this case and trying to get my head around it. Which by no means is an easy task, in this instance I agree with Bugliosi; stay away "it's toxic". It is indeed toxic. But my interest has always been based on the notion that there are a lot of questions that were never answered. Many of those questions were raised by the first generation of researchers, Lifton, Thompson and others. Rightly so, in my opinion. The Warren Commissions mission was flawed from start and thus they did a poor job of investigating this case. Of his I've never had any doubts. Their conclusion? Well, please let me come back to that.

As I believe is the case for most others I was fully convinced that there had got to have been a conspiracy of some sort. A president of the US cannot become the victim of anything like this with less than a sophisticated conspiracy behind it. So, I read whatever I could get my hands on; books, articles, speeches and so forth.

Then came the Internet.

As it was a revolution for many of us professionally in 95-96, it was so too for me personally regarding the JFK case. With an ever growing enthusiasm I was from time to time lurking around many of these sites discussing the JFK case. No lack of conspiracy theories back then, as of course is the case today also.

When, in 2008, I by sheer coincidence came, what seemed a little bit closer to the assassination debate, it was admittedly quite exciting. I discovered that Judy Baker had landed in Sweden and had applied for asylum. While it was interesting to discover that what she had claimed was a nothing less than a whole parade of lies in relation to this, I'm not going into this event much at all, today. Except to state one thing - James Fetzer's characterization of JVB as the "real deal", is a fantasy. After having explained, on McAdam's site what happened in relation to JVB, I also ended up on this site. This time dealing with both Fetzer and Baker. The excitement was quickly gone. This woman is a fraud and in no way did I come "closer" the core of the JFK assassination debate by engaging in Judy Bakers shenanigans. This whole thing was - and is - nothing but ridiculous. (I will at some point get down to sum this up in a detailed essay, the project has started but will take some considerable time to do).

During the course of that matter I also got to understand the EF a bit better. Unlike McAdam's site and most of the participants there, on the Education Forum those who believe the WC got it right can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Well, fair enough. I've followed the discussions on this site way more closely than I'd ever previously done, in part because I've had the time to do so over these past few years.

Let me state this clearly: I've seen nothing so far that has convinced me of a conspiracy. What I have seen is a huge number of theories that have been thoroughly debunked, over the years. I have seen dozens of theories built critically on the assumption that a various number of civilians was lying. I don't buy it and I have seen not a scintilla of evidence to convince me of the opposite. On this site some members are endlessly accusing Lyndon Johnson of being the main culprit behind the assassination. Again, without one little shade of real evidence to back this up.

The story of what I haven't seen could be extended in the extreme. So I'm gone do the contrary.

Let's assume there was indeed a conspiracy. And let's assume that the combined knowledge on this site in any way reflects that fact. What can we then conclude? Let's see where there's agreements on this critical point.

Oswald, participant or innocent? No agreement at all.

Shots fired - no agreement at all.

Origin of shots - no agreement at all.

Secret Service involvement - no agreement at all.

Limo stop? - no agreement at all.

Umbrella man - no agreement at all.

Medical evidence - a huge understatement to suggest that there are disagreements.

Witnesses on Dealey Plaza - no agreement at all about who are trustworthy.

I could very easily quadruple this list. On purpose, Dealey Plaza only. These are basic questions beyond which I beleive it's only all speculations. For the one single reason that no one has yet been able to explain what happened on the Plaza that day in November of 1963. That includes the arrogance with which the single bullet theory is dismissed. To which I do not agree. And, it includes the complete dismissal of Sitzmans statement to Thompson that "she saw no one behind the fence", at the time of the shooting. Just to name a few examples. If I, or anyone else brings issues like these up, in this forum those questions are immediately dismissed as stupid. If answered at all, that is.

It doesn't stop here. Whenever a discussion of substance is initiated it takes no more time than I would have a cup of coffee before the pissing contests begin. This seems to be a question not of age, but of participation; the longer you've publicly spent debating this the more accepted you are. Likewise, those of us who has not publicly spent a lifetime debating this are treated with arrogance, at best. Often much worse. This, however, is just a mild breeze in comparison with how some of those who have spent decades, two-three-four or more, are treating each other.

There are obviously axes to grind in almost every corner of this debate. Ugly, denigrating and completely useless as it is.

I've tried - and I've tried my very best - to learn something substantial from the debates here at the Education Forum. Yes, I have learned a few things, no question about that. But do I think that I, or anyone else here have made the unanswered questions get closer to an answer?

Absolutely not. It's mostly an endless circle of unfounded speculations. The questions I had about this - the shooting and the medical evidence - remain just as unanswered as they did thirty years ago.

Which is I why I'm still an agnostic about the JFK assassination. As flawed as the WSs mission was from the outset, personally I lean towards them getting it right, in the end. Despite this rather poor investigation.

