The exoneration of Lyndon Johnson?

[James DiEugenio]

16 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Did Jackie O blame LBJ? - POLITICO

The answer is yes.

This story turned out to be wrong.

Politico did the worst thing a zine can do, they based their story on a previously run story from England, which turned out to be a piece of sensationalism.

BTW, this kind of junk turned out to disguise what that book was really about.

Jackie Kennedy had some valuable insights into what her husband was doing with things like the Alliance for Progress. 

It took Monica Wiesak to quarry those out and put them in her excellent book America's Last President.

[Joe Bauer]

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This story turned out to be wrong.

Politico did the worst thing a zine can do, they based their story on a previously run story from England, which turned out to be a piece of sensationalism.

BTW, this kind of junk turned out to disguise what that book was really about.

Jackie Kennedy had some valuable insights into what her husband was doing with things like the Alliance for Progress. 

It took Monica Wiesak to quarry those out and put them in her excellent book America's Last President.

Wasn't JFK's long time secretary Evelyn Lincoln an LBJ/main suspect believer?

How could Jackie Kennedy "not" have had at least some suspicion about LBJ?

She knew LBJ hated and was extremely jealous of her husband and RFK even more. 

She heard her husband and his brother just trash LBJ many times. I wouldn't be surprised to learn JFK had confided to her that LBJ was incredibly corrupt.

LBJ knew both brothers felt that way towards him. And he hated them for it. No debate on that point.

If JFK told Jackie that they were in "nut country" now ( referring to Texas ) that would just add to some suspicion on her part that their favorite son good-ole-boy Lyndon represented that kind of darkly humorous yet truly ominous threat mind set.

Jackie considering LBJ as one of her guilty party choices makes much more sense than her not doing so. IMO anyways.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yes, and speaking of means, who had the oversight and authority to order the prompt scrubbing of the limo, the confiscation of JFK's corpse from the Parkland coroner, and the faux "Secret Service" confiscation of cameras in Dealey Plaza?  J. Edgar Hoover?

To attribute the comprehensive cover up of the JFK murder plot solely to LBJ's next door neighbor, J. Edgar Hoover, seems like a stretch.

I think Fletcher Prouty commented on this issue-- i.e., that many aspects of the plot must have been managed at the highest administrative level in the Federal government.

While I have my own suspicions about LBJ, the reasons you list are not among them. 

1. The partial scrubbing of the limo was performed by Sam Kinney, whose statements to the WC and Palamara indicate was not exactly a supporter of the Oswald did it conclusion. He was responsible for putting the roof back on the limo outside Parkland, and can be seen carrying a bucket back into the building in the films. Now, was this part of a plot, or the actions of an emotionally upset bodyguard, who was trying to hide the blood from looky-loos and the press, and may even have been thinking the limo was gonna be used to transport Jackie (or even JFK?) when they left the building? I lean towards this being just a screw-up.

2. The confiscation of JFK's corpse was also probably innocent. The thinking of most everyone in JFK's entourage, including the SS, was that Texas had something to do with the killing. So they were anxious to get out of there. Well, since Jackie (and LBJ, for that matter) refused to leave without the body, it became clear they needed to take the body from the hospital. For national security purposes. But also a bit of "Screw Texas!"

3. I am fairly certain no "faux secret service agent" confiscated any cameras. I think this started with Hill, or was it Oliver? In any event, Hill claimed all sorts of stuff towards the end that was nonsense. If I recall, a newspaperman, Jim Featherstone, bullied Moorman and Hill around a bit in an attempt to get access to Moorman's photo. Hill later claimed he'd said he was with the Secret Service, but Moorman denied this. In any event, no one swiped her camera, and she retained ownership of the photo for decades. Heck, she may even still own it. (I know she tried to auction it off but I think no one would pay the starting bid.) 

4. I agree that Hoover was probably not involved in the assassination, beyond helping to cover it up at the bidding of his buddy, and supporter, LBJ. Hoover, famously, refused to go along with the single-bullet theory until LBJ pressured him to do so. 

From chapter 10 at patspeer.com

 

Making Hoover Suck it Up and "Clear the Air"

An October 6, 1966 phone call between President Johnson and his most trusted adviser Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas has Johnson instructing Fortas to have a talk with FBI Assistant Director Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, whom Fortas claims is a "very close friend" to Johnson, and enlist him in their campaign to prop up the Warren Commission's conclusions. 

It seems Johnson wanted Hoover to write a book on the subject. And no, I'm not kidding. 

Here's an internal FBI memo freed from the archives by researcher Harold Weisberg, which eventually became the subject of a 4-1-85 column by Jack Anderson. 

(Images shown on website)

Now, that's quite a brain-bomb, yes? A Supreme Court Justice, acting on behalf of the President of the United States, has pressured the Director of the FBI to write a book or issue a statement to help clear the President's name, and the Director of the FBI has responded by telling him he should instead ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

One line in the memo is of particular interest--(Fortas) "had argued with the president that it was not logical for the director to prepare this book inasmuch as the director in doing so would necessarily have to substantiate the investigative efforts of many other agencies."

An internal FBI memo dated 11-22-66 (Rosen to DeLoach, 11/22/1966, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-4267), for that matter, specified just what it was that Hoover was so reluctant to "substantiate." At the bottom of this memo Director Hoover added “We don’t agree with the Commission as it says one shot missed entirely & we contend all three shots hit.” 

And that wasn't the last time Hoover showed his true feelings on the matter. Within the FBI's files is a copy of the New York Times' 11-23-63 article on Governor Connally's press conference in which he backed away from his appearance in the current issue of Life Magazine. Well, in the margin of this article, next to its reporting "In the (Life Magazine) article, the Governor repeated that he disagreed with the Warren Commission's finding that he and President Kennedy were both hit by one of three shots fired down on the open limousine..." and that, conversely, "The Governor said today that his sole disagreement with the Warren Commission's findings centered on which bullet struck him," Hoover added:"Connally certainly shifts positions faster than the Dallas Cowboys football team can."

