I don't think LBJ did it, I know he did!

[James DiEugenio]

You mean people like Parnell and Arizona's version of Clarence Darrow would defend the provenance of CE 399 ?

HA HA HA

That will be the day.

I'd love to get Peyote in court to argue the following:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-impossible-one-day-journey-of-ce-399

Edited October 10, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Denny Zartman]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I'd love to get Peyote in court to argue the following:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-impossible-one-day-journey-of-ce-399

It's damning, even without the other arguments that could be made against CE 399. I'm continually surprised by people who dismiss the broken chain of evidence as irrelevant. If CE 399 does not match the bullet discovered in Parkland, that alone confirms either a conspiracy or a mishandling of evidence so grave that no element in the investigation can be fully trusted. It appears to me that the whole case against Oswald is built almost entirely upon mistakes, errors, wild coincidences, and more mistakes.

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You mean people like Parnell and Arizona's version of Clarence Darrow would defend the provenance of CE 399 ?

HA HA HA

That will be the day.

I'd love to get Peyote in court to argue the following:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-impossible-one-day-journey-of-ce-399

 

Perhaps more Tom Hanks/Parkland "history" films are in the works-- Magic Bullet and Magic Bullet II.  😬

[James DiEugenio]

Actually there is a Magic Bullet 2 in this case.

Everyone knows about Magic Bullet 1, as outlined above.

But see, after Thompson's book came out, Slawson and Liebeler were very disturbed by the illustrations on page 111.  Clearly, the Commission lied about the position of Kennedy's head at Z 312.  It is not nearly as anteflexed as they said it was.  And since the Commission had the Z film they had to know this.  But Specter had to do this in order to make that entrance at the bottom of the posterior skull exit to the top of right side work.

So what happened?  When  this was exposed in 1967, Ramsey Clark put together the Fisher Panel. And that panel changed the autopsy report of 1963 without exhuming the body, and without consulting anyone from Bethesda in 1963.  They raised the rear skull wound from bottom to top, and they then capped this piece of wizardry by impasting a white object on the  xray that was not apparent to either the pathologists, the FBI agents or the radiologist in 1963, and is not described in the autopsy report.  It just happened to be 6.5 mm.  Which  of course, coincides with the WCC MC ammo the Commission says was used in the shooting.  But in addition to the  above six people not seeing it in 1963, there was another serious problem. The head and tail of this head shot bullet were found in the front of the car.  Therefore, if this 6.5 mm object was part of a bullet, then it had to come from somewhere in the middle of the projectile.  Imagine making a schematic of that kind of action: a bullet breaking up in three parts, the middle staying near the rear of the skull, while the other two parts fly through the skull, exit the right side and end up in the front of the car. 

Love to have Peyote explain that one to a jury, right after he explained the Impossible One Day Journey of CE 399.  Two magic bullets in the space of six seconds.😢

Only in the Kennedy case.  In the real world Peyote would be laughed out of court right before the judge threw out his case.

Edited October 10, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Arizona's version of Clarence Darrow ...

I'd love to get Peyote in court to argue the following:  ...

Love to have Peyote explain that one to a jury, ...

In the real world Peyote would be laughed out of court right before the judge threw out his case.

 

I’ve certainly received a lot of attention for a thread on which I didn’t even participate.  Since Jim no longer has DVP to bring him to orgasm, perhaps I’m now his inflatable rubber DVP doll?

It’s odd how conspiracy theorists, especially non-lawyers, love to play the “courtroom game.” 

No lawyer thinks ontological truth is the objective in a courtroom.  The objective in a courtroom is to win by convincing the judge or jury.

OJ is innocent of murder but civilly liable for the same event – so what is the ontological truth of what actually occurred?

Rules of evidence aren’t designed to ensure truth.  Historically, they developed out of a belief by judges that adversarial lawyers needed to be “reined in” in terms of what they could present and argue.  They help ensure that a trial proceeds in an orderly manner and that only the most reliable and probative evidence is heard.  Every lawyer knows of cases where the wrong result, ontological truth-wise, was reached because the rules of evidence kept out key evidence or testimony.

Whether Oswald might have been found “not guilty” with an able defense team, a favorite topic of discussion on conspiracy boards where everyone thinks he's a defense attorney, is completely irrelevant to whether Oswald killed JFK.  Ask OJ.