PS. Again, I would like to apologize to Jim DiEugenio for not having answered him as promised, before. FWIW, I hope this posting fills that gap.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi there Glenn...

I've gotten past the point where a discussion about whether there was a conspiracy or not is warranted... there was.

The most simple and direct proof of such a conspiracy is the SBT and the evidence related to it...

Every bit of physical evidence points to a hole 5 3/8 - 5 3/4 inches down from the collar... the jacket AND shirt have holes in these locations

the hole in the back - while described poorly in the autopsy - is in the same location....

Add this to Rankin's statement in the 1/27/64 Exec Session about a fragment leaving the throat "as described in the autopsy" - when it is not...

and I believe you begin to see how the medical evidence - THE record of the assassination - was altered to fit a BETTER shooting scenario that included only Oswald.

Add now add to this the Dallas homocide department, after catching their man so effectively and quickly and KNOWING he was the murdered of both men, decide NOT to record a single word of 12 hours of interrogation... NOTHING that would be admissible in court... how can a major metropolitan city's Homicide Division be so inept with something so important?

From False Mystery

Strange Inferences ·;

At the time the first bullet impacted upon the President, Governor

Connally, according to the Commission, was seated in a position which

placed him in front of the President (W-106). The first shot to hit the

President was designated by the Commission as having hit the Governor

at any place between Z frames 207 through 225 (W-106). During 1

these frames the angle from a rifle in the sixth floor window of the

Depository Building was roughly from 21° to 20° (W-102, 103).

One would expect such a shot with a downward trajectory from the

sixth floor, hitting the President 5 3/4 inches below the coat collar and not

hitting any bone, (W-88) (the autopsy report describes the bullet entering

"the upper right posterior thorax" [W-541]) would continue its path

downward at a roughly 20° angle and emerge from the abdominal area.

Instead, this remarkable bullet turned upward. It then exited from the

President, who was sitting perfectly erect (W-102, 103), and tore

through the left portion of his tie knot (W-91).

One would certainly, once accepting this unusual and highly

improbable course of the bullet, have to concede that it would fly harmlessly

over the Governor's head heading for the sky. But the Commission

asks us to believe that this strange bullet changed direction in

mid-air. No bullet ever has, unless spent. But this bullet was far from

spent, for it had an entrance velocity after passing through the President

of 1,858 feet per second (W-95).

Or how about the wholesale change to witness testimony AFTER THE FACT...? still not convinced?

Cadigantestimonychanged.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Glenn,

This "investigation" of the WC never went below the surface. That is all you need to know. One example is DeMohrenschildt, as in a game of musical chairs. When the music stopped, George DeM appeared to be have had the closest recent relationship with lone nut LHO aside from his wife.

It is obvious no in depth, impartial, "follow the leads where ever they take us" could be permitted to be part of the official record, if the in depth leads were ever even seriously pursued. Just one example is what would have happened if the three names associated with DeMohrenschildt's 1942 Washington, DC "stay" had been investigated and the results put on paper. The landlord, Adm. Paul Joachin was killed in an unssolved murder in Chicago in October, !962. Captain Harry Hull, USN, had a wife directly related to CIA asset, "Jake" Cogswell. Quentin LNU...name escapes me at the moment, was later linked to UK intel. DeMohrenschildt's step-nephew - business partner... a Mr. Hooker....imagine if he had been subpoenaed, investigated properly, and his background was put in the record? Sten Goddert Wrede, DeMohrenschildt's 1943 best man, reported in a fair sized NY Times account of the Dorothy Pierson wedding was never even mentioned.

On and on....right up to what I am working on now. Leads ignored because a bank president and two Schlumberger principals would have been put under some scrutiny and the details added to the record.

My point is the WC made sure you could not know enough to make a qualified assessment of who did what. They did this intentionally and then they sealed the investigative records for 75 years.

You are expressing frustration or you have not allowed that there are any conspiracies in the murders of JFK or Oswald, well before you've come to the point you say you are at, now. The more you look, in earnest, the less possible it is to say what you have posted, at least IMO.

Just a couple of examples.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn,

This "investigation" of the WC never went below the surface. That is all you need to know. One example is DeMohrenschildt, as in a game of musical chairs. When the music stopped, George DeM appeared to be have had the closest recent relationship with lone nut LHO aside from his wife.

