Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tipping Point serialization now in progress on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site


Recommended Posts

Ron Bulman in an earlier post sparked a new thought in my mind. Could the concept of Plausible Deniability have gone wrong or been abused? 

I understand it is a theory that Bobby Kennedy felt huge guilt as to his involvement with the assumed conspirators. Was that because an instruction given by him (Such as 'Eliminate any person's who are either within, or hinder the downfall of the Castro regime') was interpreted fatally further down the chain. Reading William Harvey's Church Committee testimony is quite chilling with this in mind. He says two important things in this regard: Firstly he didn't know where his instructions ultimately came from and secondly he states he carried them out assuming they ultimately came from someone in the White House. I'm guessing the 60's was a time when Plausible Deniability was still a developing concept. Did the order to kill JFK in fact stem from an instruction of his brother? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Ron Bulman in an earlier post sparked a new thought in my mind. Could the concept of Plausible Deniability have gone wrong or been abused? 

I understand it is a theory that Bobby Kennedy felt huge guilt as to his involvement with the assumed conspirators. Was that because an instruction given by him (Such as 'Eliminate any person's who are either within, or hinder the downfall of the Castro regime') was interpreted fatally further down the chain. Reading William Harvey's Church Committee testimony is quite chilling with this in mind. He says two important things in this regard: Firstly he didn't know where his instructions ultimately came from and secondly he states he carried them out assuming they ultimately came from someone in the White House. I'm guessing the 60's was a time when Plausible Deniability was still a developing concept. Did the order to kill JFK in fact stem from an instruction of his brother? 

to me, sorry, that's all part of the CIA disinformation campaign, to blame the victim(s), JFK and then RFK. Of course the CIA tried to blame the assassination on blowback, to JFK's supposed attempts to assassinate Castro; but as Jim DiEugenio has pointed out, the CIA's own report on the Castro assassination efforts made clear that it was done without JFK's knowledge. JFK was getting ready to negotiate RECOGNITION of Cuba; Operation Mongoose was basically busy work to keep the anti-Castroites off his back. And can you cite any real and documented proof that RFK felt guilt about the assassination?

Edited by Allen Lowe
Link to post
Share on other sites

RFK appears to have had obvious concerns and most importantly suspcions, as reflected in his immediate phone calls of the afternoon - concerns about CIA officer and about radical anti-Castro Cubans (as I described in Tipping Point, there were warnings about them, with concerns most recently expressed on the President's trip to Florida).

Plausible deniability in assassination was certainly alive and well during the Eisenhower administration - and under John Foster Dulles and his brother.  And of course it continued for covert political and even military warfare under JFK, Johnson et all. 

When guilt was introduced into the assassination it first came from Johnson, and the idea of "blowback" guilt came most directly from John Roselli during his preemptive strike against the Garrison investigation. 

The real blowback was from the lies about the Bay of Pigs, the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis and JFK's view that the Cuba problem might be solved though negotiation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reference about plausible deniability relates to possibly Angleton, Helms and or Dulles having prior knowledge of the JFKA and approving with a wink and a nod so to speak. Maybe one on one private conversations.  I still wonder myself if Angleton wasn't directing some of Oswald's movements from a distance given his control of his files as I understand if per Jeff Morley (if I remember right).

It's interesting Jack Anderson filling in for Drew Pearson on March 3 1967 in the "Washington Merry Go Round" column in the WaPo dropped the "Johnson sitting on a political H bomb" story.  Then on July 20 the FBI raids the Friar's Club.

The feds had been coming after Roselli trying to deport him when he floated the Castro blowback story to Pearson.  It's been speculated he was fishing for CIA protection based on his past service, I.E. threatening to go deeper.

The Friar's club raid didn't get him deported but did result in his second prison term.  And shut him up, sending a message (?) for a few years at least.

My interpretation from "Handsome Johnny" by Lee Server. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall Burkley came directly to Bethesda where his first act was to try to prevent any autopsy at all, saying they were simply to extract a bullet as evidence; the President's killer was already in custody. 

When that was rejected he became personally involved in the autopsy to an unknown extent...none of the Doctors would ever state anything specific in regard to what direction he might or might not have given...a rather convenient loss of memory on their part - as was so much else.