There is a chain of custody for CE 399.  It may appear with 56 years of hindsight to be a problematical chain of custody, but it is a chain of custody.  How significant the problems actually are will never be known now because the people who could provide clarification are all dead.  We'll never know how it would play out, in or out of court, if everyone in the chain of custody were available to be interviewed and given an opportunity to explain what we might now see as concerns.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, “problems” with a chain of custody don’t necessarily mean that an item of physical evidence is inadmissible in court.  They certainly don't mean that those of us now in search of historical truth can't conclude the evidence is nevertheless reliable.

Experts for the WC and HSCA determined that CE 399 had been fired from Oswald’s rifle.  No bullet fragment that could not be traced to Oswald’s rifle was found (some fragments, of course, were too small to trace at all.)  Identical M-C bullets have been fired through two feet of solid pine and emerged in the same condition as CE 399 (I was astounded).  Efforts to duplicate exactly what CE 399 is alleged to have done have been extremely successful.  You can find them on YouTube.

Moreover, CE 399 isn’t essential to the SBT.  Based on the totality of the evidence, one could well arrive at the SBT as the best explanation even if no CE 399 had come to light.  Since CE 399 did come to light and CTers think it was either planted or substituted for the bullet that was found at Parkland, one must wonder what sort of inept conspirators would have planted or substituted a bullet in this condition rather than a less problematical one.  Once more we have the “geniuses at steps 1-3-5, stumbling fools at steps 2-4-6” syndrome.

Is the SBT absolutely essential to the Lone Assassin explanation?  What if CE 399 actually did fall out of a shallow back wound as the doctors initially surmised?  Is that absolutely fatal to the Lone Assassin explanation?  I don’t think so.  Maybe you do.  Perhaps the hole in the throat was an artifact of a fragment (metal or bone) from the fatal head shot as was suggested at an early stage.  Perhaps Connally was hit by the second shot as he insisted.  Perhaps no shot missed, notwithstanding James Tague; perhaps a substantial fragment hit the curb and nicked his cheek.  We will simply never know precisely what occurred.

Knowing precisely what occurred isn’t essential to the Lone Assassin explanation.  That explanation is the best fit with the totality of the evidence.  If the case as a whole screams Oswald’s guilt, as I believe it does, “reasonable doubt” about precisely how the shots were sequenced and precisely what the bullets (and all the fragments of bullet and bone) did isn’t determinative.  There could be reasonable doubt about several different aspects of the case and yet no doubt about the ontological truth of Oswald’s guilt.  Conspiracy board defense attorneys never seem to understand this.

Conspiracy theorists always overlook that a jury would examine their evidence and inferences with the same care - just as I try to do and you should, too.  A jury wouldn’t simply say “Oh, the chain of custody for CE 399 is really dubious.  The SBT really seems implausible to me.  Bingo, Oswald must be innocent there must have been a conspiracy to frame him.”  A jury might say – like me! – “Notwithstanding the problems associated with CE 399 and the SBT, I don't believe they are show-stoppers and the solid evidence of Oswald’s guilt is so convincing that I’m simply going to live with reasonable doubt about CE 399 and the SBT rather than accept an elaborate, convoluted conspiracy theory that is unsupported by any affirmative evidence and seems completely implausible.”  (Indeed, much of the speculation and “evidence” on which CTers ground their theories would never reach a jury – it would be excluded by the rules of evidence!)

Edited October 10, 2019 by Guest

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/9/2019 at 2:53 AM, Joseph McBride said:

Senator Ralph Yarborough told me LBJ leaned over the space between

the driver's seat and the front passenger seat as Rufus Youngblood also leaned over

to listen to the agent's walkie-talkie while they were

going through the Triple Overpass. Yarborough said

LBJ and the agent were about six inches apart. Yarborough was sitting in the back seat with LBJ and Lady Bird.

I noted that since the Altgens photo shows LBJ

ducking earlier on Elm Street, Yarborough evidently was off a bit on the timing of the leaning over. And Yarborough

said the LBJ/Youngblood story about the agent

jumping over into the back seat was false. More details are in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

The first time I read your interview of Yarborough in the book I thought maybe it helped confirm a suspicion I already had.  That Johnson had foreknowledge.  Not that he participated in any way but that something might or would happen in Dallas.  Maybe he didn't know exactly how or what would happen.