Now, that can hardly be considered a testimonial to Connally's character. And yet, Hoover was about to make this same shift. 

An 11-25-66 memo from Assistant FBI Director DeLoach to Assistant FBI Director Tolson recounts that DeLoach had called Chief Justice Earl Warren on 11-23-66 on an apparently unrelated matter, but that Warren had brought up some of the recent problems surrounding the commission during the phone call. According to DeLoach, Warren complained about former commission counsel Wesley Liebeler, and noted that Liebeler was a '"beatnik' type of individual who had proved to be very unethical." According to DeLoach, Warren was displeased that Liebeler had kept detailed notes on his disagreements with the commission, and that Liebeler's notes had formed the "basis" of Epstein's book. In closing, however, DeLoach revealed more about himself than about Warren and his obvious dislike of Liebeler. He wrote: "I informed the Chief Justice... that the Director, in the near future, planned to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. The Chief Justice said he was glad to hear this and that the Director's name and prestige would be a great help in clearing the air." 

Now, let's connect the dots. DeLoach told Warren on the 23rd--the day after Hoover claimed the FBI did not agree with the commission, and the very day that Hoover mocked Connally for changing his public position regarding the single-bullet theory--that Hoover was about to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. And Warren was pleased with this and felt this statement would help "clear the air." Well, seeing as a statement from Hoover defending the FBI in which he voiced his disagreement with the single-bullet theory would not be good news to Warren, it seems fairly obvious DeLoach knew Hoover was about to offer his support for the single-bullet theory...

And then it happened. On 11-26-66, Hoover issued a statement claiming "There is no conflict" between the FBI's position and that of the commission. He then explained the confusion, attributing it to the fact that the FBI agents at the autopsy had been told no exit wound could be associated with the entrance wound on the back, but that, unknown to these agents, "the physicians eventually were able to trace the path of the bullet through the body." (This, of course, never happened.) He then related "Meanwhile, the clothing worn by the President when he was shot was examined in the FBI Laboratory. This examination revealed a small hole in the back of his coat and shirt and a slit characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile in the front of the shirt one inch below the collar button. A nick on the left side of the tie knot, possibly caused by the same projectile which passed through the shirt, also was noted. These findings clearly indicated the examining physician's early observation that the bullet penetrated only a short distance into the president's back probably was in error." (Except this wasn't true! While the FBI lab did make note of the wound on Kennedy's throat in its 1-13-64 report, and describe this wound as an exit, it suggested this wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound. It did not connect the throat wound to the back wound at that time, nor for months after. To wit, the FBI continued to tell newsmen that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back fell out onto his gurney for months and months after the shooting.)

Hoover's statement then sunk knee-deep in some bullshit. It offered an explanation for the FBI's months-long delay in accurately reporting the medical evidence, that couldn't pass even the most forgiving of smell tests. Here it comes: "Since this observation" (that the bullet creating the back wound had only penetrated a short distance) "had been included in the FBI Report of December 9, 1963, another reference was made to it in the report of January 13, 1964, in conjunction with the laboratory findings to point up this probability." 

Well, what the heck does that mean? Was it routine for the FBI to repeat inaccurate information? And, if so, how would accurate information ever come to replace it? More to the point, was the recitation of conclusions at odds with the autopsy report three weeks after the FBI received a copy of the autopsy report a mistake, or not? And, if so, why wouldn't they admit as much?

But, wait, it gets worse. Hoover's statement continued: "The FBI and the Warren Commission each received a copy of the official autopsy report on December 23, 1963, from Secret Service following a specific request for this document. Since the FBI knew the Commission had a copy of the official autopsy, its contents were not repeated in an FBI report." Wait... WHAT? This suggests that the FBI KNEW their 1-13-64 report was in error when they wrote it, but didn't want to bring it in line with the official autopsy report because...because...they were respecting the Kennedy family's privacy, and not wanting to have the contents of an official autopsy report (a public document) reported in an FBI report (a secret document). I mean, really. Are we to assume that within the FBI's files on murder after murder after murder there are FBI reports on what their agents were told about autopsy after autopsy after autopsy--that deliberately exclude information gathered from the official autopsy reports on the victims because, y'know, there might be something in these reports that might prove embarrassing to someone?

OF COURSE NOT!!! That would be stupid beyond belief. 

Well, this is mighty suspicious, wouldn't you say? On 11-22-66, Hoover noted that the FBI and Warren Commission were in disagreement on the single-bullet theory. Four days later, a press release was issued in which it was claimed Hoover had received a letter from an unnamed newsman asking about this disagreement on the 21st, and that he had responded to this letter on the 23rd, and that his letter had explained that there was NO disagreement between the FBI and Warren Commission on the single-bullet theory. Well, heck, why couldn't Hoover have told this to the press in a press conference? Why issue a written statement? And why hide the identity of the newsman? 

And, oh yeah, while we're asking, does it make any sense whatsoever that Hoover would change his mind about this extremely important issue...overnight? 

I think not. It's just speculation, but it seems likely DeLoach and his men prepared "Hoover's" statement at Johnson's urging, and arranged for one of the FBI's contacts in the media to ask Hoover for a statement, so that Hoover could make a public statement supporting the Warren Commission without acknowledging he was doing so at Johnson's urging, or having to say the words himself.

No, scratch that. It's not just speculation. In his book Post Mortem (published 1975), Harold Weisberg recounts how he asked the FBI for a copy of the 11-26-66 statement Hoover provided the press, and how it took them nine years, and a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, to comply. He also presents the full statement sent the press. 

But the story doesn't end there. Through his efforts, Weisberg was able to round up numerous FBI internal documents regarding Hoover's 11-26 press release, (including the 10-10-66 document shown above, which he provided Jack Anderson). These documents prove that the FBI worked on "Hoover's" statement for weeks before approaching Washington Star editor Sid Epstein and asking him to sign off on an FBI-penned request for information... to which Hoover then "responded." 

Here are two of the FBI's memos on this transaction.