It is obvious no in depth, impartial, "follow the leads where ever they take us" could be permitted to be part of the official record, if the in depth leads were ever even seriously pursued. Just one example is what would have happened if the three names associated with DeMohrenschildt's 1942 Washington, DC "stay" had been investigated and the results put on paper. The landlord, Adm. Paul Joachin was killed in an unssolved murder in Chicago in October, !962. Captain Harry Hull, USN, had a wife directly related to CIA asset, "Jake" Cogswell. Quentin LNU...name escapes me at the moment, was later linked to UK intel. DeMohrenschildt's step-nephew - business partner... a Mr. Hooker....imagine if he had been subpoenaed, investigated properly, and his background was put in the record? Sten Goddert Wrede, DeMohrenschildt's 1943 best man, reported in a fair sized NY Times account of the Dorothy Pierson wedding was never even mentioned.

On and on....right up to what I am working on now. Leads ignored because a bank president and two Schlumberger principals would have been put under some scrutiny and the details added to the record.

My point is the WC made sure you could not know enough to make a qualified assessment of who did what. They did this intentionally and then they sealed the investigative records for 75 years.

You are expressing frustration or you have not allowed that there are any conspiracies in the murders of JFK or Oswald, well before you've come to the point you say you are at, now. The more you look, in earnest, the less possible it is to say what you have posted, at least IMO.

Just a couple of examples.

Tom,

Let's look at the De Mohrenshildt (DM) for a second.

Here at EF it's regarded as a given that DM was CIA. Have you seen any conclusive proof of this? I have not, nothing. Speculations? Sure tons and tons of them.

I wonder how many of those who are speculating in DM being CIA (or any other government agent) have the slightest idea of what mining is all about? So far, I've seen no one.

I've been an investor in the commodities sector, full time, for many years. The story that DM gave to the WC makes perfect sense to me, including his year in the Central America trails. A CIA-agent spending several years in the deserts of Arizona, Texas and Colorado, among several other distant places - abroad as well? Sorry, I do not buy this for one second. Pure speculation, completely without foundation.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the way CIA worked back in those days, but to believe that DM was somehow working for the government looks very unlikely in my eyes. Once one digs in to his fantastic life that ended in such sadness, I can surely see that he is the perfect target for such accusations and speculations. But that derives from the exceptionality of his life more than anything else, in my view. Until I see anything clearly substantial, I will easily put DM in the speculations department only. No doubt.

EDIT:

"My point is the WC made sure you could not know enough to make a qualified assessment of who did what. They did this intentionally and then they sealed the investigative records for 75 years."

Well, depending on what you think are the reasons for this, I may agree with you. However, not for a second if you are suggesting that the WC was knowingly cover up the assassination. Such a claim, from those who make it, I regard as nonsense.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Glenn, this is what you are buying into. An investigatory "commission" so tainted and compromised as to be beyond the pale.

I don't know or socialize with any major organized crime figures, Glenn. I don't know anyone who does, or who has any as neighbors.

In addition to the following related to the man the commission was named for, consider that Warren chose Paul Ziffren's son, Kenneth, as his law clerk for the Supreme Court term immediately following the WC Report publication in Sept., 1964. Why? Warren has been accused of permitting Kenneth Ziffren to write entire opinions presented under Warren's name.

Isn't being a Chief Justice all about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety? Ass to that responsibility and the obligation to set an example, the monumental conflict that is Warren's "service" on the Warren Commission. Warren could not pass a legitimate background check, conducted today, to qualify for appointment as a federal judge, IMO.

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

....Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=990877

6186386869_0903edb6b0_b.jpg

aarc-fbi504-02_0032_0013

6161867906_b84945860e_b.jpg

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1454518

Record Number: 124-10204-10064

on 04/10/65 Gus Alex and his paramour, Suzanne Fueger, discussed a forthcoming vacation and the fact that the reservations had been made with "VIP Service" by PAT HOY for 4/30/65 or 5/1/65. The location of this vacation was not known. It is noted that HOY is head of Material Service Corporation, the largest supplier..... and a division of General

Dynamics. Hoy is extremely socially and politically prominent in the Chicago area..

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=76289&relPageId=33

2/26/62 FBN at LA, Calif, made available information to the effect that at the current time,

Paul Ziffren was paying the rent on the apartment occupied by Linda Collings, the girl friend

of Sam Giancana, of Chicago.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=76289&relPageId=29

...LA-T7 advised that as a result of his particular study, he came to the conclusion that three separate and well defined groups had been systematically investing millions of dollars into California real estate and that in each of the three groups concerned, there were men participating who were directly linked to organized crime, principally the remnants of the AL CAPONE organization. LA-T7 indicated that Ziffren appeared to be involved in each of the investment groups and appeared to be the directing force of each of these operations.

(quote name='Tim Gratz' post='54050' date='Feb 8 2006, 10:22 AM']Does anyone know who D'Alton Smith was or what his business was?(/quote)

If I recall it correctly D’Alton Smith was an associate of Marcello and a friend of Murray Chotiner and Earl Warren. One of his sisters Frances was married to Nofio Pecora and worked as secretary for Marcello.