I wondered if it was simply a reaction to hearing the shots, he leaned forward to hear if anything about them was being said over Youngblood's radio.  Maybe even asked Youngblood if anything was being said about them.  I also wondered if maybe Youngblood turned and said something like Mr. Johnson you need to hear this.  But wouldn't Yarborough have heard this if he was paying enough attention to them  to notice them crouching over together listening?  And mentioned it?

I think they both knew where something might happen and wanted to know the results of the shots.

I'd thought for sometime prior to reading the part in Nightmare on this that given the assassination was a well planned highly organized operation the planners would want the new guy in charge not to over react and to and in fact cooperate in the cover up.  LBJ was supported by big oil and big bidness as Molly Ivins used to say.  On the Texas end that was Hoover's buddy Murchison, Richardson, Brown and Root and others.  But who were some of the prime investors in oil in particular?  Members of the East Coast Establishment.  Bushes to Standard Oil.  How could LBJ become head of the Senate without becoming familiar with that East Coast Establishment and working with the representatives, politicians and lobbyists, of Wall Street.  People like say Dulles may have considered him a buffoon but he was a compliant buffoon.  Plus he had to realize that if this could be done to JFK it could be done to him as well.

Involvement of select Secret Service personnel was discussed recently on another thread.  Might Youngblood have been one of these?

Edited October 11, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

Is Arizona's Darrow saying what I think he's saying above?

He can't decide if CE 399 is admissible or inadmissible?  I hate to tell him but he is stuck with it either way.

He is trying to avoid a disturbing fact:  that exhibit gets to the FBI after they already have it. Further,  J. Edgar Hoover lied about.  At least twice.  Just to remind Mr. Darrow: Elmer Todd did not initial the bullet as Hoover said he did.  Bardwell Odum did not ferry it around to witnesses to get confirmation of it, as Hoover said he did.  Those are proven facts that will simply not go away as much as Peyote wants them to disappear.  This is why, as that late FBI agent Bill Turner told me, the Bureau really lost whatever reputation it had with the JFK case.  The FBI did not accept a cover up, they enabled the cover up.

As anyone with any experience in criminal proceedings will tell you, when the defense can prove serious prosecutorial misconduct, any counsel-- except maybe Lance--will move for a mistrial.  Why? Because you have just shown that the prosecution has--at the very least-- lied about a central piece of evidence.  And that is softballing it. Because the adduced evidentiary record says its worse than that. Through the work of the late John Hunt, one can now show that there were either four bullets, or the one Frazier got before CE 399 was deep sixed.  There is nothing fanciful about this, nothing theoretical about it. And you don't need Robert Shapiro.  All you need is an attorney who knows how to read and is not afraid of the facts.  CE 399, in and of itself, proves that someone was trying to frame Oswald.  Its something that cannot be denied today. And any lawyer who does is reduced to the level of a used car salesman.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is Arizona's Darrow saying what I think he's saying above?

He can't decide if CE 399 is admissible or inadmissible?  I hate to tell him but he is stuck with it either way.

I am forced to educate you once again.  Neither the WC nor the HSCA was a criminal prosecution.  I have no idea, and neither do you, as to whether CE 399 would have been admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution of Oswald in 1964 or a mock criminal prosecution in 2019 - or what effect its inadmissibility would have had on the determination of Oswald's guilt (I suspect the effect would have been nil).  There is no such thing as "prosecutorial misconduct" in an administrative investigation such as the WC and HSCA.  Even in adversarial administrative hearings, the rules of evidence typically do not apply at all.  Hearsay is routinely admitted and the fact-finder is free to entertain any and all evidence it wishes to hear.  You can impugn the WC and HSCA and their willingness to consider and rely upon CE 399, but your "pretend lawyer" analysis is simply the uninformed nonsense that typically proceeds from the mouths of pretend lawyers.

Like every Conspiracy Game zealot, you confidently assert with 56 years of hindsight that every seeming gap, inconsistency and contradiction in the record is attributable to "lies" when you have no way of knowing this or what plausible explanation or clarification might be offered if the people you so confidently brand with the L word were still alive.

