Government Cover-Up of JFK Assassination

[Larry Hancock]

Mark, it is clear from his calls, diary and in particular his dialogs with Fortas (who was serving as Baker's lawer and whom Johnson shifted into being his personal representative to the Texas AG on the investigation) that Johnson wanted a Texas "state" level Court of Inquiry....which I think translates into Hoover giving a report to a set of lawyers (pretty much named by Fortas and Johnson) in Texas and having them rubber stamp the Oswald lone nut conclusion. He clearly was not interested in having a real criminal investigation in Dallas as he had Hoover essentially force that closed and suppressed any internal dialog in Dallas about conspiracy (reference Carter's calls to Dallas and the Texas AG the night of Nov. 22 at Johnson's behest).

However in testing the waters with his pet media folks it quickly became really clear that a Texas Court of inquiry was going to meet with national skepticism, heck even Alsop warned him about that and tried briefly to challenge the idea until Johnson rolled over him. After about 48 hours of this Johnson was smart enough to get together with Fortas and come up with a new plan, the names for the WC commission were largely generated between the two of them. On a side note, you will note that Johnson was very unhappy with Justice department folks and the idea of federal investigative panel; Johnson did not like that idea at all until he was forced to bow to the fact that he could not sandbag the whole thing to a group of Texas lawyers). Note: Johnson was very likely relying on his influence in Texas and given the Kinser and Marshall affairs there is some justification for confidence.

I think it is clear that Johnson was suppressing discussion of conspiracy and driving a cover up from a time shortly after Oswald was arrested. As to the reason for that, he could have been given early signs that foreign parties were behind it or he could have been "gotten to" before the assassination. As I outline in my book, I tend to suspect the latter - I think he was blackmailed over the Baker scandal (not that he was totally unhappy about it - anyone reading Caro's books would have an insight into his blind need for power to consider that). However that is simply a working hypothesis, although I do think his behavior on the plane and his infamous "wink" is suggestive. Lady Bird's big smile during the swearing in has always bothered me a bit as well...

-- Larry

Anyone who has read the transcripts of the LBJ tapes should certainly have the same question in mind as I: 

Why was LBJ initially so adamant that there would be NO presidential commission, and NO congressional investigation into the JFK assassination, and then ABRUPTLY change course 180 degrees?

I can understand, from a political standpoint, LBJ's objections to a congressional investigation.  As a career politician, LBJ understood that he had to get some legislation through Congress--and into the headlines--if he was to be elected in '64 [can't say "re-elected," because he wasn't elected president to begin with].  And if Congress was tied up with an assassination inquiry, Johnson wouldn't get the press he needed to be elected.

But his initial response--that, since there was no federal law broken, the "Great State of Texas" should conduct any investigation--was most likely the correct way to go.  It was TEXAS laws that were broken, so that made it a TEXAS crime, and called for a TEXAS investigation.  The plus to THAT scenario was that, while the investigation would still garner national headlines, it wouldn't push LBJ and his political agenda--and his hopes of winning in '64--off the front pages all across America.

So the question that comes to MY mind is STILL:  WHO [person or group] got to LBJ and convinced him to change his mind?  Johnson was initially ADAMANT that there would be no federally-led investigation; yet a few short days later, he was EQUALLY adamant that there MUST be a federal investigation.

LBJ's change of position would be analagous to Tim Gratz suddenly deciding that Castro WASN'T involved, and that the assassination was part of a coup led by C. Douglas Dillon...yet it apparently doesn't raise many "red flags" among other researchers. 

My question is: WHY NOT?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Bill Cheslock]

Anyone who has read the transcripts of the LBJ tapes should certainly have the same question in mind as I: 

Why was LBJ initially so adamant that there would be NO presidential commission, and NO congressional investigation into the JFK assassination, and then ABRUPTLY change course 180 degrees?

I can understand, from a political standpoint, LBJ's objections to a congressional investigation.  As a career politician, LBJ understood that he had to get some legislation through Congress--and into the headlines--if he was to be elected in '64 [can't say "re-elected," because he wasn't elected president to begin with].  And if Congress was tied up with an assassination inquiry, Johnson wouldn't get the press he needed to be elected.

But his initial response--that, since there was no federal law broken, the "Great State of Texas" should conduct any investigation--was most likely the correct way to go.  It was TEXAS laws that were broken, so that made it a TEXAS crime, and called for a TEXAS investigation.  The plus to THAT scenario was that, while the investigation would still garner national headlines, it wouldn't push LBJ and his political agenda--and his hopes of winning in '64--off the front pages all across America.