George

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".

(quote)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 ... (/quote)

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.

The assistant WC counsel, described by in a CIA report in 1964 as head of the criminal division in the Justice Department and probably the department's third highest official, admitted later he had designed the WC's organizational structure and he has been described as determining the investigational priorities and directing that the investigation of Jack Ruby be terminated.:

Howard P. Willens - continued in next post.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Virginia Warren Daly dies at 80; popular socialite in New York and Washington

OBITUARIES

March 06, 2009|Patricia Sullivan | Sullivan writes for the Washington Post.

...Daly, who was rarely quoted in the news media, enjoyed traveling the world with hotel magnate Conrad "Connie" Hilton, her daughter said....

It- ..if .Earl .Wilson .Via .Tasr> .Guys, Gals, Gags,

Miami News - Jan 26, 1956

whether pretty and popular Virginia Warren, the Chief Justice's daughter, may marry her most attentive escort. Conrad Hilton . Which would make her Nicky ...

http://books.google.com/books?q=crown+QUIT...nG=Search+Books"]The Empire State Building: The Making of a Landmark‎ - Page 347

by John Tauranac - Travel - 1995 - 384 pages

...The building got it's money's worth in free publicity. The queen said the view was "the most beautiful thing" she had ever seen. She and Prince Philip were then guests at a reception in the executive lounge. Escorted by Colonel (Henry) Crown and his wife, the couple was introduced to the Empire State Building directors and their wives, and QUITE INEXPLICABLY, to MISS VIRGINIA WARREN, daughter of Chief Justice Earl Warren...

Glenn, it will be up to you to decide, when all is considered, if you feel more, or less foolish believing in the reliability of the WC Report conclusions.:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=61488&relPageId=71

....It was also developed during the 1961 investigation that Joseph Robert Willens (Howard Willen's father) had, since 1958, resided next door to Tony Accardo, prominent Chicago hoodlum.

....Joseph Robert Willens admitted that Tony Accardo's residence is immediately south of his home in River Forest, Illinois,....and he hopes that the proximity of his residence with that of Accardo eould not cause anyone to believe that he approves of Accardo or any of his associates.

Here is the way news reporters of the time described a similar living arrangement.:

+Ricca%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=Detectives+offer+as+evidence+of+Varelli%27s+stature+in+the+mob+the+fact+that+he+is+a+next+door+neighbor+of+Paul+[The+Waiter]+Ricca,&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=mgj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=nws&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=0F3dTtKuCI3Btgeb-MS9BQ&ved=0CA4QpwUoBQ&fp=1&biw=1280&bih=781&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b"]Mob Home Swindle Bared

‎Chicago Tribune - Mar 12, 1966

....Detectives offer as evidence of Varelli's stature in the mob the fact that he is a next door neighbor of Paul [The Waiter] Ricca, elder statesman of the Chicago Mafia.

I guess the CIA report at this link could not describe Howard Willens as head of theDOJ criminal division in one sentence, and then advise that Willens's father had voluntarily bought the house next door to Tony Accardo, in the same report, so....:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=5

...Howard Willens...was arrested for breaking street lights on January 9, 1947...

I suppose it matters little that Howard Willens, age 32 at the time he was appointed as one of three assistant counsels on the WC just below the level of J. Lee Rankin, happened to be the son of Joseph R. Willens, who happened to move in 1958, into the home directly next to the residence of Tony Accardo, or that Joseph's father was Pincus (Morris) Braver-Wilensky of Chicago, who we also know nothing about.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15205&pid=237868&st=0entry237868

If any of this was considered relevant by even a few in the assassination research community, wouldn't the info above be more widely known?

Since Earl Warren and Albert Jenner were certainly close to people whose names were included in FBI files related to investigations of members of the Chicago Syndicate, and Jack Ruby was from Chicago, and the WC was a small group with Warren, Willens, and Jenner all "serving" on the WC in influential positions, how many other key WC people with Chicago mob ties would be a quantity sufficient to attract more interest from researchers?

Albert E. Jenner, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_E._Jenner,_Jr.#Controversy

Earl Warren http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

(Linked Controversy Section was later removed from Warren bio.)

www.aarclibrary.org/publib/.../HSCA_Vol11_WC_3F2_Willens.pdf

.PDF Page 5 - (page 315)

JFK Exhibit No. 66

Warren Commission Organizational Chart

.PDF Page 7 - (page 317)

...Mr. BLAKEY. The basic division of the work of the Warren Commission

in the five substantive areas, and subsequently a sixth, I take

it, was as a result of a memorandum that you wrote. Is that correct?

Mr. WILLENS. One of the assignments I undertook in my first few

weeks with the Commission was to make a recommendation to Mr.