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

CE 399, in and of itself, proves that someone was trying to frame Oswald.  Its something that cannot be denied today. And any lawyer who does is reduced to the level of a used car salesman.

Are you so out of control that you're covering your keyboard with spittle as you type this nonsense?  That's pretty much what I picture.  CE 399 doesn't "prove" that at all.  Although I understand that it's de rigueur for the Conspiracy Game, and particularly for a Conspiracy Capitalist with books to peddle and turf to protect, the dogmatic nonsense, uncontrollable rage and ad hominem silliness that flow from your keyboard are not really the hallmarks of someone who is confident about the arguments he is propounding.

[James DiEugenio]

Well, the above proves that Von Pein isn't gone. 

Conspiracy capitalist?  Never heard that one before.

But let us be simple about this.  As everyone--except maybe the Darrow of Prescott knows--the FBI said that Elmer Lee Todd's initials were on CE 399.  As the late John Hunt proved, this was not the case.  Further, John also showed that the FBI lab was already in receipt of the stretcher bullet before it was supposed to have gotten there, via Rowley to Todd at the White House.  John's work here is self evident, you just have to click through to see it.  He proves it with the government's own documents.  Its right there in black and white and in photos. (http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html) If the Prescott Darrow does not want to face it, then he has a denial problem. 

Further, as has also been proven, the FBI also lied about Bardwell Odum showing CE 399 to witnesses.  That is also false, as demonstrated by Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson. All one has to do is read about it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm) . 

All I am doing is reciting facts, evidence and testimony. And as I said, you do not need to be Robert Shapiro to read and understand this stuff or what it would mean in a court of law.  Peyote has now shown his true colors on the JFK case. Facts don't matter.  Evidence does not matter.  Testimony does not matter.

He is Von Pein with a law degree.

Edited October 11, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/7/2019 at 7:56 PM, John Kozlowski said:

Do you have any credible evidence to back up the claims you make everyday? All your theories are pushed by Roger Stone, John Davis, Barr McClellan etc. People who’s work has been discredited years ago or questionable at best.      

  

The LBJ angle has more promoters than just those three.

Throw in E.Howard Hunt, Billie Sol Estes and many others and perhaps Richard Nixon himself.

I am sure you have seen that video on You Tube of sweaty, creepy smiling Nixon cryptically inferring about LBJ..."You know that LBJ...he never liked to be number 2."

Rich Pope. 

You state that your father listened in on some telephone calls to and from LBJ's ranch and involving LBJ himself.

You then go on to infer that your father became much more withdrawn and seemingly disturbed by what he had heard on these calls.

If your father had ever just once shared with you what he heard in those calls to so disturb him, then this whole part of your story would gain some credibility weight imo.

I can understand a father not wanting to put his son in danger by revealing truths that could be life threatening in their importance, but you never once overheard him sharing even small bits of what he knew about LBJ to anybody?

Did he never once say one thing about LBJ that suggested he thought LBJ was a bad, immoral, ruthless or dangerous man?

How frustrating not to have one thing your father actually said about LBJ that would indicate something truly nefarious about him.

If your father actually secretly listened into LBJ's telephone conversations that LBJ thought were private and more than a half dozen times, one can imagine he heard some really revealing and important stuff.

Personally I feel LBJ was a seriously ruthless, cunning and corrupted power seeking man to a maniacally obsessive degree. Including ordering murders if need be.

A sadistically crude man too.

Yes, LBJ pushed through the "Great Society"  program.

Even crooks do good things.

Capone, El Chapo and other murderous criminals have helped the poor.

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Conspiracy capitalist?  Never heard that one before.

Right - I invented it!  The basic definition would be "One who milks the JFK assassination for financial gain by peddling himself and his wares to wide-eyed Conspiracy Game enthusiasts, typically purporting to be engaged in legitimate historical research while actually focused almost entirely on self-promotion and serving up as 'research' a potpourri of speculation, innuendo, half-truths and fantasy, all garnished with just enough historical facts to give the dish a superficial veneer of plausibility."  Something like that.  Sort of the JFK equivalent of a Prosperity Gospel televangelist.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

All I am doing is reciting facts, evidence and testimony. And as I said, you do not need to be Robert Shapiro to read and understand this stuff or what it would mean in a court of law.  Peyote has now shown his true colors on the JFK case. Facts don't matter.  Evidence does not matter.  Testimony does not matter.