(Images shown on website)

Well, this is another brain-bomb, right? Not only did the FBI compose the supposedly journalist-written letter to which Hoover responded, the letter and response had been "cleared" by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, acting as the eyes and ears of President Johnson. 

I mean, this was such a total crock...they even lied about the date! On 11-23-66, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover responded to a letter from Washington Star editor Sid Epstein dated 11-21-66, which was not actually transposed onto Washington Star stationery and signed by Epstein until that afternoon, AFTER Epstein had received Hoover's response. 

And that's not even to mention that, oh yeah, the documents received by Weisberg prove Hoover's "11-23" response to Epstein's "11-21" letter was originally drafted on 10-20. 

Now... Note also that the author of the 11-23 memo to DeLoach, R.E. Wick, (one of DeLoach's underlings), used the same words as DeLoach's 11-25 memo to Tolson--that is, that a statement from Hoover supporting the Warren Commission would be of great help in "clearing the air." 

Let's think about this... President Johnson has pressured the FBI into creating a fake news story with a fake paper trail in order to hide his involvement in a public statement issued by the Director of the FBI, and those involved or benefiting from this action have justified it under the belief it will help "clear the air." 

Of what, exactly? Certainly not the stench of cover-up!

Now, it should be noted that Weisberg wasn't the only one to blow the whistle on this dirty smelly affair. 

Here's Jack Anderson, in his 4-1-85 column, on DeLoach's 10-10-66 memo on Johnson and Fortas: 

"Johnson had a fallback positlion, which Fortas then presented. He asked that Hoover at least issue a statement on one point the critics had raised: the discrepancies between FBI reports and the Warren Commission concerning the Kennedy autopsy. DeLoach told Fortas he "felt certain" Hoover would agree to this modest proposal and immediately set to work drafting such a statement...DeLoach, now retired, told my associate Les Whitten that the matter was resolved by issuing a Hoover-approved statement in response to an inquiry from the Washington Star..."

(Note: one can take from this that Whitten had spoken to DeLoach about the memo, and that this had led him to believe it was Johnson's preference that Hoover write a book defending the Warren Commission. As Hoover had written, or at least put his name on, several best-selling books on communism while serving as FBI Director--and as these books had actually been written by FBI employees--and as Hoover had pocketed the profits from these books, this was, in effect, an attempt at a bribe... er, not so much a bribe as an "I know you don't want to do this, but if you do it, and feel you need to make some money off it, at the expense of the American taxpayer even, don't worry, I won't mind." Oh, for crying out loud, let's call a spade a spade...a bribe...)

So, yeah, by 1985, DeLoach was willing to acknowledge the 1966 pressure campaign on Hoover.

And that wasn't the first time he talked about it. 

When testifying before the Church Committee, on 11-25-75, DeLoach was asked if he could recall any conversations he may have had with President Johnson regarding the Kennedy assassination, beyond one in which President Johnson asked him to investigate the critics of the Warren Commission. Here is his response: "To the best of my recollection, Mr. Seidel, and I previously testified to this just a minute ago, the only other conversations I recall was when President Johnson called either Mr. Hoover or me, or it was Mr. Watson (Johnson's assistant) who called Mr. Hoover or me, and indicated that he wanted the FBI to issue a statement reflecting the findings of the FBI and the Warren Commission that it was Oswald and Oswald alone that committed the assassination. I think the Bureau files would reflect not only the call from the White House to either Mr. Hoover or me and will also reflect that a press release was written under Mr. Hoover's instruction and issued shortly thereafter in this connection."

While DeLoach insisted he couldn't recall the date of his or Hoover's conversation with Johnson or Watson, the 11-26-66 press release on Hoover's 11-23 letter to Epstein is the only press release in which FBI Director Hoover defended the findings of the Warren Commission. DeLoach had thereby revealed that this press release was written at President Johnson's request...er, command.

And that Hoover was displeased by this... As questioning continued, DeLoach revealed further that "I distinctly recall that Mr. Hoover, as he often did, was unhappy about the fact that the President of the United States was calling on the FBI to issue such a release. And while he had disagreements with the request, he buckled under and issued such a release." When then asked how he knew this, DeLoach replied "either Mr. Hoover told me this or Mr. Clyde Tolson, the Associate Director, who was my superior, told me this." He then continued "as I seem to recall, Mr. Hoover or Mr. Tolson or someone felt that we were being used and we had already submitted our findings and the FBI should not be used as a public sounding board in issuing such a release." He then clarified "The FBI had no dissatisfaction ...with the findings that Oswald and Oswald alone committed the assassination. But at the same time, our findings had been submitted some years previously and we felt that it was wrong for us to be used as a public relations sounding board at that time."

So...there it is. The Johnson Administration pressured J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI into publicly supporting the Warren Commission.

[Roger Odisio]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

While I have my own suspicions about LBJ, the reasons you list are not among them. 

1. The partial scrubbing of the limo was performed by Sam Kinney, whose statements to the WC and Palamara indicate was not exactly a supporter of the Oswald did it conclusion. He was responsible for putting the roof back on the limo outside Parkland, and can be seen carrying a bucket back into the building in the films. Now, was this part of a plot, or the actions of an emotionally upset bodyguard, who was trying to hide the blood from looky-loos and the press, and may even have been thinking the limo was gonna be used to transport Jackie (or even JFK?) when they left the building? I lean towards this being just a screw-up.

2. The confiscation of JFK's corpse was also probably innocent. The thinking of most everyone in JFK's entourage, including the SS, was that Texas had something to do with the killing. So they were anxious to get out of there. Well, since Jackie (and LBJ, for that matter) refused to leave without the body, it became clear they needed to take the body from the hospital. For national security purposes. But also a bit of "Screw Texas!"

3. I am fairly certain no "faux secret service agent" confiscated any cameras. I think this started with Hill, or was it Oliver? In any event, Hill claimed all sorts of stuff towards the end that was nonsense. If I recall, a newspaperman, Jim Featherstone, bullied Moorman and Hill around a bit in an attempt to get access to Moorman's photo. Hill later claimed he'd said he was with the Secret Service, but Moorman denied this. In any event, no one swiped her camera, and she retained ownership of the photo for decades. Heck, she may even still own it. (I know she tried to auction it off but I think no one would pay the starting bid.) 

