What Is Your Theory?

[Brian Schmidt]

Larry, I find your analysis very sound.

I certainly don't dispute he was prone to some screw-ups, as he was always a political action officer-type rather than an operator per se. A bungled operation was what caused him to be transferred to Asia before he could attend the "heroes of Guatemala" reception with Eisenhower and Nixon, after all. I think you're right that he was held in high regard with the upper echelon because he was old school and they were likely wowed by his writing and communication abilities, despite of some of his fumbles. It's interesting in Hamburg's essay about how Helms personally confided in Hunt. I do think that researchers underestimate him on the analysis and fact finding side, and his ability to influence the opinions of CIA brass. He even did some training for newly-hired CIA analysts. I have a sneaking suspicion that he did more hands-on dirty tricks when his bosses' were in a pinch and was probably more of a successful operator in this regard than he gets credit for-- all the way from his days working for Harriman to his getting asked to be the White Houses' top spy. I always found it odd that they would specifically request Hunt for this type of role. St. John always claims that his dad was both a desk guy and a hands-on guy. I was always doubtful, too, that his role as Chief of Covert Action in the Domestic Operations Division was merely propaganda writing and distributing money to favorable organizations.

I think you're right that if he wasn't actually involved, his insider knowledge likely came from the exile side, where Eduardo was a living legend of sorts among the exile community.

As far as the chronology of the payment-for-information offer, there's two ways to look at it, and I think your skeptical version is probably the best way to approach it. The actual events jibe but the motives less so.

Hunt always had money problems at least as far back as the late 1960's and, as Tad Szulc wrote, even on his generous CIA pension and his Mullen company salary (which were both $24,000, or almost a combined $300k annually in today's money), he always had a need for more money and threatened to quit the Mullen company unless he got a raise--which he never did. He had extravagant tastes and from reading his spy novels, I infer that he was almost addicted to spending money. Of course, these problems compounded when he lost the libel suit and ended up filing for bankruptcy. So, I don't doubt the desperate-for-money motive at all.

St. John makes his dad's story and motives for telling it seem a lot more credible, for obvious reasons, especially because he wrote a book based on it. In St. John's version, Hunt was serious about the offer but at first felt attacked by the parties involved. He eventually came back to the table but by then everyone else was frustrated at him and offered to pay him something ridiculous like $100 to fly to California for an interview (this is from memory), but Howard and St. John were offended by the low offer and told them to go shove it. His attorney was also worried that Hunt might be prosecuted because there is no statute of limitations on lying to Congress and advised him to stop the offer. St. John also emphasizes Howard's being personally torn because he promised his wife he had no knowledge of the plot as a condition for her agreeing to marry him and felt it would tear the family apart if he publicly confessed. St. John claims that all his conversations with his dad were in secret when his wife was out of the house and that his dad's revelations were received based on his health at the time and got more explicit when he thought he was dying. Further, by the time of the taped interview, Hunt expressed some regret about what he had said and told his son that he couldn't tell him everything for the good of the family, so a lot of the questioning during the video was intentionally vague and speculative.

Like I said, I think your skeptical take on it is probably a preferable way to broach the subject, but I don't think St. John's version is way off base, either. I would agree that his story doesn't get us places that we haven't been before, but for someone of his stature, I think there's certainly value there, whatever it means.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Brian Schmidt

[Roger DeLaria]

Through my reading and study, I've come to the conclusion that it was LBJ. It wasn't just LBJ alone by himself, but LBJ was the lynchpin at the epicenter of other conspirators(Texas Oil, CIA, industrialists/war profiteers) whom he had deep ties to, and whom had a vested interest in JFK being eliminated. LBJ was going to be personally and politically ruined and go to prison. LBJ had Big Oil and MIC money behind him, as well as the Texas political machine. He had deep relations and contacts throughout congress, the state of Texas, industry and commerce, as well as law enforcement to ensure he got off scot-free. I see the who and the why right there. LBJ had a clear motive and wouldn't have any problems finding willing co-conspirators.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Roger DeLaria

[Kenneth Drew]

I believe the highest-level plotters were outside the U.S. Government and included members of the Eastern Establishment who had financial interests at odds with certain of JFK's domestic and foreign policies.

That's sort of like saying the Mafia did it, which ignores the fact that the Mafia did not have the power to cover up the crime. How would members of the Eastern Establishment have the power to cover up the crime? The cover-up involved (and continues to involve) the full force of the U.S. government.

