Kennedys' Antipathy to "Assassination Research"

[Tim Gratz]

There has been some discussion of why the Kennedy family has been so reluctant to endorse the assassination research committee which has been attempting to solve the assassination.

While I gladly cede the sincerity of each one of the members in trying to solve the crime, I respectfully suggest that a lot of the stuff posted on this Forum could very well explain the antipathy of most members of the Kennedy family to "assasination research". I do not think the Kennedys would approve smearing someone with the brand of a "possible assassin" on the basis of the scantest possible evidence. If I were a family member, I would certainly want my family name dissassociated with such recklessness.

This is not to deny that many of the posts made here are the product of great intelligence and hard work and could be helpful should there ever be a new investigation. If I did not think so, I would not be spending as much time reading them as I do. I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves.

[Norman T. Field]

What if the Kennedy family already knows who performed all three assasinations (don't forget Mary Joe) and doesn't want anymore of their children killed? Wouldn't that explain their public posture?

[Tim Gratz]

Norman, that is a speculation (mine was as well) but it is certainly an interesting possibility and I suspect your comment will generate some discussion.

If that is the case, don't you think they have created some documentation to be made public when such threat would no longer exist?

Edited February 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves.

I believe there are valid, well-established grounds for suspecting someone or anyone in a homicide: means, motive, and opportunity.

The fact that a suspect is dead does not exempt him or her from suspicion and scrutiny. Pancho Villa had a corpse dug up and put it on trial. The corpse was found guilty.

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, in my opinion means, motive and opportunity are an insufficient basis to accuse someone alive or dead.

Presumably, anyone with sufficient financial resources had both the means and the opportunity.

You could claim that anyone who disagreed with any of JFK's policies had a motive to kill him but that is ridiculous.

I think there has to be some evidentiary basis, even if slight, to link someone to the assassination before mud is slung at the decedent.

Else all we do is muddy the reputation of many people who are as "pure as the driven snow" (I can hardly remember what the stuff looks like!), a real shame, IMO.

[Norman T. Field]

Norman, that is a speculation (mine was as well) but it is certainly an interesting possibility and I suspect your comment will generate some discussion.

If that is the case, don't you think they have created some documentation to be made public when such threat would no longer exist?

What makes you think such a threat no longer exists? Richard Nagell was apparently murdered in the mid '90s cuz it looked like he might say somethings.

Then there are the suggestions that the publication of 'Farewell America' was funded by the Kennedy clan, also rumors that they financed the movie 'Executive Decision'.

[David G. Healy]

There has been some discussion of why the Kennedy family has been so reluctant to endorse the assassination research committee which has been attempting to solve the assassination.

While I gladly cede the sincerity of each one of the members in trying to solve the crime, I respectfully suggest that a lot of the stuff posted on this Forum could very well explain the antipathy of most members of the Kennedy family to "assasination research". I do not think the Kennedys would approve smearing someone with the brand of a "possible assassin" on the basis of the scantest possible evidence. If I were a family member, I would certainly want my family name dissassociated with such recklessness.

This is not to deny that many of the posts made here are the product of great intelligence and hard work and could be helpful should there ever be a new investigation. If I did not think so, I would not be spending as much time reading them as I do. I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves.

Can you imagine the trials and tribulations you're putting Fidel Castros' family through? Somehow, I suspect the Kennedy family will get through this -- they've made the last 40+ years without your support...

Ron, in my opinion means, motive and opportunity are an insufficient basis to accuse someone alive or dead.

Presumably, anyone with sufficient financial resources had both the means and the opportunity.

You could claim that anyone who disagreed with any of JFK's policies had a motive to kill him but that is ridiculous.

I think there has to be some evidentiary basis, even if slight, to link someone to the assassination before mud is slung at the decedent.

Else all we do is muddy the reputation of many people who are as "pure as the driven snow" (I can hardly remember what the stuff looks like!), a real shame, IMO.

STOP it! ROFLMAO -- you've just put every DA's office out of business, and its only February.... LOL

Edited February 3, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Tim Carroll]

Then there are the suggestions that the publication of 'Farewell America' was funded by the Kennedy clan, also rumors that they financed the movie 'Executive Decision'.

I think Norman meant "Executive Action." Despite the lack of sourcing and uncertainty about authorship, I consider Farewell America to be one of the most succinct, consistent with the facts, renditions of the JFK assassination ever published. Below is a diagram of the Dealey Plaza action contained therein, including the Classic Gunman location, identified as #1.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

In answer to David's post, MMO ("means, motive and opportunity") is legally insufficient to convict anyone of a crime.