4. I agree that Hoover was probably not involved in the assassination, beyond helping to cover it up at the bidding of his buddy, and supporter, LBJ. Hoover, famously, refused to go along with the single-bullet theory until LBJ pressured him to do so. 

From chapter 10 at patspeer.com

 

Making Hoover Suck it Up and "Clear the Air"

An October 6, 1966 phone call between President Johnson and his most trusted adviser Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas has Johnson instructing Fortas to have a talk with FBI Assistant Director Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, whom Fortas claims is a "very close friend" to Johnson, and enlist him in their campaign to prop up the Warren Commission's conclusions. 

It seems Johnson wanted Hoover to write a book on the subject. And no, I'm not kidding. 

Here's an internal FBI memo freed from the archives by researcher Harold Weisberg, which eventually became the subject of a 4-1-85 column by Jack Anderson. 

(Images shown on website)

Now, that's quite a brain-bomb, yes? A Supreme Court Justice, acting on behalf of the President of the United States, has pressured the Director of the FBI to write a book or issue a statement to help clear the President's name, and the Director of the FBI has responded by telling him he should instead ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

One line in the memo is of particular interest--(Fortas) "had argued with the president that it was not logical for the director to prepare this book inasmuch as the director in doing so would necessarily have to substantiate the investigative efforts of many other agencies."

An internal FBI memo dated 11-22-66 (Rosen to DeLoach, 11/22/1966, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-4267), for that matter, specified just what it was that Hoover was so reluctant to "substantiate." At the bottom of this memo Director Hoover added “We don’t agree with the Commission as it says one shot missed entirely & we contend all three shots hit.” 

And that wasn't the last time Hoover showed his true feelings on the matter. Within the FBI's files is a copy of the New York Times' 11-23-63 article on Governor Connally's press conference in which he backed away from his appearance in the current issue of Life Magazine. Well, in the margin of this article, next to its reporting "In the (Life Magazine) article, the Governor repeated that he disagreed with the Warren Commission's finding that he and President Kennedy were both hit by one of three shots fired down on the open limousine..." and that, conversely, "The Governor said today that his sole disagreement with the Warren Commission's findings centered on which bullet struck him," Hoover added:"Connally certainly shifts positions faster than the Dallas Cowboys football team can."

Now, that can hardly be considered a testimonial to Connally's character. And yet, Hoover was about to make this same shift. 

An 11-25-66 memo from Assistant FBI Director DeLoach to Assistant FBI Director Tolson recounts that DeLoach had called Chief Justice Earl Warren on 11-23-66 on an apparently unrelated matter, but that Warren had brought up some of the recent problems surrounding the commission during the phone call. According to DeLoach, Warren complained about former commission counsel Wesley Liebeler, and noted that Liebeler was a '"beatnik' type of individual who had proved to be very unethical." According to DeLoach, Warren was displeased that Liebeler had kept detailed notes on his disagreements with the commission, and that Liebeler's notes had formed the "basis" of Epstein's book. In closing, however, DeLoach revealed more about himself than about Warren and his obvious dislike of Liebeler. He wrote: "I informed the Chief Justice... that the Director, in the near future, planned to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. The Chief Justice said he was glad to hear this and that the Director's name and prestige would be a great help in clearing the air." 

Now, let's connect the dots. DeLoach told Warren on the 23rd--the day after Hoover claimed the FBI did not agree with the commission, and the very day that Hoover mocked Connally for changing his public position regarding the single-bullet theory--that Hoover was about to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. And Warren was pleased with this and felt this statement would help "clear the air." Well, seeing as a statement from Hoover defending the FBI in which he voiced his disagreement with the single-bullet theory would not be good news to Warren, it seems fairly obvious DeLoach knew Hoover was about to offer his support for the single-bullet theory...

And then it happened. On 11-26-66, Hoover issued a statement claiming "There is no conflict" between the FBI's position and that of the commission. He then explained the confusion, attributing it to the fact that the FBI agents at the autopsy had been told no exit wound could be associated with the entrance wound on the back, but that, unknown to these agents, "the physicians eventually were able to trace the path of the bullet through the body." (This, of course, never happened.) He then related "Meanwhile, the clothing worn by the President when he was shot was examined in the FBI Laboratory. This examination revealed a small hole in the back of his coat and shirt and a slit characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile in the front of the shirt one inch below the collar button. A nick on the left side of the tie knot, possibly caused by the same projectile which passed through the shirt, also was noted. These findings clearly indicated the examining physician's early observation that the bullet penetrated only a short distance into the president's back probably was in error." (Except this wasn't true! While the FBI lab did make note of the wound on Kennedy's throat in its 1-13-64 report, and describe this wound as an exit, it suggested this wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound. It did not connect the throat wound to the back wound at that time, nor for months after. To wit, the FBI continued to tell newsmen that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back fell out onto his gurney for months and months after the shooting.)

Hoover's statement then sunk knee-deep in some bullshit. It offered an explanation for the FBI's months-long delay in accurately reporting the medical evidence, that couldn't pass even the most forgiving of smell tests. Here it comes: "Since this observation" (that the bullet creating the back wound had only penetrated a short distance) "had been included in the FBI Report of December 9, 1963, another reference was made to it in the report of January 13, 1964, in conjunction with the laboratory findings to point up this probability." 

Well, what the heck does that mean? Was it routine for the FBI to repeat inaccurate information? And, if so, how would accurate information ever come to replace it? More to the point, was the recitation of conclusions at odds with the autopsy report three weeks after the FBI received a copy of the autopsy report a mistake, or not? And, if so, why wouldn't they admit as much?