So the question that comes to MY mind is STILL:  WHO [person or group] got to LBJ and convinced him to change his mind?  Johnson was initially ADAMANT that there would be no federally-led investigation; yet a few short days later, he was EQUALLY adamant that there MUST be a federal investigation.

LBJ's change of position would be analagous to Tim Gratz suddenly deciding that Castro WASN'T involved, and that the assassination was part of a coup led by C. Douglas Dillon...yet it apparently doesn't raise many "red flags" among other researchers. 

My question is: WHY NOT?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark:

Johnson seemed to vascilate between a Texas inquiry and a federal one.

On November 25, after a "conference with the White House," Waggoner Carr announced that a court of inquiry would be held by the State of Texas. ("Inquest"

by Epstein, p. 20). Then Senator Dirksen, on November 26, proposed that the

Senate Judiciary Committee conduct a full investigation into the assassination.

However, on November 29, Johnson announced that a commission would be created "to avoid parallel investigations and to concentrate fact-finding in a body having the broadest national mandate." ("Inquest" p. 20)

According to LBJ in "The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency,

1963-1969," he got the idea of forming the Warren Commission from Walt Rostow's brother, Eugene Victor Debs Rostow. Walt Rostow's brother would then

go on to serve as Undersecretary of State for policital affairs in the Johnson Administration from 1966 to 1969. I really wonder how much influence Walt Rostow actually had in Johnson's decision to go with the WC?

Bill Cheslock

[Erik A. Olsen]

Tim makes an excellent point. I had asked on another board about the 11/25/63 letter from AAG Nicolas Katzenbach to Bill Moyers. Certainly this could be a signifigant piece of evidence. Does anyone have additional information about either individual or the circumstance of the letter?

Erik A. Olsen

[Larry Hancock]

There have been some good articles written on Katzenbach's letter and the issue of the legal response to the assassination. They were generally published in journals. I would recommend Donald Gibson's article "The First 72 Hours" in PROBE Nov-Dec 1999. Also North's book Act of Treason has some very good detail material on the actions of various parties.

One thing is very clear from the Johnson tapes and that is LBJ was not at all happy with this Katzenbach/Justice Department initiative because it was going on when he was trying to ensure that the matter would be officially addressed by a Texas Court of Inquiry reviewing an FBI report.

Clearly it was not a matter of all parties working from a shared script.

[JL Allen]

IMO - Johnson's first choice - odd and suspicious - was that there be NO investigation. Barring that, he opted for the rather small Texas investigation - which he must have felt he could "control". When he began to read the writing on the wall - that people everywhere were demanding a high-level, thorough and complete examination of all aspects of the case - he hurriedly formed the WC in order to head-off several other commissions and committees which would have operated independently and been completely out of his and Hoover's realm of influence and manipulation. I'm not sure that the tapes are much more than "theatre". Johnson knew he was being recorded - controlled much of what he discussed, when, and to whom. He was a consumate actor - shifty and duplicitous - milking scenes far beyond what they were worth. He was shamelessly sappy. Many of his calls are merely heart-tugging soap opera. But, politically, deep-down, he was like a guided-missile. He knew what he wanted and how to get there. He would use any trick in the book. When he asks Hoover, "Do you think they were shooting at me?" - it's the #1 ploy to avoid suspicion and throw off the scent. He knew from Murchison's "party" the night before the murder who they were shooting at.

[Tim Gratz]

Larry wrote:

Clearly [the cover-up] was not a matter of all parties working from a shared script.

This, I think, is another point that mitigates against the "cover-up" becoming committed by the perpetrators of the assassination (and against a "large conspiracy" as well).

Edited July 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Ron had suggested that the planners of the conspiracy might have "recruited" some of the otherwise law-abiding underlings by threatening their lives or the lives of their children.

I think someone would have taken precautions and come forward, even at the risk of his life.

I do not believe I would participate in a murder even if my life was threatened. Would you?

Moreover, even if some people had participated because of a threat against their life, don't you suppose one of their children would know and would now come forward with the story?

The ONLY people who have ever "talked" are: (1) mafio dons (Trafficante, Marcello); (2) mafio related people (Martino); (2) a single renegade CIA agent (Morales--whose talk could have been only drunken braggadocia); and (3) anti-Castro Cuban exiles (if (a BIG "if") you believe Mr. Escalante (Diaz Garcia, Cuesta).

