Jump to content
The Education Forum

55 Years Ago Today...


Recommended Posts

Warren Commission member Richard Russell assumed (mistakenly) that his September 16, 1964 drafted dissent ("I do not share the finding of the Commission as to the probability that both President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet") about "this bullet business" (he didn't believe the "single-bullet theory". Why not? As he said "John Connally testified directly to the contrary") would be incorporated into the body of the Warren Report.

It was not.

Russell was unaware of this incredible omission until talking with Harold Weisberg on June 5, 1968. (A propitious date in history!)

Russell had personally forced a last-minute meeting of the Warren Commission back on September 18, 1964 so that his dissent and his suspicions about the inadequacy of the investigating agencies (particularly the FBI and the CIA) would be a part of the public record. Instead, Chief Justice Earl Warren misled Russell by having a stenographer from Ward & Paul present, seemingly taking exact dictation, but instead just taking vague minutes. When in 1968 Harold Weisberg showed Russell the public record of the September 18, 1964 Executive Session, Russell was astounded to learn that no record of his dissent existed. As Gerald Ford later admitted, whatever it was that the stenographer was doing at that 1964 session was at the explicit direction of the Chief Justice of the United States.

In simple terms, with this charade, Warren lied to Russell and to the American public about the credibility and strength of the evidence in order to preserve the fiction that the assassination was solely the work of a "lone nut."

Why did Warren do that?

Because he was an intellectual coward, afraid of where a real investigation might lead. He was afraid that the truth, whatever it was, might be catastrophic for America. 

In other words, Earl Warren thought he knew what was best for America, and with what the American people could be trusted when it came to the murder of their president. And if that meant lying to both a fellow commission member, a long-time respected member of the U.S. Senate, and lying to the American people about the greatest political murder in American history, well, Earl Warren was just the man for the job . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who believe the JFK event was a conspiracy involving power groups and individuals in our own government, the contemplation of what would have happened in our society and nation had this truth been fully revealed soon or even 1, 2 or more years after 11,22,1963 would have indeed been a scary one with real consequences.

There would have been massive public demonstrations everywhere ( with violence ) and every aspect of our federal government including the Executive branch, Congress, Judicial, Justice, military and secret agencies would have been called out by millions of citizens with demands of immediate, across the board, hard line investigations, arrests, firings and forced resignations, etc.

For sure there would have been Marshall Law declarations and state troopers dispatched in the most volatile areas of public demonstration with many anarchy minded crazies going so far as firing on the responding order enforcing forces.

MLK's killing instantly triggered this very scenario without suspects or even the full beginnings of an investigation!

I have wondered also how much more angry and suspicious most Americans would have been if Jackie Kennedy had her head blown off as was her husband's in the fuselage on Elm Street that day.

Americans by the tens of millions were already truly angry and suspicious ( toward right wing central, JFK hating Dallas specifically and Texas generally ) but having a beautiful young wife and mother being brutally slaughtered alongside her husband might have taken that anger to a more outraged and viscerally acting out level.

What is striking to me is how far these JFK killing perpetrators ( again, if it was our own people ) were willing to go with this mind boggling risk a very real possibility in their plan and decision to implement it.

An action beyond my sense of risk taking sanity.

Yet, perhaps the perpetrators like this surmised that the American people in general would reject such a reality, simply because it would be too scary to accept in their safer law and order world reality paradigm along with the added weight of acknowledging responsibility such a scenario would lay upon them personally?

Something similar to the fear so many feel in regards to the UFO/ET story and what it would mean to their perception of life, meaning and purpose reality as humans if it were officially revealed to be true?

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards Russell, 

I posted a few years ago something I heard former FBI agent James Hosty state in a radio interview about his newly published book "Assignment: Oswald." 

I believe this interview was on a radio station near Kansas City.

At some point well into the interview I caught and was surprised to hear Hosty say ...

"We had three of them. Ford, Russell and ... " (Hosty paused as if trying to remember a third name) and it was absolutely clear that Hosty was stating who on the Warren Commission was friendly and/or cooperating with the FBI.

However, before Hosty could remember and state the name of the third FBI helping WC member, the interviewer immediately interjected after a second or two of this pause with a subject changing question which I found frustrating and even illogical because who in their JFK event story interested right mind wouldn't want to know who this third FBI helping WC member was?

But to hear Hosty state Russell's name in this area of cooperation begs some interesting questions regards Russell and his true intentions in this historical event imo.

Any thoughts on Hosty's radio interview statement regards Russell?

