Jump to content
The Education Forum

C. Douglas Dillon and the Assassination of JFK


Recommended Posts

John, is it clear that Forrestal's suicide was indeed a suicide?

Also, since Forrestal was a member of Dillon's firm there is certainly nothing curious about Dillon using persuasion and influence to get his friend a high position in government. This happens every day of the week. Every business person likes to have "friends in high places". What brokerage firm or law firm would not like to have a former partner in a president's cabinet?

And for the umpteenth time, CDDDNotDI!

Tim, your suspicion that Forrestal was murdered is intriguing. One of the looniest conspiracy books I've ever purchased is one on Forrestal's death. It says the commies killed him because he was such a good cold warrior. You, by chance, haven't read this book, have you?

There is another version of his death which seems more credible. It holds that Forrestal was the only one in the Truman Administration who was against supporting the establishment of Israel. It says that he grew despondent when he realized that the Jews in the media, and the widespread sympathy for Jews following the holocaust, would insure that the U.S. support Israel. He knew this would lock us into an ongoing war in the middle east. He grew more and more despondent, since he knew he was right and saw that he was now on the outs with the Administration. He killed himself. (I'm sure some have it that he was killed by an Israel agent.) Anyhow, I don't remember where I read this version. It may even be respected.

Anyhow, you clearly have a take on this. I'm guessing it's the former.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some material on the relationship between IG Farben, Dupont, Dillon and the Bush family............

Walter S. Carpenter, Jr. had been chairman of the finance committee of the Du Pont Corporation (1930-40). In 1933, Carpenter oversaw Du Pont's purchase of Remington Arms from Sam Pryor and the Rockefellers, and led Du Pont into partnership with the Nazi I.G. Farben Company for the manufacture of explosives. Carpenter became Du Pont's president in 1940.

1933 was also the year that Du Pont and J.P. Morgan were major players in the attempted coup against FDR. (When the plot was exposed, the Congress proved as gutless and/or as powerless then as it is now in holding wealthy traitors accountable.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Pat:

No, I don't really have a take on it, nor have I read the looney book to which you refer.

I was just curious whether there were any suspicions about his death. Sometimes people who hold jigh positions in a presidential administration and resign or fire "know too much". These days they write books about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark S. wrote:

And for the umteenth time, [Dillon'd] involvement can't be ruled out Tim. He had a lot of connections. Just let the research run its course.

So, Mark, will you identify a single connection that Dillon had who was connected with the assassination? Omitting, of course, his close friendship with JFK--I refer to anyone connected to the assassination other than its victim!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark S. wrote:

And for the umteenth time, [Dillon'd] involvement can't be ruled out Tim. He had a lot of connections. Just let the research run its course.

So, Mark, will you identify a single connection that Dillon had who was connected with the assassination? Omitting, of course, his close friendship with JFK--I refer to anyone connected to the assassination other than its victim!

Yes. As Treasury Secretary, the SS operated within Dillon's bailiwick. Evidence suggests that the SS were cleverly nobbled prior to the event, obviously from a senior level, so it follows that Dillon must be investigated, among others. There's been little research on his possible role.

I'm not saying he did it, only that he can't be ruled out as being involved or having knowledge of the plan.

Remember, he was a Republican and they're a very shifty lot. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark:

While I must of course agree that Republicans are a "very shifty lot", otherwise your post is all wrong.

There is simply no evidence that the Secret Service was involved in the assassination. It has been amptly demonstrated (umpteen times) that there was no security stripping in Dallas. The only stripping in Dallas was at the Carousel.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark:

While I must of course agree that Republicans are a "very shifty lot", otherwise your post is all wrong.

There is simply no evidence that the Secret Service was involved in the assassination. It has been amptly demonstrated (umpteen times) that there was no security stripping in Dallas. The only stripping in Dallas was at the Carousel.

But not on the night of November 22, Tim.

And IIRC, was not the Secret Service under a department OTHER THAN the Treasury Department prior to sometime in 1963?

But it continues to intrigue me why Mr. Gratz continues to complain about investigating Mr. Dillon's background, if he is so sure that Dillon will be exonerated. If you truly believe Dillon to be innocent, step aside and let the investigation prove you correct, Tim.

Or are you NOT so sure you're correct? [We ALL know you're "right," whether or not you're correct, Tim.]