Unless a proponent of a massive government conspiracy can articulate a reason why NO ONE else has talked, I think we can put this "suspect" to bed, don't you?

I think from the "confessions" we can make deductions about the participants in and the size of the conspiracy: (1) mafia alone (the most likely scenario); (2) mafia and a renegade CIA agent; or (3) the mafia, and a renegade CIA agent assisted by anti-Castro Cubans. (This does not exclude possible sponsorship by Castro or the KGB, whose members could be counted on to keep their mouths shut--which to be fair might also mean the possible participation of a very limited number of higher CIA officials but certainly not the CIA as an institution. A massive conspiracy can be ruled out, in my opinion.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I compare this kind of debate to creation v. evolution. The theory of evolution is well established with a mountain of evidence, but we don't know all about how evolution works. Creationists therefore say it couldn't happen. Similarly, a massive conspiracy couldn't happen because we don't know all about how it worked.

If you want a massive conspiracy, look at 9/11. In comparison, Dallas as a conspiracy was a lark in terms of logistics and the number of people involved. Of course most people (though surprisingly only about half of those in New York, according to a fairly recent poll) don't accept that there was any 9/11 conspiracy except for the official conspiracy theory put out by the government. Therefore my point is pointless. So be it.

Ron

[Mark Knight]

Ron had suggested that the planners of the conspiracy might have "recruited" some of the otherwise law-abiding underlings by threatening their lives or the lives of their children.

I think someone would have taken precautions and come forward, even at the risk of his life.

I do not believe I would participate in a murder even if my life was threatened. Would you?

Moreover, even if some people had participated because of a threat against their life, don't you suppose one of their children would know and would now come forward with the story?

Tim, until one is placed in such a position, one can only imagine what one might or might not do under extreme duress. Whether or not one would participate in a murder. one can only fantasize until or unless your own life, or that of an innocent family member, has been placed "on the line. And I really don't care about your fantacies, Tim.

I know that the lives of my two children are THE most important thing in my own life. While I think of myself as honorable and moral to the end, if my kids' lives were in the hanging in the balance, I can't say that I would steadfastly refuse to participate in a murder, knowing that my refusal would certainly bring about the death of one or both of my kids.

And I believe that any honest person who truly loves his/her family would feel the same way. Conversely, if your affection for your family isn't very great, your personal convictions mightallow you to see them die in order to uphold your own "code." But respect for innocent victims is the only thing that makes the taking of hostages--physically or psychologically--work at all.

As far as whether or not someone would eventually tell their children...Tim, are you unaware of some WWII vets who were so traumatized of what they saw--and what they participated in--that they never spoke of their wartime experiences, even to their children? If there was a participant in the JFK assassination who actually witnessed Kennedy's head exploding, is it totally inconceivable in your mind that this person may have been traumatized to the point that they refused to speak of the incident for the rest of his/her life?

My point is, Tim...whatever occurs within the confines of your mind does not necessarily make your experience universally true for the rest of mankind. If you have children, I cannot fathom how you could possibly have stated the case so callously; if you don't have children, then your moralistic idealism, while lamentable, might be understandable...but only if you have no truly close family relationships at all.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Mark Stapleton]

I compare this kind of debate to creation v. evolution. The theory of evolution is well established with a mountain of evidence, but we don't know all about how evolution works. Creationists therefore say it couldn't happen. Similarly, a massive conspiracy couldn't happen because we don't know all about how it worked.

If you want a massive conspiracy, look at 9/11. In comparison, Dallas as a conspiracy was a lark in terms of logistics and the number of people involved. Of course most people (though surprisingly only about half of those in New York, according to a fairly recent poll) don't accept that there was any 9/11 conspiracy except for the official conspiracy theory put out by the government. Therefore my point is pointless. So be it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great analogy, Ron. People of Tim's ilk argue that, like evolution, if you don't know its' complete workings then it can't exist. Extrapolating Tim's argument indicates that because we don't know all the secrets of the universe, the universe doesn't exist. He's in universal denial.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Knight wrote:

As far as whether or not someone would eventually tell their children...Tim, are you unaware of some WWII vets who were so traumatized of what they saw--and what they participated in--that they never spoke of their wartime experiences, even to their children? If there was a participant in the JFK assassination who actually witnessed Kennedy's head exploding, is it totally inconceivable in your mind that this person may have been traumatized to the point that they refused to speak of the incident for the rest of his/her life?