All of which diverts attention from his most important act, an initial offer to the HSCA to provide information in support of the position that  a conspiracy to kill the President.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the doctors stated anything about Burkley but James Jenkins did in At The Cold Shoulder Of History.  He said Burkley ran the autopsy.  That he called Humes to the gallery to tell him and Finck to stop probing the small (entrance?) wound in the hairline of the right temple.  Pg. 16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Jim's Jenmkins story is uncorroborated and there really is nothing to confirm Burkley's "management" of the autopsy other than Jenkins that I'm aware of or have been able to find.  If someone has that I'd like to see it.

Frankly given that the senior Navy officers/Doctors at Bethesda totally blew off Burkley's initial attempt to block a full autopsy and simply do an exploratory for the bullet I'm not sure how much influence he would have had in terms of controlling the overall process?  As usual we are left at the mercy of individual memories and claims that contradict each other. 

Which I why I tend to hang on points we can prove and focus on the fact that Burkley obviously did know something that he felt indicated multiple shooters and a conspiracy. That much is clear.

The fact that he offered that to the HSCAt and then chose to back off and the fact that he did retain some autopsy materials that never came under "control" and troubled both LBJ and later AG Clark is also important to remember. Equally troubling is that his daughter refused to support Burkley's own lawyer in making his papers available to the ARRB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 4:59 PM, Matt Allison said:

nice try but that's the kind of "truth" that tends to discredit assassination research. This is third-party testimony and by none other than Humes and Boswell, who lied repeatedly about the autopsy. You are going to have to do better, maybe a memo or testimony by Burkley himself, or by RFK et al. Because we know that military and CIA disinformation has continually tried to blame the victims in the murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 10:21 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Maybe its just us Ron but I don't think so....on the other hand I learned to keyboard on a manual typewriter (60 WPM) so maybe my fingers just disdain the smaller keys...

I had to hit 40 wpm to pass the class as a Sr in HS in 74.  But I've slowed way down over the years.  I don't have to anymore.  And I need more time for thought first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

nice try but that's the kind of "truth" that tends to discredit assassination research. This is third-party testimony and by none other than Humes and Boswell, who lied repeatedly about the autopsy. You are going to have to do better, maybe a memo or testimony by Burkley himself, or by RFK et al. Because we know that military and CIA disinformation has continually tried to blame the victims in the murder.

Ok pal, I'll get right on that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 7:40 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Frankly given that the senior Navy officers/Doctors at Bethesda totally blew off Burkley's initial attempt to block a full autopsy and simply do an exploratory for the bullet I'm not sure how much influence he would have had in terms of controlling the overall process?  As usual we are left at the mercy of individual memories and claims that contradict each other.

At the time of the autopsy Friday night, Lee Oswald was still alive and had only been in custody for about 5 hours. There was no guarantee he wouldn't spill the beans on what he knew about what had happened. If there was assassination conspiracy-related chicanery at the autopsy, how would those committing that know what direction to take when they had no idea what Oswald's story was going to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly that could not have been the plan, that's why Martino said the full plan aborted with Oswald's being taken into custody alive.

They could not know what he would say, and they had very little in the way of resource on the ground - Ruby was it, which his why his involvement had to totally change, he became physically ill, and took off on a completely different tangent...first reporting on Oswald, trying to capture any rumors he could get about what Oswald was saying and ultimately had to do everything he could to silence him.

I really tried to get that across in Tipping Point with the extended discussion of Ruby - but the larger part is that whatever the full plan was to manipulate Oswald, link in Castro definitively and ensure Oswald could not blow it failed. So we can only reverse engineer up the a point - the point Martino himself gave us.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was discussed somewhat previously but scanned he thread and missed it I guess.  In Tipping Point mention is made of Ruby as a facilitator.  I've long thought this may go deeper than evidence.  

In Jack Ruby, The Man Who Killed The Man Who Killed Kennedy it quotes one of his strippers about Vice men, not Patrolmen coming in for weekly payments. 

Then Henry Wade was a guest at the 7/12/62  Zumora Club meeting, on the take a long time before and after?  Who paid him?  

Decker was on the take since his days as Deputy Sheriff when Binney Binion payed him off in the 30-40's .

Ruby moved in in 46-47 with Mc Willie and others.

Jack was a reported somewhat frequent Vegas visitor originally from Chicago about 10 years younger than Johnny Roselli, who passed though when Jack was a young teen.  Roselli went on to California and Vegas success.  He was the Vegas fixer in the late 50's - early 60's for multiple casinos.

Jack knew Johnny.  Johnny was his superior.  He  would have introduced people he knew to people Johnny suggested, and killed Oswald, given no choice.

 

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...