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight wrote:

If you truly believe Dillon to be innocent, step aside and let the investigation prove you correct, Tim.

I suspect Mark did not really mean what this sentence suggests.

Unless principles of justice and fair-play are turned inside-out for the assassination research committee, proof is need to prove someone guilty not innocent. Dillon is not presumed guilty until proven innocent!

Without holding my breath, I will await the introduction of one scintilla of evidence linking Dillon to the assassination. And while I am more than confident no secret service agents were involved, even if there was any SS involvement that fact is insufficient to link Dillon solely because the SS was under the Dept of the Treasury. I do not suspect CIA involvement either but even if I am wrong that would not link John McCone to the assassination. I mean, both the CIA and the Treasurer ultimately reported to the President so under that reasoning JFK must have approved his own assassination! Pure silliness!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

Why did the SS have motorcycles removed from the side of JFK's limo in Dallas, under the false pretense that JFK didn't want them there? And this was after assassination plots involving motorcades in both Chicago and Tampa only days before, and was "uniquely insecure" compared to motorcades right there in Texas before Dallas.

That doesn't stir one iota of suspicion in you? Do you advocate a simple SS stupidity theory on this?

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, I cannot post the photo but in our most recent Solares Hill article, a review of "Ultimate Sacrifice", the front page photograph was of the Tampa motorcade. Not only were there no motorcycles on the side of the limousine, but JFK was standing in the limousine, making him an even easier target. Did the Secret Service order JFK to stand? Somehow I doubt it.

I also have seen a photograph of JFK riding in an open convertible in the streets of Key West, less than a month after the resolution of the CMC, which as you know made many anti-Castro Cubans irate. (And there were a lot more Cubans in Key West than in Dallas.) Does that photo show motorcycles surrounding the JFK open convertible? Well, what do you think?

Security stripping in Dallas? Baloney!

Here is a link to the photo of JFK in Dallas, that, I believe, demolishes the shibbolet that there was "security stripping" in Dallas:

http://www.big13.net/JFK%20In%20Tampa/jfk_tampa10.htm

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight wrote:

If you truly believe Dillon to be innocent, step aside and let the investigation prove you correct, Tim.

I suspect Mark did not really mean what this sentence suggests.

Unless principles of justice and fair-play are turned inside-out for the assassination research committee, proof is need to prove someone guilty not innocent. Dillon is not presumed guilty until proven innocent!

And I suspect Mr. Gratz knows exactly what I meant.

As a former attorney, Mr. Gratz is no doubt familiar with the phrase "probable cause." And from my own experiences with police departments and "probable cause" in regards to misdemeanor traffic charges, if the same standard is applied to Mr. Dillion, there is MORE than sufficient "probable cause" to investigate whether or not he was involved in the JFK assassination. "Probable cause" such as the length of my hair and the fact that I knew certain individuals was sufficient "probable cause" for officers to search my personal vehicle for evidence of drug use [even though those who knew me knew that I avoided illegal drugs and instead "self-medicated" legally with alcohol]. Applying the same standard to Dillon, I contend, is only fair play.

Since Dillon was the head of the Cabinet department under which the Secret Service operated, using the same standards of "probable cause" that have been applied towards me would legitimize any investigation into Mr. Dillon. Of course, Mr. Dillon had the werewithal [monetary AND political] to insure that such investigations of him never occurred; I wasn't quite the "Fortunate Son" that Dillon apparently was. Apparently, the rich aren't subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Had Mr. Gratz any personal experiences such as mine, perhaps his views would be different...and perhaps he'd cease and desist in his attempts to obstruct any examination of Mr. Dillon, his background, and his associates.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, I cannot post the photo but in our most recent Solares Hill article, a review of "Ultimate Sacrifice", the front page photograph was of the Tampa motorcade. Not only were there no motorcycles on the side of the limousine, but JFK was standing in the limousine, making him an even easier target. Did the Secret Service order JFK to stand? Somehow I doubt it.

Did the Tampa police want motorcycles beside the limo, and the SS had them removed? That's what happened in Dallas. (There were motorcycles in front of the limo in Tampa. Why not in Dallas?)

As for JFK standing up, as I recall it is stated in Ultimate Sacrifice that JFK was informed beforehand of the Tampa threat, and showed a lot of guts that day, as it was felt that another motorcade could not be canceled after the Chicago cancelation.