Jackie Kennedy had MMO to kill her husband (how many cheating spouses have been killed by their mates?). So why not a thread on whether she orchestrated the assassination?

IMO it is morally repugnant to impugn the reputation of anyone without more than MMO to associate him or her with the crime. To the extent it is done by people claiming to support civil liberties, it is also rank hypocricy.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Jackie Kennedy had M[otive M[eans & O[pportunity] to kill her husband. So why not a thread on whether she orchestrated the assassination?

The "oppurtunity" existed, no doubt, because she was sitting in the car beside her husband with a gun in her handbag?

IMO it is morally repugnant to impugn the reputation of anyone without more than MMO to associate him or her with the crime.

Mr. Gratz does not find it morally repugnant when he accuses JFK & RFK (both dead, remember?) of plotting Castro's murder, even though the so called "witnesses" are professional liars and, in one case at least, a convicted perjurer. Indeed some of the "witnesses" here are legitimate supects in JFK's own murder. Nor does he find it morally repugnant when he insinuates that JFK & RFK were behind the supposed "murder" of Marilyn Monroe. By all means accuse the victims of the crimes you are investigating, Mr. Gratz tells us, but do not dare accuse dear old LBJ or his friends, or any of those nice people in the CIA, or indeed anyone who might be a viable suspect.

If anyone cares to search this forum, I think you will find that Mr. Gratz has been more interested in smearing JFK than in solving his murder. Now he has the gall to insinuate, without a shred of evidence, that the Kennedy family has expressed some form of "Antipathy to Assassination Research."

The reason for this supposed antipathy of course is not the result of their disgust with JFK character assassins like Tim Gratz, Gus Russo, and others of their ilk. No, it is the likes of John Simkin, with their exploration of the CIA and the seamy side of LBJ and his friends, who give assassination research a bad name.

By all means carry on, Mr. Gratz but I have no idea who you think you're fooling, unless it be yourself.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

There has been some discussion of why the Kennedy family has been so reluctant to endorse the assassination research committee which has been attempting to solve the assassination.

While I gladly cede the sincerity of each one of the members in trying to solve the crime, I respectfully suggest that a lot of the stuff posted on this Forum could very well explain the antipathy of most members of the Kennedy family to "assasination research". I do not think the Kennedys would approve smearing someone with the brand of a "possible assassin" on the basis of the scantest possible evidence. If I were a family member, I would certainly want my family name dissassociated with such recklessness.

This is not to deny that many of the posts made here are the product of great intelligence and hard work and could be helpful should there ever be a new investigation. If I did not think so, I would not be spending as much time reading them as I do. I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Tim Gratz]

J Raymond Carroll's post is strange, to say the least.

He starts it by sarcastically questioning how Jackie had the "opportunity" to kill JFK. It certainly should have been clear that I do not think Jackie sponsored the plot. My point (which I thought was clear) was simply that she had a clear motive to kill a philandering husband. I did so to illustrate the absurdity of implicating people solely because of MM&O. I clearly stated that anyone with financial resources to hire professional killers had the "means and opportunity". So what is his silly point about a gun in her handbag? Obviously the claim I made was that anyone with money could hire professionals to shoot at the limousine. Clearly Jackie did not hire someone to shoot at her husband when she was sitting right next to him in an open vehicle.

He goes on:

Mr. Gratz does not find it morally repugnant when he accuses JFK & RFK (both dead, remember?) of plotting Castro's murder.

Most historians conclude that while the evidence is far from clear, it is sufficient to conclude that JFK was witting of some of the CIA plots against Castro. And BOTH of the new books on the assassination ("AF2J" and "Ultimate Sacrifice") conclude that RFK was actively plotting Castro's murder. But it is not necessary to my scenario to argue that JFK was aware of the plots. And I do not recall strongly arguing the point.

Carroll's argument that I have spent more time trying to "smear" JFK than find his killer is specious. I have published close to a dozen articles about the assassination, not one of which was critical of JFK. Moreover, I have not spent ANY time trying to "smear" JFK on this Forum. Indeed, I have said it is unfortunate that the assassination research led to the exposure of some of the items on the dark side" of Camelot.

I am clueless why J. Raymond Carroll seems to be upset with so many members of this Form (in the past he has gone after Tim Carroll and Ron Ecker). It would seem that if you post anything that can even be construed as critical of the Kennedys, his temperature rises.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[quote name='Tim Gratz'

"I respectfully suggest that a lot of the stuff posted on this Forum could very well explain the antipathy of most members of the Kennedy family to "assasination research". I do not think the Kennedys would approve smearing someone with the brand of a "possible assassin" on the basis of the scantest possible evidence. If I were a family member, I would certainly want my family name dissassociated with such recklessness.”