That's right. Someone very high in the government

[Kenneth Drew]

IMHP-

All the powerful interests didn't want Kennedy dead, per se, only out of the White House. These parties could have discredited Kennedy with sex scandals (Judith Exner,Mary Pinchot,Marilyn Monroe tapes(allegedly),etc) that made his re-election virtually impossible, and clear the way for "their" candidate, whoever that would be. There is only one party who would have gone to jail and lost everything if Kennedy lived to run in 11/64. And after Kennedy's death, he was the power to cover up everything with his best friends: Hoover at the FBI, the head of the Secret Service, who later worked in his administration,and his friends in Texas.

I go along with your thinking.

[Jon G. Tidd]

LBJ was central to the plot to kill JFK, in my estimation. For two reasons: [1] the plotters had to be sure LBJ wouldn't come after them, and [2] the plotters had to be sure LBJ would depart from doing something JFK was doing that the plotters didn't like.

[1] is pretty easy for the plotters, in my thinking. A full-blown investigation of JFK's death would not have boundaries, however, so the plotters might have had concern on this score.

[2] is less easy for the plotters, unless they know LBJ's position on a number of issues; i.e., the issues of importance to the plotters.

So I can speculate that LBJ was let in on the plans to kill JFK and asked how he would respond to an assassination. Here I put myself in the plotters' shoes and ask: What risk is there in going to LBJ, laying out our plans, and asking him what his response will be? I say the risks to the plotters are intolerable in this situation.

So I'm left to believe LBJ maybe got wind of an assassination attempt. But no more.

[Ron Ecker]

So I'm left to believe LBJ maybe got wind of an assassination attempt. But no more.

Or else LBJ set the plot in motion. All he would have to do is tell someone like Curtis LeMay, "If I was president, you would get your Vietnam War."

[Kenneth Drew]

If LBJ was the master of the plot, he must have lived in terrible fear post-assassination. Fear that he'd be uncovered. After all, many in the 1960s thought he was behind the assassination. LBJ appeared, to me at least, to have no such fear; no such guilt weighing on him.

I acknowledge that LBJ was a ruthless S.O.B., who likely had Mac Wallace as a gunman. Maybe he, LBJ, was without conscience. He certainly did seem to lack remorse over Viet Nam. Maybe LBJ was the master plotter.

I'm inclined to believe, however, the plotters were well aware of LBJ's legal predicament in the fall of 1963 and knew if they allowed him to become president, he would not come after them. They would always have the goods on LBJ.

It hasn't been widely reported, but the evidence is quite clear that LBJ DID live in constant fear, Jon. He told his ghostwriters that after the assassination he thought Robert Kennedy was gonna try to prevent him from becoming President. He said that if it hadn't been for the Warren Commission RFK would have had him arrested. He also told his buddy Abe Fortas that he thought RFK was behind all the conspiracy books.

He was paranoid. A number of psychiatrists have studied his behavior, moreover, and have concluded he was quite ill.

Think Macbeth.

What question about the coverup can't be answered with LBJ?. If LBJ was behind the entire thing, then every incidence can be explained. It is now well known that he was bipolar for most of his life and especially controlled by it the last 10-15 years of his life.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Greg Parker]

If LBJ was the master of the plot, he must have lived in terrible fear post-assassination. Fear that he'd be uncovered. After all, many in the 1960s thought he was behind the assassination. LBJ appeared, to me at least, to have no such fear; no such guilt weighing on him.

I acknowledge that LBJ was a ruthless S.O.B., who likely had Mac Wallace as a gunman. Maybe he, LBJ, was without conscience. He certainly did seem to lack remorse over Viet Nam. Maybe LBJ was the master plotter.

I'm inclined to believe, however, the plotters were well aware of LBJ's legal predicament in the fall of 1963 and knew if they allowed him to become president, he would not come after them. They would always have the goods on LBJ.

It hasn't been widely reported, but the evidence is quite clear that LBJ DID live in constant fear, Jon. He told his ghostwriters that after the assassination he thought Robert Kennedy was gonna try to prevent him from becoming President. He said that if it hadn't been for the Warren Commission RFK would have had him arrested. He also told his buddy Abe Fortas that he thought RFK was behind all the conspiracy books.