There is one key word in the above paragraph: "some"--some WWII veterans were so traumatized they did not speak of their experiences to their children. Presumably, most did.

So even if we grant that SOME people who by Ron's theory were FORCED into participating in the assassination were so traumatized they did not wish to discuss it, surely SOMEONE would have talked. But not a single one has, completely destroying, I believe, this theory.

You see Mark I never said EVERYONE who was forced into the conspiracy would have talked. So your theory that SOME might not have talked is not in ANY way inconsistent with my argument that NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of a vast government conspiracy has come forward, nor have any of their descendants. It is the fact that NOT ONE report has surfaced that, in my opinion, demolishes this theory.

It is very interesting to me that almost every one of you, who in my opinion exhibit lapses in critical thinking (witness your above post), have to resort to sarcasm and name-calling. Why don't you just state your position? But if it makes you feel better to resort to childishness, be my guest. It does not bother me in the least but it does diminish my opinion of your thinking processes. Sorry, but it is the truth, Mark.

[Ron Ecker]

So even if we grant that SOME people who by Ron's theory were FORCED into participating in the assassination

"Ron's theory"? I guess that's what I get for suggesting what might have happened. It is not a theory. For all I know, no one was forced to participate against their will because it wasn't necessary. They were able to get by with people who hated JFK enough to kill him or who loved money and power enough to kill him. Others who participated may have just followed orders without realizing the reason behind them. When DPD motorcycle cops, for example, were told not to ride in front of or by the side of JFK's limo, when that security was completely stripped away and they were told to stay at the rear of the limo or ride along somewhere behind it, were they therefore being forced to participate in the assassination? No, they must have thought the orders were odd but they followed them. Their participation in the assassination was completely unwitting.

In any case, I repeat that I will not reject the theory that there was a large conspiracy, in terms of several agencies or power groups being involved (collectively the NSS, however many individual participants that might entail) just because I don't know the management details. There is only one way to find out such details, and that is to have a real investigation as in any murder case.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, I did not mean to insult you by calling it "your theory", but you are indeed the first person that raised it here.

The fact is that regradless of how the supposed NSS assassins were induced to participate, whether by threats of violence, or promises of money, or whatever, the fact is that not a single member of this "large" internal conspiracy has ever come forward or has been overheard discussing it.

The only people who have ever "confessed" to anyone are (1) mob or mob asssociated; (2) a single CIA agent (maybe); and (3) two anti-Castro Cuban exiles (only if you believe the hearsay report of their Cuban captors) (but it should be added that Martino, who fits in category (1) did refer to the involvement of anti-Castro Cubans). That information is very significant, in my opinion, regarding the both the scope and size of the conspiracy.

Edited July 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I believe the evidence certainly indicates that the NSS used anti-Castro Cubans and some Mob folks as foot soldiers, potential patsies, or whatever in the plot. If some of these people have talked, then it is fair to say that the NSS assassinated JFK and that some of the people have talked. (The NSS is never named, of course, even assuming that a talker knew who was behind the plot. Morales said "we." Trafficante said "we." Martino said "they." Connally said "they," meaning the people who were "going to kill us all." Johnson said "they," in asking Hoover, "How did it happen they hit Connally?")

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Now, Ron, this makes no sense at all.

There is NO EVIDENCE the NSS did it.

No one from the NSS talked.

You claim that when one of the people who you claim were subcontracted by the NSS talked it was the NSS talking.

Wrong.

Let us use a legal analogy.

The NSS can be considered the "principal" and the mob its "agent". Now we have individual members of the mob who talked (i.e. the agents) but we have no members of the "principal" who have talked.

The fact that when the agents talked they said "we" does not mean anyone other than their group. When Trafficante said "we" the logical implication is he was refering to his orgamization, the Mafia.

But there is no evidence whatsoever he was refering to another organization.

I have argued that Trafficante was working for Fidel and Fidel put him uo to it. So maybe when he said "we" he was refering to "Castro and I". But there is no evidence he was. I cannot make that so simply by declaring it.

It would be ridiculous for me to argue that I had proven Castro did it because Trafficante said "we killed him" rather than "I killed him".

You cannot argue around my point that not a single person associated with the group that you claim hired the mobsters or the anti-Castro Cubans has come forward either publicly or to a relative. NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY SOUL! When you claim a large conspiracy, the fact that no one has talked is quite significant. Particulary because the other conspirators DID talk!