Mr. Gratz follows that up with; “My point (which I thought was clear) was simply that she [Jaqueline Kennedy] had a clear motive to kill a philandering husband,” and this is from the man who writes: “I would just encourage members not to make frivolous accusations against those unable to defend themselves,” even as he admits that his accusation against Jackie Kennedy is entirely frivolous

Forum members may have noted over the past year that Mr. Gratz displays a fascination with JFK’s supposed sex life to such a degree that one wonders if he has one of his own.

Imagine what Caroline Kennedy might think if she had had the misfortune to read Tim’s posts on this topic. Granted, she would have appreciated Tom Purvis for posting Ted Kennedy’s 1993 letter which makes it clear that the very title of this thread, created by Mr. Gratz, is just a BIG LIE.

Mr. Gratz says: “Most historians conclude that while the evidence is far from clear, it is sufficient to conclude that JFK was witting of some of the CIA plots against Castro. And BOTH of the new books on the assassination ("AF2J" and "Ultimate Sacrifice") conclude that RFK was actively plotting Castro's murder”

So the evidence is “far from clear” but Mr. Gratz believes what he believes because “most historians agree.” Of course most historian agree that Lee Oswald shot JFK, but Mr. Gratz himself knows that most historians are wrong on this and further, he knows that most historians have never bothered to study the assassination in any depth. Ditto for the CIA plots against Castro which, as Mr. Gratz well knows, were underway, under the direction of Allen Dulles and Richard Helms, well before JFK came to power. If JFK or RFK knew about the plots, they would have known they were taking an awful chance when they fired Allen Dulles.

Mr. Gratz also knows that the only in-depth study ever done on the CIA assassination plots was done by the Church committee, which found that neither Eisenhower nor JFK knew or gave approval. Certain people in the CIA were secretly committing acts of war which only Congress, and not the president, could authorize.

The same CIA people who claim they got approval from JFK/RFK and Eisenhower have such a clear motive to lie (they don’t call it CYA for nothing) that it is hardly surprising that they were afraid to show their faces before the Church Committee, but instead rely on friendly journalists and historians (not forgetting Mr. Gratz himself) to plead their transparently false claims.

On other threads this week Mr. Gratz laments that this forum has been going downhill lately, presumably since our membership has been augmented by Josiah Thompson, Gerry McKnight, and David Talbot, to mention just a few. I think this thread proves, if any proof were needed, that – to the extent it can be said that this forum is going downhill -- it is Tim Gratz himself who leads the charge.

Mr. Gratz says : “in the past he [meaning me] has gone after Tim Carroll and Ron Ecker).”

I once chided Ron for posting arguments that seemed to be inconsistent, and I have disagreed with Tim C. on one or two issues, but I believe the record will bear out that the only person I have “gone after” on this forum is Mr. Gratz himself. And I’m not finished yet.

For some reason Senator Edward Kennedy’s letter to Tom Purvis has vanished from the forum, and I hope it will be reposted. That letter was not the first time that Senator Kennedy expressed his views on assassination research.

Serious students of the Crime of The Century will be familiar with Harold Weisberg’s works and will know that back in the late 60’s when the Federal Courts rejected Weisberg’s FOIA requests for some of the scientific evidence in the JFK case, Congess amended FOIA and Harold got his documents. Weisberg gives much of the credit to Ted Kennedy, who lobbied on behalf of the amendment. Kennedy made it clear on the record that he specifically wanted the Senate to override the court decisions that were denying researchers access to evidence about his brother’s murder.

I do not know what Tim Gratz wants from Ted Kennedy or his family, but I repeat that Mr. Gratz’s title for this thread is a Big Lie

[Tim Carroll]

Mr. Gratz says : “in the past he [meaning me] has gone after Tim Carroll and Ron Ecker).” I once chided Ron for posting arguments that seemed to be inconsistent, and I have disagreed with Tim C. on one or two issues, but I believe the record will bear out that the only person I have “gone after” on this forum is Mr. Gratz himself.

For the record, I consider Raymond and I to be on more than respectful terms; we are on friendly terms. I cringed when I read Tim Gratz's post bringing me into it and am sorry that Raymond even felt a need to address it. If anyone enjoys a friendly scrap; it's an Irishman.

T.C.

[Ron Ecker]

I always like to see my name in print. As for the Carrolls, I think they're both out to get me. But who isn't?