He was paranoid. A number of psychiatrists have studied his behavior, moreover, and have concluded he was quite ill.

Think Macbeth.

What question about the coverup can't be answered with LBJ?. If LBJ was behind the entire thing, then every incidence can be explained. It is now well know that he was bipolar for most of his life and especially controlled by it the last 10-15 years of his life.

This is probably something that would interest you then, Kenneth

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16638&page=1

[Ron Ecker]

I think Jack Ruby's mother was behind the whole thing. Why else would the WC Report publish her dental records?

[Kenneth Drew]

I think Jack Ruby's mother was behind the whole thing. Why else would the WC Report publish her dental records?

You may be on to something.

[Brad Milch]

I can offer some Dallas 'locals' perspectives from the mid 1970's that were discussed with me & a couple friends during our first ever visit to Dealey Plaza. This was roughly 10 years since the assassination & before the time of souvenir vendors, bus tours & the museum operation. People who noticed us looking the plaza over simply walked up to us & gave us their 'take' on the assassination:

1. The shooting occurred basically in the front yard of the Dallas County Sherriff's office & operation & adjoining law enforcement operations (this includes the Old Red Courthouse, where a constant flow of law enforcement officers transporting prisoners & defendants to & from trials is a daily routine and the Records building that housed the legal paperwork involved in arrests, trials, convictions, judgments & prisoner releases).

When Bill Decker told his men to report to the rail yards on the radio, he was instructing his men not at large to simply walk out the doors of the Sheriff's operation, cross Houston Street, and move several hundred yards to behind the North pergola (where Zapruder & Sitzman film team were located). This was the route that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone & other officers took.

Altgens7 photo indicates Bill Decker & Jesse Curry's location during the ambush. Bill Decker was either entering or exiting the TUP when he gave his radio order to his men to report to the railyards from DPD Chief Jesse Curry's car. To get to the area Decker ordered his men to report to & "hold everything secure" would have involved nothing more than opening the door of Curry's car & walking up the west side slope of the TUP (where Dan Rather claims to have been located) & crossing the train tracks on foot. A matter of yards. Decker could & should have led his men in the hunt for an assassin & accomplices. Decker did not do this.

2. The parking lot behind the stockade fence was used by Decker's employees. It would have been very simple to walk over from the sheriff's office at lunchtime, open a car trunk, extract a weapon, fire it at the President & entourage, put it back in the trunk, close the trunk & walk back over to the Sheriff's office. Who would stop a Dallas County Sheriff's officer? Who would be brazen enough to use that parking lot as a firing platform with a high risk of a Sheriff's officer discovering their presence when attempting to access their vehicle parked at that location? The cars were not searched & the license plate numbers that were recorded disappeared post-assassination.

3. The shooting began as JFK's limo was passing the two sidewalk monuments. Both are symbols of leaving the downtown Dallas business district. IOW, the symbolism was that JFK was shot from a force 'outside' the Dallas business district & not 'inside it'. This symbolism was lost when the TSBD became the focus of the manhunt by law enforcement.

4. Parked Pullman train cars & the railroad signal tower were never considered as firing/filming platforms, even though both were located in the same railyards Decker ordered his men to report. The roofs & interior offices of the Records building, County Courts bldg, Old Red Courthouse & Federal Building annex were never considered as firing platforms. No trajectory analysis was performed on those locations during Federal investigations & reports.

5. Bill Decker's operation handled a lot of the initial witnesses giving statements. Most of them read the same as if the statements were authored by the same writer. Witnesses rarely see & recall a traumatic event exactly the same.

My friends & I were asked if we were to set up an ambush, would we do so within yards of the Dallas County Sheriff & his law enforcement manpower? Would we put snipers on the roof of his operation or the adjacent buildings that interact with his operation? How would we get them in place under the nose of the Sheriff & his employees? (have them use the Batman 'Batrope' method of scaling a building?) How would we get them out safety; use a helicopter? Wouldn't it be safer to pick a spot further away from a strong law enforcement presence, where it would have taken them some time to get to the crime scene & thus aid in our escape, as opposed to having the law 'breathing down your necks' during escape & evasion?

Did some of the Dallas locals suspect Bill Decker back in the 1970's as being 'in on the kill' or 'standing down on the kill'? Based on the comments locals expressed to me back then, I would say so.

