David Von Pein Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Bugliosi writes in his introduction that he will state the case as the critics would like. Yet he did not include this [Eisenberg] memo nor the memo of Fonzi's interview with Odio.Why? It's quite possible that Bugliosi didn't even know about Fonzi's interview with Sylvia Odio. But even if he did know about it, Odio's statement to Fonzi about Liebeler coming right out and telling her (a witness in the case) that Earl Warren had given the Warren Commission staff instructions to sweep all evidence of conspiracy under the carpet is just too absurd to believe for more than one millisecond. And Mr. Bugliosi would undoubtedly agree with me on that point. But the Eisenberg memo is most certainly mentioned by Vince in "Reclaiming History", in multiple places. Maybe you should have read Vincent's tome a little better yourself, eh Jimmy Boy? Let's have a look: "Except for the moments right after the assassination when no one knew who the killer or killers were or whether a massive domestic or international conspiracy was involved, the closest reference to national security being an issue is a February 17, 1964, memo to the file (far, far less known than the Katzenbach memo) by Warren Commission assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg about the first meeting, on January 20, 1964, that Chief Justice Warren had with his staff. Eisenberg quotes Warren as telling his staff that when President Johnson first asked him to head up the investigation (November 29), Warren said that the president spoke "of rumors of the most exaggerated kind...circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which would cost forty million lives. No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility." Of course, there is nothing in Warren's address to his staff about suppressing the truth to avoid a war. Indeed, as indicated earlier, Eisenberg goes on to say that Warren "emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be." Naturally, as with his surgery on the Katzenbach memo, Mark Lane, in Plausible Denial, told his readers only about the "war" part of the Eisenberg memo, deleting all reference to Warren telling his staff they had to find the truth whatever it might be." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 367 ---------------------- There is also the following passage in Vincent Bugliosi's book, which also deals with the Eisenberg memo. And everyone please note the fact that Jim DiEugenio, when he quoted from the Eisenberg memo earlier in this Education Forum thread, has done the exact same thing that Mark Lane did in his book (as Bugliosi said). Jimbo has conveniently omitted the last sentence in this quote below (the part in italics, which is also in italics, for emphasis, in Mr. Bugliosi's book), although DiEugenio does mention it in this post, but he then goes on to completely dismiss it as merely being "CYA" on the part of Earl Warren (yeah, right, Jimmy): "On January 20, 1964, Chief Justice Warren met with the Warren Commission staff at their first formal staff meeting. In discussing the role of the Commission with the staff, "Warren placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding further speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be." * -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 * The above text in Bugliosi's book is followed by source note #118, which leads to this source reference: 118. JFK Document 015041, Memorandum to the file of Warren Commission staff member Melvin Eisenberg, February 17, 1964. Here's the Eisenberg memo for everyone to see (and for everyone to see what DiEugenio decided to leave out when he first brought this memo up in this thread): http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10391&relPageId=1 And there is also this important excerpt from Page 2 of the Eisenberg memo that I doubt you'll ever see written in any conspiracy book: "He [Earl Warren] therefore set a target date [for the release of the Warren Report] of June 1, with the understanding that the Commission could not issue a report until it was satisfied that it had reached the truth." To repeat: Melvin Eisenberg's last words on Page 1 of that two-page 2/17/64 memo are these words: "He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be." Those words throw a monkey wrench into DiEugenio's theory that Eisenberg's memo somehow corroborates and supports some kind of half-baked idea that Earl Warren was the chairman of a cover-up Commission, bent on NOT finding the truth. Doesn't it, Jimbo? Jim DiEugenio and Mark Lane should team up. They seem to be birds of a feather. Edited February 7, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now