I tried over and over to find this interview somewhere on the internet years after I heard it, but it seems never to have existed.  I think I even found the radio station and the interviewer's name at some point. But I couldn't find any mention of the interview even with this info.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Against all logic, I retain a certain respect for Earl Warren for initially refusing to accept the Commission chair post, until LBJ browbeat him to the point where he wept.  With his dangerously troubled reputation among the right-wing fringe, Warren may have felt that controversy would mean a death sentence from that quarter, and non-compliance with the Commission's more specially interested members (Dulles, McCloy), or with LBJ himself, might bring a fate similar to JFK's.  This does not excuse his disservice to Americans late in a distinguished career.

In his heart, in the air that he breathed, he would have known that Ruby was doomed, and anyone who would try to rescue him doomed also.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Regards Russell, 

I posted a few years ago something I heard former FBI agent James Hosty state in a radio interview about his newly published book "Assignment: Oswald." 

I believe this interview was on a radio station near Kansas City.

At some point well into the interview I caught and was surprised to hear Hosty say ...

"We had three of them. Ford, Russell and ... " (Hosty paused as if trying to remember a third name) and it was absolutely clear that Hosty was stating who on the Warren Commission was friendly and/or cooperating with the FBI.

However, before Hosty could remember and state the name of the third FBI helping WC member, the interviewer immediately interjected after a second or two of this pause with a subject changing question which I found frustrating and even illogical because who in their JFK event story interested right mind wouldn't want to know who this third FBI helping WC member was?

But to hear Hosty state Russell's name in this area of cooperation begs some interesting questions regards Russell and his true intentions in this historical event imo.

Any thoughts on Hosty's radio interview statement regards Russell?

I tried over and over to find this interview somewhere on the internet years after I heard it, but it seems never to have existed.  I think I even found the radio station and the interviewer's name at some point. But I couldn't find any mention of the interview even with this info.

Joe,

Whatever faith Russell may have had early on in his career in the FBI had disappeared by the time of the Warren Commission. Russell repeatedly told friends, colleagues and associates that the FBI's investigation was insufficient, shoddy and inaccurate.

Personally, I doubt that Russell really understood the implications for the "solution" if the magic bullet theory was rejected. We know that without the magic bullet theory, the entire no-conspiracy answer collapses into nothing. But I don't think Russell really comprehended that. He didn't like Earl Warren, he didn't trust the FBI, and in the end, he was disgusted enough with LBJ's willingness to facilitate the cover-up that Russell even broke his longtime friendship with Johnson. Before he died in 1971, Richard Russell had even urged a private researcher (Harold Weisberg) to pick up the trail and conduct a real investigation.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bhMwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aTMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3085%2C4917493

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Against all logic, I retain a certain respect for Earl Warren for initially refusing to accept the Commission chair post, until LBJ browbeat him to the point where he wept.  With his dangerously troubled reputation among the right-wing fringe, Warren may have felt that controversy would mean a death sentence from that quarter, and non-compliance with the Commission's more specially interested members (Dulles, McCloy), and LBJ himself, would bring a similar fate.  This does not excuse his disservice to Americans late in a distinguished career.

David,

I realize this is almost turning into a separate thread about Earl Warren, but I must respectfully disagree. Whatever you or I may think about Warren's role in the 1954 Brown vs. the Board landmark decision must be weighed by his role in the 1942 decision to support FDR's plan to lock up roughly 80,000 Japanese-Americans citizens in California.

These 80,000 people were American citizens! (FDR also locked up about 35,000 Japanese nationals without any due process. I don't like that, but to lock up actual American citizens is an entirely different matter, and should have been completely unacceptable!)

And Mr. Civil Rights, Earl Warren, was more than fine with it! Warren was the Governor of California, and I suspect he had one finger in the political wind - he was aiming at the White House, I suspect. 

For whatever reason, Warren was willing in 1942 to trample the rights of American citizens.

It would seem, in 1964, that he was fine with conducting a sham "investigation."

We don't know the truth about the JFK assassination today because he was too (scared? unwilling? intimidated?) to conduct an honest investigation then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Warren's role in the internment business, for which he apologized publicly later.  It's possible that recognition of his error helped bring about Brown.

What can I say?  One's reactions to historical figures can't please everybody.  Even LBJ brought about some good domestic policies, partly in emulation of JFK and FDR, partly to save his reputation from Vietnam.

I could recant and call Warren a weepy coward who enabled a cover-up.  But everyone then was effin' scared, right down to RFK.

Warren resigned the Chief Justice post and never ran for high office, as he had before his appointment.  No Chief Justice ever ran for the presidency, except Salmon P. Chase, who was refused the Democratic nomination in 1868 because he had defended black voting rights from state action.  Charles Evans Hughes left office as an ordinary Supreme Court Justice to run against Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and was later appointed Chief Justice, which is such a dead-end job that William Howard Taft took it to keep his hand in.. 

