I Never Called Him Lyndon

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, perhaps a much better example than Fuhrman:

Most scholars believe that while Nixon orchestrated the Watergate cover-up (the attempted cover-up) that he probably was not witting of the actual break-in and bugging before the fact.

There is a reason why the law makes a distinction between accessories before-the-fact and accessories-after-the-fact. One can become an accessory-after-the-fact for many reasons.

[Pat Speer]

Please read "The Assassination Tapes".  With all due respect, it might be helpful if you at first spent time reading the available books and other resource materials rather than posting your theories.  I think it significant for instance that it was RFK who requested the presence of both Dulles and McCloy on the WC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, I hope you know that Max Holland has been an overt WC defender for years. I believe it was his zeal to defend Johnson that led to the creation of the book. However, when I read it, I interpreted it as positive proof of LBJ's involvement in the cover-up, if not the crime itself. As President, it was his JOB to solve the crime, and yet he never got around to asking anyone how many shots were fired and if they were fired at him for a WHOLE WEEK after the assassination(when HOOVER fed him a bunch of nonsense). I concluded from this that Johnson was either involved in the assassination or the weakest excuse for a man I've ever heard of. He simply expressed no interest in honestly solving the crime; every early memo from Hoover or Katzenbach dealt with the political ramifications of the killing--po' lil' Lyndon was all worried that people were gonna think badly of him, whaa, whaa, whaa. The man had a country to run, and he hid behind Hoover and then Warren, Katzenbach and then Clark. I believe he killed Kennedy, knew that Bobby knew it , and then arranged for Bobby's untimely demise. Wouldn't swear by it, but it feels like the truth.

Like I said, after reading the tape transcripts the only other possibility for me became that he was just a weak little sister.

Ladybird is alive and well, and arranging for TV shows to be banned. I don't think she knew a thing about the assassination. Although she supposedly had the money, this was just ole lying Lyndon covering his trail, as all the brilliant business transactions she made were greased by his connections.

As for Nellie and her book, Tim, the book prints her original notes on the assassination from 1963, and then a typed transcript supposedly representing her words word for word. Read the notes: she says Kennedy reached for his neck. Read the typed transcript: it says his hands shot upwards. Consider why the change...well, I'll tell you why...because the Posnerites who helped her create the book for the purpose of re-selling the lone-nut scenario decided that his arms shooting upwards was more in line with Lattimer's fabricated "Thorburn's response." It made me sick when I realized this. Investigating this case would have been a lot simpler if everybody's words and testimony weren't shaped by the interests of third parties.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, you know I respect everything you post, even when I may disagree with your conclusion. I am going to reread "The Assassination Tapes" with your thoughts in mind. Of course, I know Holland is a WC supporter. I'll also check your references to "Love Field".

Thanks!

[John Simkin]

Oh no the 21 year old is back (Dawn Meredith).

Somebody who stalks "conspirators" starts tracking people who get in the way?  Announcing their ages?  Next we'll get dates of birth and mothers' maiden names.  Why am I not surprised?  In 1966 Lawrence Schiller wasted his time getting the goods on Sylvia Meagher instead of Mac Wallace.  Then Mac Wallace died five years later.  Oops.

I would not be surprised if David Yarnell and Jonathan Wendland are not the same person. Maybe they are also Ron Pataky.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, arguments from analogy can be weak, but:

assume Mark Fuhrman KNEW in his mind that O.J. was guilty so he planted some evidence (the glove as I recall).  One could consider such conduct tantamount to a "cover-up".  But that does not mean that Fuhrman killed Nicole.

By the same token, the mere fact that the KGB faked the Hunt letter does not necessarily mean the KGB killed Kennedy.

Whether true evidence or evidence manufactured by clever plotters, there was plenty of evidence pointing toward the Soviets and/or the Cubans.  The "cover up" could have been motivated by LBJ's unwillingness to open what he saw as a Pandora's box.

And what if LBJ was concerned an investigation would reveal the plotters were linked to him (oil barons, defense tycoons, whoever)?  He might have been concerned that would then look like he was involved even if he was innocent.  He might have had a not unrealistic concern that a guilty person could try to get bargaining chips by pointing the finger at him.

There are just a myriad of reasons why the cover-up is not neccessarily linked to the assassination.  Otherwise you might as well include RFK as well as LBJ.  RFK had the legal authority over the DOJ after all.

Please read "The Assassination Tapes".  With all due respect, it might be helpful if you at first spent time reading the available books and other resource materials rather than posting your theories.  I think it significant for instance that it was RFK who requested the presence of both Dulles and McCloy on the WC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

On your recommendation, I'll try to find the book and read it, but my interpretation of its content might differ from yours. From the excerpts which have been posted on other parts of this site, it doesn't sound like a vindication of LBJ to me. It only shows that you can't take it on face value. LBJ's bullying of Richard Russell was pathetic, and LBJ constantly reassures Russell that he isn't being forced into anything when the reality, plain as a pikestaff, is.....he is.

While growing up, I always regarded LBJ as kindly old guy who took over after JFK. Research the man's career and you discover a different LBJ. Of all possible candidates for assassination of JFK, his motives were the strongest and his career appears to have been devoted to advancing the interests of his benefactors to the detriment of the country. Given LBJ's infuriating habit of tactical name dropping, it surprises me that you are convinced that it was RFK who requested the prescence of Dulles and McCloy on the WC. You must also believe it was RFK who wanted LBJ sworn in as soon as possible, when it was really RFK agreeing to LBJ's own suggestion. JFK and RFK once said of Lyndon, "he lies, he just lies all the time".

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim,

The problem with attempting to dissassociate LBJ from the assassination while acknowledging his role in the coverup is this:

LBJ knew in advance of the hit (he may have even urged its expedition)

LBJ approved of this course of events (you don't need evidence to support this, it's self evident)

LBJ agreed to conduct the coverup and kept his word.

Thus, it can be effectively argued that rather than simply agreeing to the plotters demand for an effective coverup, LBJ, by his actions, ensured the event transpired in the first place. Tim, he was guilty of more than just post facto involvement. He may have even organised the event himself, as some have suggested.