Jump to content
The Education Forum

Medford Evans: Coup D'etat


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I happened upon an interesting article by Medford Evans, a right wing (JBS member) on the assassination. The artiocle was originally published in "American Opinion", the journal of the JBS.

Interestingly, the position Evans seems to take on the assassination is similar to that of many left-wingers: that the "establishment" got Kennedy because he was not part of it and was challenging it.

Here are his concluding paragraphs:

. . .[T]he relationship between the Establishment and Kennedy was not going well at all. This President really thought, it seems, that business men were “sons-of-bitches.” They in turn lacked confidence in him. He was not dependable like their man Rusk, their man McNamara, not even like Lyndon Johnson, who could hardly be called their man, but was approachable by men like, say Robert Anderson, who were theirs.

Perhaps no Irishman can belong to the Establishment. Not really. It isn’t that the establishment won’t have them, but simply that they won’t stay put. The Establishment will support people of charm and reckless valor, but it will not integrate with them. Kennedy said he wanted “power all the way.” And it had begun to look as though he meant it. Certainly he was taking his office too seriously. He was going out of control—on his own.

Until Dallas.

He has a very interesting position on the trajectory of the head shot. I would be interesting in hearing your comments on it.

I think you will find his essay worth a few moments of your time.

Here is the link:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...Coup_dEtat.html

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened upon an interesting article by Medford Evans, a right wing (JBS member) on the assassination.  The artiocle was originally published in "American Opinion", the journal of the JBS.

Interestingly, the position Evans seems to take on the assassination is similar to that of many left-wingers: that the "establishment" got Kennedy because he was not part of it and was challenging it.

Here are his concluding paragraphs:

. . .[T]he relationship between the Establishment and Kennedy was not going well at all. This President really thought, it seems, that business men were “sons-of-bitches.” They in turn lacked confidence in him. He was not dependable like their man Rusk, their man McNamara, not even like Lyndon Johnson, who could hardly be called their man, but was approachable by men like, say Robert Anderson, who were theirs.

Perhaps no Irishman can belong to the Establishment. Not really. It isn’t that the establishment won’t have them, but simply that they won’t stay put. The Establishment will support people of charm and reckless valor, but it will not integrate with them. Kennedy said he wanted “power all the way.” And it had begun to look as though he meant it. Certainly he was taking his office too seriously. He was going out of control—on his own.

Until Dallas.

He has a very interesting position on the trajectory of the head shot.  I would be interesting in hearing your comments on it.

I think you will find his essay worth a few moments of your time.

Here is the link:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...Coup_dEtat.html

1. He, not unlike most who have taken the time to dissect the evidence, is correct.

2. No bullet, fired on a downward angle, could have entered at the base of the skull and thereafter fragmented and exited in the frontal lobe of the skull in a severely fragmented condition, along with removal of a large section of bone from the top of the skull.

SO! Nothing new about any of this.

Thankfully, I see no indications that he belived in body kidnappings and wound alteration as the answer to this enigma.

Of course, anytime that anyone makes an attempt at incorporating the wounds and injuries created by two separate bullets into the impact and damage of a single bullet, they have created an "enigma".

Or at least it is and will remain an enigma for those who search for multiple assassins and body kidnappers/wound alteration specialists.

For those who apply common logic and common sense, the probability arises that we just may have some physical evidence of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", of which the WC went to such great lengths (10 pages) to convince us of.

My primary question along this line being exactly WHY? would anyone believe what the WC had to say in regards to this subject?

Or, for that matter, any subject?

And, when anyone, especially someone who represents some Government Entity, expends ten pages of small typwritten lettering to explain to me something, then rest assured that I will hold on to and watch my wallet.

It was often referred to in the military as "excess overkill"!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened upon an interesting article by Medford Evans, a right wing (JBS member) on the assassination.  The artiocle was originally published in "American Opinion", the journal of the JBS.

Interestingly, the position Evans seems to take on the assassination is similar to that of many left-wingers: that the "establishment" got Kennedy because he was not part of it and was challenging it.