Rankin as to how the work of the Commission might be organized. I

did write a memorandum in either late December or early January

that proposed an organization very close to that reflected on this chart.

That was reviewed by Mr. Rankin and presented subsequently to the

Commission and did serve, with some amendment, as the organization

through which the Commission staff performed its duties.

Mr. BLAKEY. I wonder if you could share with us at this time your

rationale in dividing the basic work of the Commission into five areas

as designated on this chart.

Mr. WiLLExs. I keep thinking of six areas, as is reflected on the

chart. I believe the rationale is readily stated . In order to begin and

undertake a project of this dimension, there has to be some arbitrary

allocation of responsibilities. There is no way to do it that eliminates

overlap or possible confusion but this was an effort to try to organize

the work in such a way that assignments would be reasonably clear,

overlaps could be readily identified and coordination would be accomplished

among the various members of the staff.

It did seem to me and others who reviewed this chart that the

various areas here did lend themselves to separate treatment, at least

at the outset, when our principal task was to marshal the investigative

materials that were made available to the Commission, try to identify

those areas that needed additional investigation and to outline those

questions that had to be addressed by the staff and the members of

the Commission....

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=willens+%22Despite+all+the+loose+ends+spotlighted+by+Hubert%22&btnG=

The Ruby Cover-Up

books.google.com Seth Kantor - 1992 - 450 pages

...Despite all the loose ends spotlighted by Hubert and Griffin, "these Cuban pursuits represented some kind of bottomless pit and our overall investigation had to be wrapped up," Willens said.1 Other staff lawyers agreed with Willens.

Therefore, the Warren Commission never explored the possible links of Ruby's Cuban activities in 1959 with his FBI contacts that year and with Ruby's totally unexplained use of a safety deposit box at the time of his Cuban and FBI interests....

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=kantor+ruby+%22among+the+working-level+lawyers%22&btnG=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=kantor+%22*the+Ruby+detail.+Had+Ruby+acted+alone%3F+Did+Ruby%22&pbx=1&oq=kantor+%22*the+Ruby+detail.+Had+Ruby+acted+alone%3F+Did+Ruby%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=538l538l23l1573l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=38a0ddfd1ebc19a6&biw=811&bih=496

The Ruby Cover-Up

books.google.com Seth Kantor - 1992

...Oswald's Death . . .the Ruby detail. Had Ruby acted alone? Did Ruby have any connections leading to Oswald? Originally there were to be five areas of investigation, in descending importance.

The Ruby detail was considered the fifth and least significant. Hubert and Griffin were introduced to each other and deposited there. 6. Presidential Protection....

involving sensitive precautions taken and not taken by the Secret Service, FBI and Dallas police in advance of the President's trip to Dallas.

The Commission decided this category was essential and added it on. Rankin was placed in charge of it. Samuel A. Stern, 35, a Washington lawyer who had clerked for Chief Justice Warren eight years earlier, was the day- today counsel on the job.

The management would have had to reinforce the fifth floor walls of the building at 200 Maryland Avenue if these attorneys had elected to hang all their framed credentials as learned men on the walls. Yet despite that cumulation of certified intelligence, they often isolated themselves from each other. Some were pompous and didn't feel the need to hear what others on the staff were thinking. Some were too caught up with their own investigative projects to communicate with others.

There were conflicts and overlaps and jealousies and grievances and most of it was because there was no simple line of contact among the men on the fifth floor.

One of the contributing factors to the Commission's overall failures was its lack of communication from top to bottom and from side to side.

Rankin kept the up and down flow of information in the hourglass— between Commission members and staff— tightly controlled and limited through his office. It was all very formal and private. As a result the fifth floor took on an antiseptic atmosphere, with no system for a free exchange of facts among the working-level lawyers. For instance, "We never had any significant dialogue, any structured dialogue among the staff members on the question of conspiracy," says one of those lawyers who still is distraught because of that critical failure.

"There never were any series of hypotheses set up that we were

all supposed to check into. In fact, we never

really had a structured system of meeting and exchanging information so that various theories could be checked out.

These two points were problems caused by Rankin—

either because he was incompetent and way over his head, or because he knew something the rest of us didn't know." Another of the lawyers, Hubert, was never, in all the months that the Commission took testimony, asked to examine any witness appearing before the Commission members. That was true not only in the Commission's badly handled questioning of Jack Ruby, but Hubert was excluded even after he and Griffin already had questioned those same witnesses in preliminary sessions when depositions were taken....

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the multiple books that investigate and detail conspiracy against JFK, and cover-up post mortem, of which I will cite only three:

Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much

Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason

You can't expect an internet forum to be a panacea. However - at the risk of causing someone offense - this one is the best of all JFK forums.