You must be absolutely dousing your poor keyboard with spittle.  I've read the excellent article by Thompson and Aguilar.  In my very first post above, I acknowledged that the provenance of CE 399 is problematical.  If someone were going to attempt to introduce it into evidence at a trial, the problems would require satisfactory explanations.  Because I am not a Grand Exalted Wizard of the Conspiracy Game or even a rank-and-file Conspiracy Game zealot, however, I recognize that (1) some or all of the seeming problems might well be resolved if the principals were still alive to clarify and explain them - they do not inevitably point in the direction you suggest; (2) CE 399 might well be deemed admissible - what is "obvious" to you is not so obvious to someone such as myself who is actually familiar with trial practice and does not purport to have your clairvoyance; (3) even if CE 399 were deemed inadmissible (which is certainly possible), the effect on the SBT and the determination of Oswald's guilt is simply unknown - I don't see it as necessarily all that significant; and (4) the WC and HSCA were investigative bodies, not the "Oswald defense bodies" that you and people like you wish they had been.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Darrow of Prescott

I have actually not even been to Prescott in nearly ten years.  Nor, for that matter, have I ever exchanged one word with DVP outside the public postings on this forum.

There actually was a Darrow of Prescott, Warren, who was related to the famed Clarence Darrow.  Before coming to Prescott, oddly enough, he had litigated against Jerry Spence of Oswald Mock Trial fame.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Guest

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

The LBJ angle has more promoters than just those three.

Throw in E.Howard Hunt, Billie Sol Estes and many others and perhaps Richard Nixon himself.

I am sure you have seen that video on You Tube of sweaty, creepy smiling Nixon cryptically inferring about LBJ..."You know that LBJ...he never liked to be number 2."

Rich Pope. 

You state that your father listened in on some telephone calls to and from LBJ's ranch and involving LBJ himself.

You then go on to infer that your father became much more withdrawn and seemingly disturbed by what he had heard on these calls.

If your father had ever just once shared with you what he heard in those calls to so disturb him, then this whole part of your story would gain some credibility weight imo.

I can understand a father not wanting to put his son in danger by revealing truths that could be life threatening in their importance, but you never once overheard him sharing even small bits of what he knew about LBJ to anybody?

Did he never once say one thing about LBJ that suggested he thought LBJ was a bad, immoral, ruthless or dangerous man?

How frustrating not to have one thing your father actually said about LBJ that would indicate something truly nefarious about him.

If your father actually secretly listened into LBJ's telephone conversations that LBJ thought were private and more than a half dozen times, one can imagine he heard some really revealing and important stuff.

Personally I feel LBJ was a seriously ruthless, cunning and corrupted power seeking man to a maniacally obsessive degree. Including ordering murders if need be.

A sadistically crude man too.

Yes, LBJ pushed through the "Great Society"  program.

Even crooks do good things.

Capone, El Chapo and other murderous criminals have helped the poor.

 

 

 

Joe,

     You bring up some valid points about LBJ here.

     There is ample historical evidence that the man was a major league sociopath who would do just about anything to promote himself-- stuffing ballot boxes, selling political favors, and even employing hit men like Mac Wallace.

      And let's not forget about his role in; 1) reversing NSAM 263 by signing NSAM 273 right after JFK was murdered, and 2) setting up the Warren Commission-- as an alternative to a bona fide investigation of JFK's murder.

    As for LBJ's Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act achievements after 11/22/63, let's not forget that he had repeatedly obstructed Civil Rights legislation during his lengthy Congressional career.

    My belief is that LBJ's post- 11/22/63 Civil Rights and Great Society initiatives were motivated chiefly by self interest and vanity, rather than by any sincere moral convictions.  The man was a sociopath.  Didn't he even arrange the murder of his own sister?

[James DiEugenio]

Gentlemen:

Look its not like me to want to somehow come to the defense of LBJ.  As anyone who has read my writing knows, I have not spoken kindly of him.

But as Joan Mellen noted in her book Faustian Bargains,  the Barr McClellan/Nigel Turner/Walt Brown accusation of LBJ employing Mac Wallace as a hit man has been shown to be false. If you don't want to read the book, here is the short version. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mellen-joan-faustian-bargains) Mellen showed that Wallace was not involved in either the murder of Henry Marshall, or Josefa Johnson.  And unlike what Turner and Brown said on TV, that is not his fingerprint in the TSBD.  