But, wait, it gets worse. Hoover's statement continued: "The FBI and the Warren Commission each received a copy of the official autopsy report on December 23, 1963, from Secret Service following a specific request for this document. Since the FBI knew the Commission had a copy of the official autopsy, its contents were not repeated in an FBI report." Wait... WHAT? This suggests that the FBI KNEW their 1-13-64 report was in error when they wrote it, but didn't want to bring it in line with the official autopsy report because...because...they were respecting the Kennedy family's privacy, and not wanting to have the contents of an official autopsy report (a public document) reported in an FBI report (a secret document). I mean, really. Are we to assume that within the FBI's files on murder after murder after murder there are FBI reports on what their agents were told about autopsy after autopsy after autopsy--that deliberately exclude information gathered from the official autopsy reports on the victims because, y'know, there might be something in these reports that might prove embarrassing to someone?

OF COURSE NOT!!! That would be stupid beyond belief. 

Well, this is mighty suspicious, wouldn't you say? On 11-22-66, Hoover noted that the FBI and Warren Commission were in disagreement on the single-bullet theory. Four days later, a press release was issued in which it was claimed Hoover had received a letter from an unnamed newsman asking about this disagreement on the 21st, and that he had responded to this letter on the 23rd, and that his letter had explained that there was NO disagreement between the FBI and Warren Commission on the single-bullet theory. Well, heck, why couldn't Hoover have told this to the press in a press conference? Why issue a written statement? And why hide the identity of the newsman? 

And, oh yeah, while we're asking, does it make any sense whatsoever that Hoover would change his mind about this extremely important issue...overnight? 

I think not. It's just speculation, but it seems likely DeLoach and his men prepared "Hoover's" statement at Johnson's urging, and arranged for one of the FBI's contacts in the media to ask Hoover for a statement, so that Hoover could make a public statement supporting the Warren Commission without acknowledging he was doing so at Johnson's urging, or having to say the words himself.

No, scratch that. It's not just speculation. In his book Post Mortem (published 1975), Harold Weisberg recounts how he asked the FBI for a copy of the 11-26-66 statement Hoover provided the press, and how it took them nine years, and a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, to comply. He also presents the full statement sent the press. 

But the story doesn't end there. Through his efforts, Weisberg was able to round up numerous FBI internal documents regarding Hoover's 11-26 press release, (including the 10-10-66 document shown above, which he provided Jack Anderson). These documents prove that the FBI worked on "Hoover's" statement for weeks before approaching Washington Star editor Sid Epstein and asking him to sign off on an FBI-penned request for information... to which Hoover then "responded." 

Here are two of the FBI's memos on this transaction.

(Images shown on website)

Well, this is another brain-bomb, right? Not only did the FBI compose the supposedly journalist-written letter to which Hoover responded, the letter and response had been "cleared" by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, acting as the eyes and ears of President Johnson. 

I mean, this was such a total crock...they even lied about the date! On 11-23-66, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover responded to a letter from Washington Star editor Sid Epstein dated 11-21-66, which was not actually transposed onto Washington Star stationery and signed by Epstein until that afternoon, AFTER Epstein had received Hoover's response. 

And that's not even to mention that, oh yeah, the documents received by Weisberg prove Hoover's "11-23" response to Epstein's "11-21" letter was originally drafted on 10-20. 

Now... Note also that the author of the 11-23 memo to DeLoach, R.E. Wick, (one of DeLoach's underlings), used the same words as DeLoach's 11-25 memo to Tolson--that is, that a statement from Hoover supporting the Warren Commission would be of great help in "clearing the air." 

Let's think about this... President Johnson has pressured the FBI into creating a fake news story with a fake paper trail in order to hide his involvement in a public statement issued by the Director of the FBI, and those involved or benefiting from this action have justified it under the belief it will help "clear the air." 

Of what, exactly? Certainly not the stench of cover-up!

Now, it should be noted that Weisberg wasn't the only one to blow the whistle on this dirty smelly affair. 

Here's Jack Anderson, in his 4-1-85 column, on DeLoach's 10-10-66 memo on Johnson and Fortas: 

"Johnson had a fallback positlion, which Fortas then presented. He asked that Hoover at least issue a statement on one point the critics had raised: the discrepancies between FBI reports and the Warren Commission concerning the Kennedy autopsy. DeLoach told Fortas he "felt certain" Hoover would agree to this modest proposal and immediately set to work drafting such a statement...DeLoach, now retired, told my associate Les Whitten that the matter was resolved by issuing a Hoover-approved statement in response to an inquiry from the Washington Star..."

(Note: one can take from this that Whitten had spoken to DeLoach about the memo, and that this had led him to believe it was Johnson's preference that Hoover write a book defending the Warren Commission. As Hoover had written, or at least put his name on, several best-selling books on communism while serving as FBI Director--and as these books had actually been written by FBI employees--and as Hoover had pocketed the profits from these books, this was, in effect, an attempt at a bribe... er, not so much a bribe as an "I know you don't want to do this, but if you do it, and feel you need to make some money off it, at the expense of the American taxpayer even, don't worry, I won't mind." Oh, for crying out loud, let's call a spade a spade...a bribe...)

So, yeah, by 1985, DeLoach was willing to acknowledge the 1966 pressure campaign on Hoover.

And that wasn't the first time he talked about it. 

When testifying before the Church Committee, on 11-25-75, DeLoach was asked if he could recall any conversations he may have had with President Johnson regarding the Kennedy assassination, beyond one in which President Johnson asked him to investigate the critics of the Warren Commission. Here is his response: "To the best of my recollection, Mr. Seidel, and I previously testified to this just a minute ago, the only other conversations I recall was when President Johnson called either Mr. Hoover or me, or it was Mr. Watson (Johnson's assistant) who called Mr. Hoover or me, and indicated that he wanted the FBI to issue a statement reflecting the findings of the FBI and the Warren Commission that it was Oswald and Oswald alone that committed the assassination. I think the Bureau files would reflect not only the call from the White House to either Mr. Hoover or me and will also reflect that a press release was written under Mr. Hoover's instruction and issued shortly thereafter in this connection."

While DeLoach insisted he couldn't recall the date of his or Hoover's conversation with Johnson or Watson, the 11-26-66 press release on Hoover's 11-23 letter to Epstein is the only press release in which FBI Director Hoover defended the findings of the Warren Commission. DeLoach had thereby revealed that this press release was written at President Johnson's request...er, command.