I joined after reading all the back pages over a couple of months. Therein still lies a lot of good work, plus leads to further good work.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

If you had asked me 4 years ago if I had an opinion on who killed John Kennedy, I would have answered "I don't know - no opinion." That is how well an honest discusssion of the unfortunate realities of the JFK assassination has been suppressed in the media, academia and the government. It is like families who don't want to talk about incest - dealing with the truth can be too painful to address.

I fully believe that there are people alive today with criminal liability in the JFK assassination. George Herbert Walker Bush is one excellent candidate.

Then in the spring of 2008, I was doing some internet surfing and came across the Education Forum and a post by Dawn Meredith that was pretty much implicating Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

The next thing I noticed was that the quality of posts at Education Forum was pretty high; there were a lot of people here knowledgeable about "deep politics" - political truth that is often so radioactively true that it can't be discussed honestly in the controlled MSM.

I had just spent 4 years doing a massive amount of opposition research on the Clintons and I had learned a lot of very nasty things about them that I thought were true and which were being suppressed in the MSM. So I was familiar with political/social suppression of the truth.

In my research of the Clintons, I had also learned a lot of very nasty things about the Bushes, particularly their participation in 1980's CIA drug smuggling and GHW Bush's involvement in the Franklin pedophile ring being run by Lawrence E. King. So I was familiar with a lot of "Bush truth" being suppressed in the MSM.

I understood that the biggest scandals are those which are bipartisan in nature.

I got in contact with Dawn Meredith and she recommended a slew of other blue chip JFK assassination researchers to get in contact with. I called them and they each recommended perhaps 10 of the best books on the JFK murder.

So right off the bat, I was getting pointed to the cream of JFK research from some of the best in the field, people who had been plowing the fields of JFK research for 30, 40 years, sometimes literally since 11/22/63.

Pretty soon, and it was within days, I was convinced that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. The CIA part was harder to figure out. It took me a while to figure out that Lyndon Johnson and the CIA were not mutually exclusive perps in the JFK assassination. Or that LBJ and his Texas oil men had deep CIA/military ties.

I have built up a pretty good library relating to the JFK assassination and "deep politics" in general. I have 300+ books (I quit counting) plus maybe 300 books relating to the Clintons and 20 of the best books on the Bushes (mostly GHW Bush).

I place a lot of weight on the testimony of what Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine Duncan Brown on the night of 12/31/63 at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX.

LBJ told her that Texas oil men that she knew and "renegade CIA bastards" were behind the JFK assassination. From most of what I have learned, that seems to be true.

It also seems that the CIA, particularly Gen. Ed Lansdale, used anti-Castro Cubans and CIA operatives who had been training to kill Fidel Castro to instead murder John Kennedy.

Here is my current take on the JFK assassination: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2012/03/lbj-cia-assassination-of-jfk.html

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn,

If you've studied the evidence in the JFK assassination (at least what evidence is available), then you know the official story is impossible. Period. It's been disproven over and over again, beginning with the original band of citizen critics in the mid-1960s. To say you are unsure whether there was a conspiracy indicates to me that you must not really be familiar with the facts in this case.

I think you are confusing the personalities on forums like this with the actual arguments used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. Yes, there are a lot of bombastic, egotistical personalities on this forum and others. Welcome to the world of JFK assassination research. For whatever reason, this subject attracts those kind of people. You're playing the McAdams/Bugliosi/Posner game when you decry "conspiracy theories." Yes, we all have our theories about what happened, but that doesn't change the uncontestable fact that the official theory is impossible. We may disagree about WHO killed JFK, but Lee Harvey Oswald didn't.

I know you have your issues with Judyth Baker. Fine- much of the research community does. Not accepting her story, or John Armstrong's theories, or David Lifton's alteration hypothesis, or film alteration, shouldn't cause you to wonder if there was a conspiracy. We're all just people on an internet forum. None of us have the resources the Warren Commission and the HSCA had, but didn't use (or use properly). We can't be expected to name the real assassins for you to a definitive certainty. Our understandable inability to do so shouldn't cause you, or any other "fence sitter," to thereby state you are uncertain if there was a conspiracy.

We know how you feel about Fetzer, Baker and some others here. Tell us what you think of J.Edgar Hoover- who orchestrated the coverup after the assassination (to such a degree that he purposefully mimeographed documents over and over again in order to reduce their clarity), How about Arlen Specter and the rest of the Warren Commission staff, or the mainstream "journalists" who have never shown the slightest interest in investigating this case. Did you know that NBC News agreed to the FBI's request, on December 11, 1963, "to televise only those items which are in consonance" with the FBI's report? What kind of "free" press does that?