As per Johnson and his antics in Texas, no doubt they were pretty bad.  But is anyone going to say that Texas was somehow a clean place for political races?  Or that somehow LBJ was the worst rat in practicing them?

And finally, it was not LBJ's idea to create the Warren Commission.  It was pushed on the White House by Eugene Rostow and Joe Alsop. 

LBJ was a pretty bad guy, no doubt.  But its up to the people who really study this case to try and be as accurate as we can about him and use the best info out there.  

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Gentlemen:

Look its not like me to want to somehow come to the defense of LBJ.  As anyone who has read my writing knows, I have not spoken kindly of him.

But as Joan Mellen noted in her book Faustian Bargains,  the Barr McClellan/Nigel Turner/Walt Brown accusation of LBJ employing Mac Wallace as a hit man has been shown to be false. If you don't want to read the book, here is the short version. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mellen-joan-faustian-bargains) Mellen showed that Wallace was not involved in either the murder of Henry Marshall, or Josefa Johnson.  And unlike what Turner and Brown said on TV, that is not his fingerprint in the TSBD.  

As per Johnson and his antics in Texas, no doubt they were pretty bad.  But is anyone going to say that Texas was somehow a clean place for political races?  Or that somehow LBJ was the worst rat in practicing them?

And finally, it was not LBJ's idea to create the Warren Commission.  It was pushed on the White House by Eugene Rostow and Joe Alsop. 

LBJ was a pretty bad guy, no doubt.  But its up to the people who really study this case to try and be as accurate as we can about him and use the best info out there.  

 

Jim,

     What is your opinion about LBJ's role in issuing NSAM 273 on the heels of JFK's murder?  The timing is certainly suspicious-- especially in light of LBJ's longstanding disagreements with JFK's (and RFK's) policy opinions about Vietnam and the Cold War.   LBJ was openly allied on those issues with the Joint Chiefs and Cold Warriors in JFK's administration-- the men who were, presumably involved in the 11//22/63 coup d'etat.

    All things considered, it seems inconceivable, to me, that LBJ was not "in the loop" in the coup d'etat, on some level.  Wasn't he also very closely allied with J. Edgar Hoover before and after 11/22/63 in covering up the Crime of the Century?

[James DiEugenio]

What LBJ did with NSAM 273, and to Robert McNamara and then NSAM 288, and the whole planning for the war in the summer of 1964 while saying he would not escalate is a story in and of itself.

And I really mean that.  Someone should do a film about it.  Because that is how the Pentagon Papers started.  LBJ knowingly reversed Kennedy's withdrawal policy and he then lied his head off about it to try and shift the blame to JFK.  It does not get any worse than that if you ask me.  Propagandists like Halberstam and Sheehan then tried to say that it was really McNamara's War.  When, in fact, by 1966 McNamara knew that Rolling Thunder was not working and he was showing signs of depression and anxiety disorder.  There were days when he would go into work and stand behind a curtain and weep.  

And this is how the Pentagon Papers started and this is why he did not tell LBJ about what he was doing.  In the Gravel version of the PP there is a 30 page section entitled Phased Withdrawal 1963-64.  Which neither the NY Times nor W Post printed. And it was not in the Beacon House version either.  The fact that the editor, Leslie Gelb was given access to it, shows that even suffering mentally as he was, McNamara understood what had happened.  It was after this that McNamara expressed his disagreement with LBJ and the JCS on further expansion.  And this was before Tet.  See, if you ask me, Ellsberg was not really the central protagonist for the PP.  And what Spielberg and Hanks did with McNamara in their movie was  a disgrace.  Compounded by what they did with Kate Graham, who LBJ confided his escalation plans in during the summer of 1964. That is why I say, it would make a really good mini series to tell the whole story of what really happened.  And BTW, this is all BEFORE Ellsberg.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in on the cover up.  And I also would not at all be surprised if he and Hoover were aware of what was in the wind either.  I mean they were great friends who had a mutual interest in seeing the Kennedys gone. I mean you know what Hoover did on Saturday, the day after Kennedy was killed?  He went to the racetrack with his buddy Tolson. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by James DiEugenio