And that Hoover was displeased by this... As questioning continued, DeLoach revealed further that "I distinctly recall that Mr. Hoover, as he often did, was unhappy about the fact that the President of the United States was calling on the FBI to issue such a release. And while he had disagreements with the request, he buckled under and issued such a release." When then asked how he knew this, DeLoach replied "either Mr. Hoover told me this or Mr. Clyde Tolson, the Associate Director, who was my superior, told me this." He then continued "as I seem to recall, Mr. Hoover or Mr. Tolson or someone felt that we were being used and we had already submitted our findings and the FBI should not be used as a public sounding board in issuing such a release." He then clarified "The FBI had no dissatisfaction ...with the findings that Oswald and Oswald alone committed the assassination. But at the same time, our findings had been submitted some years previously and we felt that it was wrong for us to be used as a public relations sounding board at that time."

So...there it is. The Johnson Administration pressured J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI into publicly supporting the Warren Commission.

Interesting detail,Pat.  Virtually everything Johnson says or does here reeks of consciousness of guilt and the desire to cover up what happened.

But I must disagree with your opinion here:

"2. The confiscation of JFK's corpse was also probably innocent. The thinking of most everyone in JFK's entourage, including the SS, was that Texas had something to do with the killing. So they were anxious to get out of there. Well, since Jackie (and LBJ, for that matter) refused to leave without the body, it became clear they needed to take the body from the hospital. For national security purposes. But also a bit of 'Screw Texas!'"

The Constitution, not the swearing in ceremony, made Johnson president the moment Kennedy was officially pronounced dead.  The Kennedy people surely wanted to get out of there, but they weren't calling the shots. Johnson and his team was.

Local medical examiner Earl Rose had jurisdiction over the body for the purpose of an autopsy (murder was not a federal crime at the time).   Johnson couldn't allow that.  A fake autopsy that he could control had to be done to keep the already planned Oswald story from being blown up. They had to take the body back to Washington for that.  Not because of "national security".

 

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Interesting detail,Pat.  Virtually everything Johnson says or does here reeks of consciousness of guilt and the desire to cover up what happened.

But I must disagree with your opinion here:

"2. The confiscation of JFK's corpse was also probably innocent. The thinking of most everyone in JFK's entourage, including the SS, was that Texas had something to do with the killing. So they were anxious to get out of there. Well, since Jackie (and LBJ, for that matter) refused to leave without the body, it became clear they needed to take the body from the hospital. For national security purposes. But also a bit of 'Screw Texas!'"

The Constitution, not the swearing in ceremony, made Johnson president the moment Kennedy was officially pronounced dead.  The Kennedy people surely wanted to get out of there, but they weren't calling the shots. Johnson and his team was.

Local medical examiner Earl Rose had jurisdiction over the body for the purpose of an autopsy (murder was not a federal crime at the time).   Johnson couldn't allow that.  A fake autopsy that he could control had to be done to keep the already planned Oswald story from being blown up. They had to take the body back to Washington for that.  Not because of "national security".

 

I believe the SS and the Kennedy entourage were anxious to just get out of there, but agree that LBJ may have had an ulterior motive when he decided to hold off his departure until he got Jackie and the body on HIS plane.

From chapter 21 (about what happened on the plane):

In his 1975 defense of Johnson, A Very Human President, former Johnson aide Jack Valenti offered up a fascinating insight into Johnson's actions on 11-22-63. Valenti sat with Johnson on the plane while waiting for Mrs. Kennedy, and was intimately aware of Johnson's thoughts during this period. He wrote of Johnson's decision to be sworn-into office as soon as possible--which, while unnecessary, was nevertheless politically desirable. He then added "before Air Force One departed for Washington, Johnson had also made his first command decision, on his own, to wait for the body of the dead president to be brought aboard before he gave an order to be airborne. This was an intuitive decision and a good one." So... Johnson, a man famous for seeking advice, had decided not to leave without the body, and had come to this decision entirely on his own, after reaching Air Force One. Hmmm... 

[Roger Odisio]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I believe the SS and the Kennedy entourage were anxious to just get out of there, but agree that LBJ may have had an ulterior motive when he decided to hold off his departure until he got Jackie and the body on HIS plane.

From chapter 21 (about what happened on the plane):

In his 1975 defense of Johnson, A Very Human President, former Johnson aide Jack Valenti offered up a fascinating insight into Johnson's actions on 11-22-63. Valenti sat with Johnson on the plane while waiting for Mrs. Kennedy, and was intimately aware of Johnson's thoughts during this period. He wrote of Johnson's decision to be sworn-into office as soon as possible--which, while unnecessary, was nevertheless politically desirable. He then added "before Air Force One departed for Washington, Johnson had also made his first command decision, on his own, to wait for the body of the dead president to be brought aboard before he gave an order to be airborne. This was an intuitive decision and a good one." So... Johnson, a man famous for seeking advice, had decided not to leave without the body, and had come to this decision entirely on his own, after reaching Air Force One. Hmmm... 

A decision for the best of reasons.  He knew if Earl Rose got this hands on the body, the jig was up.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/8/2023 at 1:57 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Four events the first day tell us a lot.

 

1. Immediately snatching of the body back to DC in order to control the autopsy.

 

 

Roger,

I don't agree with you, that the plotters planned much more of a cover up than having Oswald killed. Which I will explain below by commenting on your evidence.

But admittedly I am stumped by the early call to snatch the body in order to modify the head damage.

 

On 12/8/2023 at 1:57 PM, Roger Odisio said:

2. Quickly arresting Oswald at the theater. Has there ever been an explanation for this happening so quickly after the murder?  Other than the plan was to apprehend and kill him as soon as possible to prevent him from defending himself.  The preplanned cover up was already underway.

 

Having Oswald arrested wasn't part of the cover-up, but rather part of the assassination plot that made a patsy out of Oswald.