BM

Edited May 19, 2015 by Brad Milch

[Paul Brancato]

Brad - thanks for your interesting post. The perspective you offer is of course not something we can duplicate now.

[Jon G. Tidd]

LBJ is such a good suspect, I ask -- what if we suppose, just for sake of analysis, that LBJ had nothing to do with JFK's murder, How do we size up [a] the assassination, and the way the cover-up has taken place?

With the assumption LBJ had nothing to do with JFK's murder, a striking fact is that LBJ nonetheless was such, is such, a good suspect. Right there I pause. Surely the plotters could see this beforehand, and what a beautiful distraction LBJ would have appeared to be. Of course he would go with the tendered patsy. To save his own hide. And to protect the plotters who were about to do him the biggest possible favor.

As for the cover-up, LBJ is not held in high regard by the Right or the Left, from what I've observed. Because of this, there's no reason I know to continue until today the cover up of LBJ's culpability, if there was any, in JFK's death.

Therefore, despite LBJ's being the most perfect suspect, as Robert Morrow and others argue effectively, I come down on the side of believing LBJ was the plotters' good fortune. Not merely because he would become a magnet for suspicions and therefore a great distraction. But also because LBJ was going to change the way the White House did business, in both Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Chuck Schwartz]

JFK was a friend of Israel, per this speech:

Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY

August 26, 1960

1960 Presidential Election Campaign

1960 Campaign:<br>Senator Kennedy<br>Aug. 1 - Nov. 7

1960 Campaign:

Senator Kennedy

Aug. 1 - Nov. 7

Font Size:

smallmediumlargemaximum

Print

More Sharing Services

Share

Share on facebook

Share on myspace

Share on google

Share on twitter

Share on favorites

The American Presidency Project

Promote Your Page Too

Prophecy is a Jewish tradition, and the World Zionist movement, in which all of you have played so important a role, has continued this tradition. It has turned the dreams of its leaders into acts of statesmanship. It has converted the hopes of the Jewish people into concrete facts of life.

When the first Zionist conference met in 1897, Palestine was a neglected wasteland. A few scattered Jewish colonies had resettled there, but they had come to die in the Holy Land, rather than to make it live again in greatness. Most of the governments of the world were indifferent.

But now all is changed. Israel became a triumphant and enduring reality exactly 50 years after Theodore Herzl, the prophet of Zionism, had proclaimed the ideal of nationhood. It was the classic case of an ancient dream finding a young leader, for Herzl was then only 37 years of age. Perhaps I may be allowed the observation that the Jewish people - ever since David slew Goliath - have never considered youth as a barrier to leadership, or measured experience and maturity by mere length of days.

I first saw Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of Ottoman misrule were slowly being transformed by miracles of labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939, rather than a land of fulfillment. I returned in 1951 to see the grandeur of Israel. In 3 years this new state had opened its doors to 600,000 immigrants and refugees. Even while fighting for its own survival, Israel had given new hope to the persecuted and new dignity to the pattern of Jewish life. I left with the conviction that the United Nations may have conferred on Israel the credentials of nationhood; but its own idealism and courage, its own sacrifice and generosity, had earned the credentials of immortality.

Some do not agree. Three weeks ago I said in a public statement: "Israel is here to stay." The next day I was attacked by Cairo radio, rebuking me for my faith in Israel, and quoting this criticism from the Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria:

As for the question of the existence and the nonexistence of Israel, Mr. Kennedy says that Israel has been created in order to exist. Time will judge between us, Mr. Kennedy.

I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay.

For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom.

It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment.

Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it.

What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward.

If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead.

We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice.

We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless. The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished.

When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms.

American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride:

The humble plea by the George Allen mission to Cairo, to urge Egyptian reconsideration of their acceptance of Soviet arms;

The series of incredible American blunders which led to the Suez crisis of 1956, events in which the role of our Government has never been fully explained;

The so-called Eisenhower doctrine, now repudiated by some of the very nations which accepted our aid, and the cause even at that time of widespread antagonism from Middle Eastern leaders who felt we were cynically trying to use them for our own cold war ends;

And, in general, a deterioration in our relations with all Middle Eastern nations, primarily because neither Israel nor the Arabs knew exactly what to expect from us. At times it must have appeared to many in the area that the shortest route to Washington was through Moscow. At times it must have appeared that champions of democracy and freedom were being punished for their virtues, by being taken for granted by a neglectful administration that suddenly showed concern only when it was displeased by their conduct.

Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater.

What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do.

Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels.

First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics.

Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations.

At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits.

Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance.

The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative.

For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war.

The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs. There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both.

For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East. The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit.

The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope. But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel.

The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world?

When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance.

But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement.

Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command.

In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity."

Citation: John F. Kennedy: "Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY," August 26, 1960. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74217.

Home Contact

© 1999-2015 - Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley - The American Presidency Project

Locations of visitors to this page

[Greg Parker]

I can offer some Dallas 'locals' perspectives from the mid 1970's that were discussed with me & a couple friends during our first ever visit to Dealey Plaza. This was roughly 10 years since the assassination & before the time of souvenir vendors, bus tours & the museum operation. People who noticed us looking the plaza over simply walked up to us & gave us their 'take' on the assassination:

1. The shooting occurred basically in the front yard of the Dallas County Sherriff's office & operation & adjoining law enforcement operations (this includes the Old Red Courthouse, where a constant flow of law enforcement officers transporting prisoners & defendants to & from trials is a daily routine and the Records building that housed the legal paperwork involved in arrests, trials, convictions, judgments & prisoner releases).

When Bill Decker told his men to report to the rail yards on the radio, he was instructing his men not at large to simply walk out the doors of the Sheriff's operation, cross Houston Street, and move several hundred yards to behind the North pergola (where Zapruder & Sitzman film team were located). This was the route that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone & other officers took.

Altgens7 photo indicates Bill Decker & Jesse Curry's location during the ambush. Bill Decker was either entering or exiting the TUP when he gave his radio order to his men to report to the railyards from DPD Chief Jesse Curry's car. To get to the area Decker ordered his men to report to & "hold everything secure" would have involved nothing more than opening the door of Curry's car & walking up the west side slope of the TUP (where Dan Rather claims to have been located) & crossing the train tracks on foot. A matter of yards. Decker could & should have led his men in the hunt for an assassin & accomplices. Decker did not do this.

2. The parking lot behind the stockade fence was used by Decker's employees. It would have been very simple to walk over from the sheriff's office at lunchtime, open a car trunk, extract a weapon, fire it at the President & entourage, put it back in the trunk, close the trunk & walk back over to the Sheriff's office. Who would stop a Dallas County Sheriff's officer? Who would be brazen enough to use that parking lot as a firing platform with a high risk of a Sheriff's officer discovering their presence when attempting to access their vehicle parked at that location? The cars were not searched & the license plate numbers that were recorded disappeared post-assassination.

3. The shooting began as JFK's limo was passing the two sidewalk monuments. Both are symbols of leaving the downtown Dallas business district. IOW, the symbolism was that JFK was shot from a force 'outside' the Dallas business district & not 'inside it'. This symbolism was lost when the TSBD became the focus of the manhunt by law enforcement.

4. Parked Pullman train cars & the railroad signal tower were never considered as firing/filming platforms, even though both were located in the same railyards Decker ordered his men to report. The roofs & interior offices of the Records building, County Courts bldg, Old Red Courthouse & Federal Building annex were never considered as firing platforms. No trajectory analysis was performed on those locations during Federal investigations & reports.

5. Bill Decker's operation handled a lot of the initial witnesses giving statements. Most of them read the same as if the statements were authored by the same writer. Witnesses rarely see & recall a traumatic event exactly the same.

My friends & I were asked if we were to set up an ambush, would we do so within yards of the Dallas County Sheriff & his law enforcement manpower? Would we put snipers on the roof of his operation or the adjacent buildings that interact with his operation? How would we get them in place under the nose of the Sheriff & his employees? (have them use the Batman 'Batrope' method of scaling a building?) How would we get them out safety; use a helicopter? Wouldn't it be safer to pick a spot further away from a strong law enforcement presence, where it would have taken them some time to get to the crime scene & thus aid in our escape, as opposed to having the law 'breathing down your necks' during escape & evasion?

Did some of the Dallas locals suspect Bill Decker back in the 1970's as being 'in on the kill' or 'standing down on the kill'? Based on the comments locals expressed to me back then, I would say so.

BM

Interesting Brad, thanks.

I had no idea the statements taken at the sheriff's office were available back in the '70s.

Do you know if Decker was close to Wade, or if he was polically aligned to one of the major parties, or any faction within one of the major parties?