Here are his concluding paragraphs:

. . .[T]he relationship between the Establishment and Kennedy was not going well at all. This President really thought, it seems, that business men were “sons-of-bitches.” They in turn lacked confidence in him. He was not dependable like their man Rusk, their man McNamara, not even like Lyndon Johnson, who could hardly be called their man, but was approachable by men like, say Robert Anderson, who were theirs.

Perhaps no Irishman can belong to the Establishment. Not really. It isn’t that the establishment won’t have them, but simply that they won’t stay put. The Establishment will support people of charm and reckless valor, but it will not integrate with them. Kennedy said he wanted “power all the way.” And it had begun to look as though he meant it. Certainly he was taking his office too seriously. He was going out of control—on his own.

Until Dallas.

He has a very interesting position on the trajectory of the head shot.  I would be interesting in hearing your comments on it.

I think you will find his essay worth a few moments of your time.

Here is the link:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...Coup_dEtat.html

Ah yes... Mr Evans. Associate of Guy Banister, Edwin Walker, Joe Grinnan, Kent Courtney, Ashland Burchwell and Felix Botello.

In 1959, he teamed up with Banister to give lectures disuading students from attending the World Youth Conference in Vienna.

His association with the others is known because his name, as with theirs, was on a membership list of a secretive militant right wing group. The list was found in Burvhwell's car along with a large cache of weapons bound for Mississippi to aid Walker in the coming showdown.

But, perhaps the most interesting member was Botello. Botello was a founding member, along with Joe Molina, of the Dallas branch of the American GI Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the American GI Forum was.

I knew that Evans knew Walker.

But did you read his article? I thought it was interesting that he seems to be coming from the same position as many of the left-oriented members of the assassination research community: that the assassination could be traced to the "establishment power structure". (Closely akin, I think, to the Prouty/Sprague position, for instance).

Other right-wingers, of course, were attributing the assassination to Castro (for reasons totally different than why I now believe there was probably Cuban involvement--in 1964 few knew that we had been trying to assassinate Castro, giving him a clear (and non-ideological) motive to strike back, defensively).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I've read elsewhere that the JBS put out the line that Kennedy was killed by the communists because he was about to become an American.

Did the JBS ever visit any Young Republican Groups you belonged to? The bookThe Radical Right makes it sound like there was a lecture tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, yes I think I can remember that line.

I certainly knew a few members of the JBS. Some seemed very intelligent while others seemed like "extremists". If I recall correctly, the head of the JBS in Madison was a dentist and seemed like a nice fellow. But I'd read Welch's writings and knew how "off the wall" many of the JBS positions were. I fully supported Buckley's attempt to exclude the "wacky right" from the conservative movement.

Which, of course, is not to say that some JBS members did not have positions and views on some issues which were perfectly legitimate, or at least intellectually defensible.

Back in those days the legitimate conservatives wanted to impeach Earl Warren; the wackos wanted to hang him! (Although I think the latter position was not asserted in seriousness.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Tom, good post!  What do you think about Evans' suggestion that the fatal bullet was fired from behind but from rather close to Kennedy?

Based upon his understanding of the wounds, he has stated that JFK could not have incurred them while sitting erect, (which is correct), and that for the bullet to penetrate at the base of the skull and leave the frontal lobe vicinity of the skull that JFK would have to be leaning fully forward, (which is also correct).

Just that no one told him of the third/last/final shot which was fired after the Z-312/313 shot when JFK was in fact in virtually this position.

His position, which is of course quite correct, being that a shot fired from the sixth floor of a building, on a downward angle, striking a person at the base of the neck/EOP vicinity, could not conceiveably exit in the frontal lobe.

Again, quite correct.

Not unlike most, when he ceases to attempt to blame all of the wounds on a single bullet to the head, then it just may make slightly more sense.

Tom

THE SHOT THAT MISSED!--------------Didn't Miss!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the American GI Forum was.