You are leery of "conspiracy theories." Again, what do you think of the official theory? Do you believe a bullet can travel downwards, from six stories above, enter a person about 5-6 inches down on his back, and then exit at a higher point, from his throat? Do you believe said bullet could continue on, shattering a thick human wrist in the process, and wind up in nearly pristine condition? Are you not the least bit suspicious of a Secret Service detail that failed to respond at all for six seconds to the obvious sound of gunfire? How about the driver who at least slowed the car down significantly and turned around to watch the president be hit with the head shot?

Are you satisfied with the autopsy performed on the president, one which Harold Weisberg rightly pointed out was "not worthy of a Bowery bum?" Does the failure to question, or even identify, significant witnesses to the assassination concern you at all? How about all the missing and destroyed evidence? Does that perhaps suggest to you a conspiratorial activity? Do you find Oswald's background more akin to an intelligence asset than to a lone nut?

I'm not attempting to be rude, but I find all "fence sitters" to be only slightly less incomprehensible than lone nutters. You have to be at least somewhat familiar with all the massive indications of conspiracy. Don't let your opposition to someone's personal theory, or to any individual's difficult personality, sway your views of the evidence. There are few things more certain in life than that in this case, there was a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

....Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork?

Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html

Gus Russo however makes similar charges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

....Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork?

Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html

Gus Russo however makes similar charges

Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it".

But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, Glenn, you have fallen into the same trap as McAdams. WHY in the world would you expect agreement on this case from the critics?

If someone--say Saddam Hussein--is a dictator, but the people are divided on who should replace him, does that make him any less a dictator? Of course not. By the same token, then, the Warren Commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone does not gain in credibility due to its being rejected by so many, with so many agendas, for so many different reasons.

That a view of history has been rejected by so many does not make it MORE likely to be true, does it?

As far as the single bullet theory... in chapters 10-12 of my webpage I go through it from A-Z, from its formulation in the Warren Commission to its being pushed by programs on TV. And pretty much kill it. If you take the time to read through it, I suspect you'll come to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone? ....

.............

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork?

Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html

Gus Russo however makes similar charges

Len, Hubert Humphrey, the Kennedys? I suspect Truman and Dewey were tripping over themselves for the title of most compromised presidential candidate in history. I take all of this in, admittedly with a left of center, bias. The problem is that the center and center right is regarded these last 65+ years as "leftist" despite the inaccuracy of such an approach. It is what it is. There are plenty of gatekeepers and apologists.

http://www.archive.org/stream/investigationofi33unit/investigationofi33unit_djvu.txt

INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD

MARCH 21, JULY 8. 9, 10, AND 11, 1958

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR

OR MANAGEMENT FIELD

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman

IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman

JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLD WATER. Arizona

FEAJ^K CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska

Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel

Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk

....Following McLane's testimony, Romano and other syndicate hood-

lums were indicted on October 3, 1940, by the Cook County grand

jury. The defendants named in this indictment were Frank Nitti,

Afurray Humphreys, Louis Campagna, Paul Ricca, also known as

Paul DeLuccia, Louis Romano, alias Louis Stern, Frederick Evans,

and Thomas Panton.

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we might just talk about Paul "the

Waiter" Ricca, who is probably the most important gangster in

Chicago; is he not?

Mr. Petersox. Yes, certainly one of the most important. ....

Earl Warren was a close friend of William Knowland:

Knowland Says Brown Dumps Paul Ziffren

‎-

Los Angeles Times - Oct 18, 1958

Knowland has sought to link Ziffren, Democratic Na- tional Committeeman from Los Angeles ...

... that he had 'dis- closed certain information" about the activities of Ziffren and a man he called a Chi- cago crime-syndicate head, Alex Greenberg

Knowland Hits Ziffren Link to Gang Figures

Los Angeles Times - Oct 17, 1958

Knowland attacked Ziffren as the chief supporter of his opponent, Atty, Gen. ... er partner with Ziffren in the Hayward Hotel, was the wife of Fred Evans...

Third interim report pursuant to S. Res. 202: 81st Congress, a ...

books.google.com United States. Congress. Senate. Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce - 1951 - 188 pages - Snippet view

In Los Angeles, Fred Evans, a former Capone associate has an interest in the Hayward Hotel.

Knowland Adds Fuel to Attack on Ziffren

Los Angeles Times - Oct 19, 1958

"I recently revealed a partnership in the Hayward Hotel In Los Angeles where Ziffren was connected with Joseph S. Best and other af- of the Capone crimi- nal

A Report on Chicago crime

books.google.com Chicago Crime Commission - 1965 - Snippet view

In fact, Louis Romano was indicted by the Cook County Grand Jury in 1940 with such Capone gang big-wigs as Frank Nitti, Murray Humphreys, Louis Campagna, Paul Ricca, Frederick Evans and Thomas Panton. They were charged with conspiracy .