There was no serious chance of a Warren presidency, and Warren would have seen it.  Like Chase's, Warren's divided reputation could not be reconciled.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I know Warren's role in the internment business, for which he apologized publicly later.

What can I say?  One's reactions to historical figures can't please everybody.  I could recant and call Warren a weepy coward who enabled a cover-up.  But everyone then was effin' scared, right down to RFK.

Yes.  Scared.

And rightfully so.

Like the line the Beverly Oliver character ( Lolita Davidovich ) in Oliver Stone's film JFK said in response to Jim Garrison ( Kevin Costner) after he asked her to appear in his trial of Clay Shaw ( Clay Bertrand.)

Something close to...if they can kill the President of the United States, don't you think they could get to little ole' me?

If Warren thought it was an inside job, I could well understand and believe he felt the same way about his own security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes.  Scared.

And rightfully so.

Like the line the Beverly Oliver character ( Lolita Davidovich ) in Oliver Stone's film JFK said in response to Jim Garrison ( Kevin Costner) after he asked her to appear in his trial of Clay Shaw ( Clay Bertrand.)

Something close to...if they can kill the President of the United States, don't you think they could get to little ole' me?

If Warren thought it was an inside job, I could well understand and believe he felt the same way about his own security.

If (IF) that were the case, then Warren's only honorable choice was to resign from the commission.

Resignation rather than the active promotion of an obviously false "solution" would have at least salvaged some of his reputation and probably would have helped America to get closer to the truth. Instead, he chose the politically expedient path and denounced any and all who voiced even the slightest doubts about his findings. 

No, I am afraid Joe that you and I will have to disagree about Warren. 

And such disagreement,  in a free forum such as this one, is a perfectly fine thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes.  Scared.

And rightfully so.

Like the line the Beverly Oliver character ( Lolita Davidovich ) in Oliver Stone's film JFK said in response to Jim Garrison ( Kevin Costner) after he asked her to appear in his trial of Clay Shaw ( Clay Bertrand.)

Something close to...if they can kill the President of the United States, don't you think they could get to little ole' me?

If Warren thought it was an inside job, I could well understand and believe he felt the same way about his own security.

I agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I know Warren's role in the internment business, for which he apologized publicly later.  It's possible that recognition of his error helped bring about Brown.

What can I say?  One's reactions to historical figures can't please everybody.  Even LBJ brought about some good domestic policies, partly in emulation of JFK and FDR, partly to save his reputation from Vietnam.

I could recant and call Warren a weepy coward who enabled a cover-up.  But everyone then was effin' scared, right down to RFK.

Warren resigned the Chief Justice post and never ran for high office, as he did before his appointment.  No Chief Justice ever ran for the presidency, except Salmon P. Chase, who was refused the Democratic nomination in 1868 because he defended black voting rights from state action.  Charles Evans Hughes left office as an ordinary Supreme Court Justice to run against Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and was later appointed Chief Justice, which is such a dead-end job that William Howard Taft took it to keep his hand in.. 

There was no serious chance of a Warren presidency, and Warren would have seen it.  Like Chase's, Warren's divided reputation could not be reconciled.

David,

When I mentioned Earl Warren's presidential ambitions, I was referring specifically to his decision to support FDR's 1942 Japanese Internment Executive Order. Absolutely Earl Warren wanted to be president of the United States, and in 1948, he almost came a heartbeat away.

After all, it took a miracle in 1948 for Harry Truman to defeat the Republican nominee, Thomas Dewey and his vice presidential nominee . . . Earl Warren. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issuance, and acceptance by the MSM, of the Warren Report was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it.

Especially for those old enough to have been around, as I was.

IMO, that acceptance encouraged the Power Elite to continue in their murderous ways, until the final catastrophe happened in Los Angeles in June of 1968.

After which the great French playwright Jean Genet reportedly said, "America is gone."  Man, was he right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of the strong themes of Talbot’s BROTHERS, which I liked a lot. The assassinations of the 60’s turned the US - and really the whole world - down a path it’s having great trouble steering away from, and we need to revisit those events to understand what happened so we can correct the course.

FWIW, every time I visit a public library here in Australia, I glance at the JFK assassination books on the shelf. The selection is near universally rotten and makes me suspect that someone managing a national library selection catalog somewhere is intentionally highlighting the worst books possible. Jim, out of your top ten, I’ve never seen any of those on a library shelf in Australia.

But Talbot’s BROTHERS and DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD were big hits in quality bookshops down here, and I saw a big stack of the latter - full price - prominent and selling on a display in a bookshop just metres down from our State parliament here in Melbourne, next to the cafe where most of the local politicians grab their lunches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...