Tim,

the GI Forum was started in 1948 by Dr Hector Garcia in 1948 in response to treatment of Latino vets. It gained national prominence a year later when a Mexican-American war hero's wife was refused the use of a funeral home for her deceaced husband in Three Rivers, Texas. Garcia got LBJ involved in sorting that out by arranging internment in Arlington. The case gave Garcia similar political clout to that of prominent African-American leaders. It also helped him for a close friendship with Johnson.

In 1960, despite death threats, Garcia formed the Viva Kennedy Club to garner support for Kennedy's election bid, and the effort gained him a huge reputaion as someone who could deliver the goods. Kennedy was so impressed, he made Garcia Ambassador to a West Indies treaty signing.

Hispanic disillusionment with Kennedy however, soon followed, with a few appointments here and there seen as tokenism, and LBJ's sudden ascension was seen as favourable to them.

In 1955, a Dallas chapter of the GI Forum was formed. Those involved were TSBD employee, Joe Molina, Edmond Villasana, Felix Botello, Bill Lowery, Joe Landin and Augustin Estrada. For reasons not made clear, Molina dropped out of the organisation in July, 1962.

The GI Forum was on a DPD "subversive" watch list of groups which might protest during the motorcade.

Molina's wife, by the way, worked as one of the caterers for Trade Mart luncheon. The Secret Squirels were on top of that situation, though... ordering that the chefs could not cook and prepare a special steak for Kennedy as they had requested, but instead, they were to cook 2,000 steaks for the audience, of which one would be chosen at random for the President.

Too bad poison isn't the the weapon of choice of your average American assassin. If it had been, the Secret Squirels may have acutally saved the prez...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the GI Forum was started in 1948 by Dr Hector Garcia in 1948 in response to treatment of Latino vets. It gained national prominence a year later when a Mexican-American war hero's wife was refused the use of a funeral home for her deceaced husband in Three Rivers, Texas. Garcia got LBJ involved in sorting that out by arranging internment in Arlington. The case gave Garcia similar political clout to that of prominent African-American leaders. It also helped him for a close friendship with Johnson.

Robert Caro writes in detail about this in Master Of The Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, perhaps the most interesting member was Botello. Botello was a founding member, along with Joe Molina, of the Dallas branch of the American GI Forum. (Greg Parker)

Hi Greg,

Do you have any other information on Botello you can share?

James

James,

The following passage is from a FBI report dated the Jan 8, '63:

The members of this organization, in addition to other security precautions, use code names and not their true names when attending meetings, and exercise extreme security precautions. From the interviews of BURCHWELL, VANCE BEAUDREAU and FELIX G. BOTELLO (former DL-18-S), who have been identified as members, it appears that individuals in this organization appear to be extremely fearful that the United States is in imminent danger of a communist take-over either directly or through surrender of the United States surrendering its armed forces to the United Nations. These fears appear to be based upon information being put out by the American Eagle Publishing Company of Dallas, owned by former General EDWIN A. WALKER and based upon the State

Department document "Freedom from War." All of these individuals insist that they have no intention of overthrowing the United States Government at any time, however, admit that if this organization came under the control of an unreliable person it could become a possible danger to the United States.

I assume the "DL-18-S" signifies he was a former informant... but you and others here would probably be better informed on such matters than myself.

I believe he and at least one other individual (Lowery) had helped start up the Dallas chapter of the GI Forum as part of some intelligence hanky-panky. Lowery was most definitely an FBI informant - and it was throgh his nomination that Molina because the president of the Dallas chapter.

This brings me to question whether the TSBD itself, was not performing some tasks on behalf of intel agencies. Not sure how else to explain how Molina not only stayed employed with them - but was promoted - despite his involvement with what the DPD at least regarded as a Communist front org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

Not sure how else to explain how Molina not only stayed employed with them - but was promoted - despite his involvement with what the DPD at least regarded as a Communist front org.

Greg, which organization was a suspected "Communist front"?

I have wondered whether Oswald was an agent of US "intelligence" (taken very broadly) trying to identify potentially violent anti-JFK members of both pro- and anti-Cuban organizations.

If so, is it possible he was placed in the TSB to keep watch on this Molina fellow?

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...