I also have seen a photograph of JFK riding in an open convertible in the streets of Key West, less than a month after the resolution of the CMC, which as you know made many anti-Castro Cubans irate. (And there were a lot more Cubans in Key West than in Dallas.) Does that photo show motorcycles surrounding the JFK open convertible? Well, what do you think?

Did the Key West police want motorcycles beside the limo, and the SS had them removed? That's what happened in Dallas.

Security stripping in Dallas? Baloney!

I would wager that the Dallas cops who planned the motorcycle escort, only to have the SS veto their plan the night before, saw it as security stripping. I know that I would have after the killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

I would wager that the Dallas cops who planned the motorcycle escort, only to have the SS veto their plan the night before, saw it as security stripping.

Ron, what is your basis for that assertion?

I should add that rereading the article and examining the photo, there were two secret service agents riding on the trunk of the JFK limo in Tampa. Of course, this must be viewed in conjunction with the disclosure in "Ultimate Sacrifice" that security was extremely tight inm Tampa because there had been rumors of an assasination plot in Tampa.

Here is another photo of the Tampa limousine:

http://www.big13.net/Tommy%20Eure/tommy_eu...0%20seconds.htm

To Mark:

The fact that Dillon was the Secretary of the Treasury does nothing to make him a suspect in the JFK case. As I said before, by going up the chain of command from the head of the Secret Service to the Cabinet member, one would by the same logic continue up the chain of command and viola, JFK himself is a suspect!

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Dillon involved himnself in the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service?

Surely suspicions would have been raised if Dillon had given an order to the Dallas Secret Serrvice Agents without going through the normal SS channels. Surely had that happened one of the SS agents "would have talked". And if you think Dillon went through the SS chain of command, do you contend that the head of the SS was himself involved in the plot?

This whole premise is so ridiculous it is no wonder that the news and history establishment does not take the assassination research community seriously!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

I would wager that the Dallas cops who planned the motorcycle escort, only to have the SS veto their plan the night before, saw it as security stripping.

Ron, what is your basis for that assertion?

My basis for that assertion is the sentence that you left out: "I know that I would have after the killing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

I would wager that the Dallas cops who planned the motorcycle escort, only to have the SS veto their plan the night before, saw it as security stripping.

Ron, what is your basis for that assertion?

I should add that rereading the article and examining the photo, there were two secret service agents riding on the trunk of the JFK limo in Tampa. Of course, this must be viewed in conjunction with the disclosure in "Ultimate Sacrifice" that security was extremely tight inm Tampa because there had been rumors of an assasination plot in Tampa.

Here is another photo of the Tampa limousine:

http://www.big13.net/Tommy%20Eure/tommy_eu...0%20seconds.htm

To Mark:

The fact that Dillon was the Secretary of the Treasury does nothing to make him a suspect in the JFK case. As I said before, by going up the chain of command from the head of the Secret Service to the Cabinet member, one would by the same logic continue up the chain of command and viola, JFK himself is a suspect!

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Dillon involved himnself in the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service?

Surely suspicions would have been raised if Dillon had given an order to the Dallas Secret Serrvice Agents without going through the normal SS channels. Surely had that happened one of the SS agents "would have talked". And if you think Dillon went through the SS chain of command, do you contend that the head of the SS was himself involved in the plot?

This whole premise is so ridiculous it is no wonder that the news and history establishment does not take the assassination research community seriously!

Tim,

The link you provided in post #55 undermines your own argument (excellent photos and story btw). Tony Zappone himself recalls that the Tampa motorcade travelled so fast that he almost missed getting any snaps of JFK at all--in contrast to the slow turn and crawl into Elm Street in Dallas. Also, the photos of the Tampa motorcade indicate that it travelled past few, if any, clusters of high rise buildings--in contrast to the several high rise buildings with open windows which partially surrounded Dealey Plaza. The plaza almost resembles an amphitheatre, with many potentially lethal vantage points. By arguing that there was no security stripping, you're claiming that the SS were absolutely stupid. I'm surprised, as this must therefore raise a question concerning Dillon's competence in discharging his duties.

A couple of questions, if anyone can assist:

1. Who was the driver of the Presidential limo in Tampa? Was it Bill Greer?

2. Did Ken O'Donnell accompany JFK on the Tampa trip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...