SON OF LAW FIRM'S SENIOR PARTNER WED

Los Angeles Times - May 26, 1970

Ziffren, a graduate of Northwestern University and UCLA law school, is a ... He was a law clerk to . former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1965.

The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Warren, his wife, and daughter were intensely friendly with Conrad Hilton. Warren selected Ziffren's son to be his law clerk no later than in 1965. Tom Clark, who Warren is on record stating was consulted along with Dean Acheson on the advisability of appointing Hilton's hotel development partner's, Henry Crown's lawyer, Albert Jenner, as a senior assistant WC counsel, had himself appointed Crown's son as his SCOTUS law clerk for the 1956 term. The files of Drew Pearson show that Clark was the source of info that Henry Crown was a Chicago organized crime, "financier". So does the reporting in 1977 by the IRE investigation team. At the time Warren appointed Albert Jenner to the WC, Jenner's firm had Clark's old law clerk, John Crown, on its staff and he was made a partner before 1969.

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=C...nG=Search+Books

The silver spade: the Conrad Hilton story‎ - Page xx

by Whitney Bolton - 1954 - 230 pages

"... he attended the opening of the Supreme Court, escorting Virginia Warren, daughter of the Chief Justice Earl Warren. Hilton is an old friend of Warren...."

https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Ziffren%2C+Democratic+Power+in+State%2C+Dies+at+77&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-nightly#q=%22clara+shipser%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-nightly&hs=I11&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&source=lnms&psj=1&ei=z1phT-7tPMKItwfn_Ly7BQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=1&ved=0CBsQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=bc6169611f61b107&biw=1173&bih=732

1955 Press Photo Democratic National Committee Members | eBay

www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Press-Photo...National.../280811940041

... Margaret M. O'Riordan, Tracy S. McCraken, Clara Shipser, Arthur B. Koontz, Martha Ragland, H.H. Weinert, Elizabeth A. Conkey, Georgia Neese Gray, Photo .

Behind the scenes in politics: the memoirs of Clara Shirpser

books.google.com Clara Shirpser - 1981 - 195 pages - Snippet view

A Reader's Digest article of July, 1960, was titled "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." The author set fortha detailed account of Zif- fren's alleged and questionable connections in Chicago.

As far as I could find out, Ziffren did not sue the Reader's Digest. After that article, many Assembly District officials asked in writing that Ziffren resign as National Committeeman for California. Pat Brown ran for governor in 1958 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, Glenn, you have fallen into the same trap as McAdams. WHY in the world would you expect agreement on this case from the critics?

If someone--say Saddam Hussein--is a dictator, but the people are divided on who should replace him, does that make him any less a dictator? Of course not. By the same token, then, the Warren Commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone does not gain in credibility due to its being rejected by so many, with so many agendas, for so many different reasons.

That a view of history has been rejected by so many does not make it MORE likely to be true, does it?

As far as the single bullet theory... in chapters 10-12 of my webpage I go through it from A-Z, from its formulation in the Warren Commission to its being pushed by programs on TV. And pretty much kill it. If you take the time to read through it, I suspect you'll come to agree.

Pat, thanks for your answer.

I believe you are missing my point about bringing those issues forward, which in fact is one of the main reasons to my skepticism.

As I said, I could have made that list much, much longer. Don't you find it a bit awkward that while on the one hand there are so many people that are die hard believers in a conspiracy, when on the other hand there's a complete and utter lack of consensus about what the evidence for this conspiracy are? I'm sure you know better than I do how completely divided those who believe in a conspiracy are.

What I see is a clearly visible pattern about this. A pattern that leads me to, at least question, the very foundation of a conspiracy. Neither do I neglect the well known and establish fact that when politicians in high positions are assassinated, it's a basic human instinct to react with disbelief to the proposition that someone of such insignificance could actually take out someone as significant as president Kennedy. It's just not comprehensible. In fact, there's a good example of this in this very thread:

"My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in."

Understandable, of course. But very clearly based on anything but evidence. An instinctive psychological reaction which surely didn't have much to do with age as it probably was, and most likely still is, just as frequent among all age cohorts.

As I also said, the two areas that I've tried to understand - what happened at the Plaza and the medical evidence - are indeed hard to grasp. In my case, especially the medical evidence. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are a whole range of unanswered questions related to those areas. I believe I have read your take on this but I'll do it again as soon as time allows, and perhaps then comment on what your conclusions are, if you are interested.

For the record, I may or may not agree with McAdams on certain issues, I really don't know. Except about Judyth Baker where I do know that I am in complete agreement with his take, but that whole thing is just a distraction and a waste of time. What I also do know is that whatever opinions I have in this case, they're not based any one persons views. I'm trying to look at the evidence from all angles, where that is possible.

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...