 

On 12/8/2023 at 1:57 PM, Roger Odisio said:

3. The call from the White House situation room telling those coming back to DC that the murderer had already been arrested and he did it alone.  Absolute proof that the preplanned cover up was off and running. The Situation Room was run at the time by McGeorge Bundy, the guy who had already redrafted NSM 263 as 273 that Johnson would sign the day after JFK was buried.

 

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted out by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been asked.

It is because of this that Cliff believes that Harriman was behind the assassination plot. But IMO, Harriman simply couldn't believe that the Russians would make such a dangerous move, and decided himself to proclaim so, adding that other experts agreed with him just to give it some weight. Making such a bold move is in character for Harriman.

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

(BTW, FWIW, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed that Harriman was a Soviet spy.)

 

On 12/8/2023 at 1:57 PM, Roger Odisio said:

4. Asking Oswald, in his first interrogation, where he was at the time of the murder.  Sure, this is SOP.  But in this case the killers immediately set out to destroy Oswald's alibi. Later that day they tried to intimidate Buell Frazier into providing info on Oswald.  That evening they went to see Lovelady with a copy of Altgens 6 because they were afraid the prominent figure on the steps might be Oswald, per his alibi.

 

The Katzenbach solution began the day of the assassination, not when he wrote the memo. It was decided early on to make Oswald the lone killer, probably shortly after Harriman said what he did.

I don't see why the plotters would cover anything up. I mean, they had fabricated a story that implicated Oswald in a conspiracy with the Cubans and Russians. Why would they want to cover up a story they so carefully worked on creating? Their plot WAS their cover-up. It covered up what they had done.

 

[Ron Bulman]

13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Have never read of this story. What happened there?

My brother was an air policeman stationed at an Air Force Base in Morocco around 1960 and forward.

The same base?

By the way...not to veer off the LBJ subject at all but this Morocco base is where my brother and his fellow AP's on guard duty one sight saw several circular red objects hovering over the base. With one dropping down and slowly flying over ground parked bombers. Then...shooting off into the sky at such a fast rate you had to be staring at it directly to notice it doing so versus thinking it just blinked off.

My brother told me that when his security detail called in their sighting to their superior officer that there was a long pause and then this command:

"We have nothing on radar. Therefore, you saw nothing. And don't write home about it."

 

All it says is  "There was the far distant Moroccan air base scandal, stemming from an $800,000,000 boondoggle where there was not very much doubt in anybody's mind that the responsibility could largely be laid on Lyndon B Johnson.

I googled Moroccan airbase scandal, then added LBJ.  The only thing that came up is the article linked below by Phillip Nelson (interesting) but it does not mention Morocco specifically.  It did pop up that there (were) two US airbases in Morocco, Ben Guerir and Nouasseur, both established in 1951.  As LBJ was gaining Senate power.  He was known for demanding kickbacks in the awarding of government contracts.

Lyndon Johnson’s Criminal Financial Activities – 1937 to 1963 - LewRockwell

Note.  I did also look through Mastermind, which I do not believe LBJ was (of the JFKA).

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Roger,

I don't agree with you, that the plotters planned much more of a cover up than having Oswald killed. Which I will explain below by commenting on your evidence.

But admittedly I am stumped by the early call to snatch the body in order to modify the head damage.

 

 

Having Oswald arrested wasn't part of the cover-up, but rather part of the assassination plot that made a patsy out of Oswald.

 

 

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted out by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been asked.

It is because of this that Cliff believes that Harriman was behind the assassination plot. But IMO, Harriman simply couldn't believe that the Russians would make such a dangerous move, and decided himself to proclaim so, adding that other experts agreed with him just to give it some weight. Making such a bold move is in character for Harriman.

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

(BTW, FWIW, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed that Harriman was a Soviet spy.)

 

 

The Katzenbach solution began the day of the assassination, not when he wrote the memo. It was decided early on to make Oswald the lone killer, probably shortly after Harriman said what he did.

I don't see why the plotters would cover anything up. I mean, they had fabricated a story that implicated Oswald in a conspiracy with the Cubans and Russians. Why would they want to cover up a story they so carefully worked on creating? Their plot WAS their cover-up. It covered up what they had done.

 

What do you mean about the Katzenbach solution starting on the day of the shooting? I hope you realize Bart conflated two memos, one from the 22nd and one from the 24th, which made it appear Katzenbach was orchestrating a cover-up from day one. 

P.S. My original post made it sound like Bart's mistake was by design, so I corrected it to reflect my actual feelings--that I believe it was a mistake. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Miles Massicotte]

51 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What do you mean about the Katzenbach solution starting on the day of the shooting? I hope you realize Bart conflated two memos, one from the 22nd and one from the 24th, to make it appear Katzenbach was orchestrating a cover-up from day one. 

Yes Pat is right, this was in my own thread a while back and Pat correctly showed that this memo was actually from the 24th and not the 22nd. Carry on.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What do you mean about the Katzenbach solution starting on the day of the shooting?

 

I said, "The Katzenbach solution began the day of the assassination, not when he wrote the memo." By "Katzenbach solution" I meant the solution he wrote on a later date. The Johnson administration were already doing what they could on 11/22 to stop the rumors of there being an international conspiracy.

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize Bart conflated two memos, one from the 22nd and one from the 24th, which made it appear Katzenbach was orchestrating a cover-up from day one.

 

 

Can you tell me about the memo written on the 22nd? Maybe it's what I read that made me realize that the Johnson Administration was already trying to squelch rumors of international conspiracy.

 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. My original post made it sound like Bart's mistake was by design, so I corrected it to reflect my actual feelings--that I believe it was a mistake. 

 

I'd look for the answer to my question in your original post, but the original post in this thread is not yours. It is Roger's.

 

[Roger Odisio]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't see why the plotters would cover anything up. I mean, they had fabricated a story that implicated Oswald in a conspiracy with the Cubans and Russians. Why would they want to cover up a story they so carefully worked on creating? Their plot WAS their cover-up. It covered up what they had done.

 

SL:  I don't agree with you, that the plotters planned much more of a cover up than having Oswald killed. Which I will explain below by commenting on your evidence.

 

But admittedly I am stumped by the early call to snatch the body in order to modify the head damage.

 

 Having Oswald arrested wasn't part of the cover-up, but rather part of the assassination plot that made a patsy out of Oswald.

 

RO:  The murder plan and its coverup were of one piece. There is no way Kennedy would have been killed without a plan in place to cover up who did it.

 

Killing and framing Oswald was the original plan.  Perhaps they wanted him killed in the theater, but that didn't work.  Arresting him  became the choice, and it set up the rest. Arresting him had the advantage of allowing the killers to hear his alibi and set about trying to destroy evidence of  it. They had to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer.

 

SL:  The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

 

RO:  Nah. McGeorge Bundy was running the WH situation room that sent the message.  He had already rewritten NSM 263 to allow for escalation in Vietnam that Johnson signed one day after Kennedy was buried.  Coming so soon after the murder with such a definitive statement of guilt means it was clearly planned beforehand by the killers.

 

SL:  The Katzenbach solution began the day of the assassination, not when he wrote the memo. It was decided early on to make Oswald the lone killer, probably shortly after Harriman said what he did.

 

RO:  Katzenbach made no decisions independent of Johnson. He made suggestions as did many others.  Yes, the plotters decided early on to make Oswald the patsy.  So early on, in fact, it was an important part the coverup plan devised before the murder. It had nothing to do with something Harriman said.

 

SL:  I don't see why the plotters would cover anything up. I mean, they had fabricated a story that implicated Oswald in a conspiracy with the Cubans and Russians. Why would they want to cover up a story they so carefully worked on creating? Their plot WAS their cover-up. It covered up what they had done.

 

RO:  There was a faction that wanted Oswald linked to the Cubans and Soviets. But Johnson said no.  Either before the murder as they were drawing up the final plan and coverup, or shortly after the murder.  Some Cubans went ahead anyway to tie Oswald to Castro, but that was swiftly snuffed out. As president Johnson wanted no part of a conflict with the SU.  He had lusted after the presidency too long to see it go up in flames with a war with them.

 

That is one reason why the WR is strangely devoid of a believable motive for Oswald.  All that work setting up Cuban story went for naught.

 

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

That is one reason why the WR is strangely devoid of a believable motive for Oswald.

The main conclusion they came to regards Oswald's JFK motive was what?

I ask because it seems to me that it was simply this incredibly vague and weak - he wanted to be noticed as someone significant?

Or, Oswald wanted to bring the entire systems of both world ruling governments down in one magnificent chaotic crash? As both the American and Soviet ones were abusive to the working classes?

Or, it was an act of extreme personal frustration?

Maybe even a suicidal one?           
Extreme hopelessness frustration over his failed marriage and losing the only three things he truly loved...Marina, Junie and newborn baby Rachel?

Take THAT Marina. You rejected me so I am going to do something that will probably hurt you and our children the rest of their lives. You and they will be forever linked to the notorious killer of JFK.  

Hard to believe that one.

Or, maybe he simply took on this task as a supreme act of love for Marina.

For a large sum of money that would go to Marina...in some laundered way? Maybe through public sympathy funds? No, this one doesn't work for me either.

Or, did he think that Castro would consider him a hero and finally allow him into his country?

If it was the latter he sure could have used some help getting out of the country within minutes of the killing.

Oswald's motives for everything he ever did is the ultimate enigma.

His adventure in Russia. His pot shot at Walker. His New Orleans and Clinton activities. His Mexico City vacation. His backyard photos. His alleged shooting of JFK and Officer Tippit.

All this unresolved motive confusion is the weakest link in any conclusion finding , especially the WC one...in my opinion anyways.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Roger Odisio]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I believe the SS and the Kennedy entourage were anxious to just get out of there, but agree that LBJ may have had an ulterior motive when he decided to hold off his departure until he got Jackie and the body on HIS plane.

From chapter 21 (about what happened on the plane):

In his 1975 defense of Johnson, A Very Human President, former Johnson aide Jack Valenti offered up a fascinating insight into Johnson's actions on 11-22-63. Valenti sat with Johnson on the plane while waiting for Mrs. Kennedy, and was intimately aware of Johnson's thoughts during this period. He wrote of Johnson's decision to be sworn-into office as soon as possible--which, while unnecessary, was nevertheless politically desirable. He then added "before Air Force One departed for Washington, Johnson had also made his first command decision, on his own, to wait for the body of the dead president to be brought aboard before he gave an order to be airborne. This was an intuitive decision and a good one." So... Johnson, a man famous for seeking advice, had decided not to leave without the body, and had come to this decision entirely on his own, after reaching Air Force One. Hmmm... 

In thinking about your Valenti story, Pat, I realize how important it is.

Once Kennedy was declared dead and Johnson was the new president, they hustled him out of the hospital and on to the plane.

Johnson knew he couldn't leave the body in the hands of Earl Rose to do an autopsy.

Rose had come out into the hallway when they were taking the body to the plane to say, wait, I have jurisdiction. I must do an autopsy.

One can imagine the phrase that ended the discussion and got Rose out of the way.

We have an order from President Johnson.

Johnson was already running the coverup.  This was a major first move.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Good series of posts - thank you Roger. I think your explanation for the swearing in on AF 1 makes sense. What’s not entirely clear is whether LBJ was taking orders from the get go when he ordered the body of JFK be taken from Parkalnd and onto the plane. I believe he also ordered the Limo to be flown out. All of this is suggestive of his prior knowledge, but not proof of it or of his prior involvement.
I am going to assume that the assassination was ordered from a high level. If it was LBJ then one can view all his subsequent actions through that lens. But if the coup was managed through the MIlitary/CIA there was no reason for them to doubt that LBJ would comply. Perhaps Madeleine Brown had it right when she said that she thought LBJ was brought in the night before. He surely wasn’t going to stop it, and if she is telling the truth he was thrilled. 
MacBird - was that the name of the Broadway show? It remains most logical, most like human nature. 
Question for Jim D - where is the line between LBJ and Hoover?