Kennedys' Antipathy to "Assassination Research"

[Tim Gratz]

J. Raymond Carroll wrote:

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.

One wonders which version of the Church Committe J. R. Carroll was reading.

From the Church Committee report:

It is also possible that there might have been a successful "plausible denial" in which presidential authorization was issued but is now obscured.

Based upon the evidence before it, the Church Committee stated that it was unable to conclusively determine whether or not there had been presidential authority for any of the plots. We certainly know that RFK was expressly informed of the Mafia's involvement in the plots on May 7, 1962, and received a memo from Sheffield Edwards in which Edwards lied about the operation with the Mafia being over. But Edwards came away from the meeting convinced that the only thing to which RFK objected was the use of his enemy the Mafia (witness RFK's famous statement). There is no historical record that, for instance, following this meeting either JFK nor RFK ever issued an order prohibiting political assassinations.

Perhaps that is why the Church Committee also concluded:

Whether or not the respective presidents knew or authorized the plots, as chief executive officer of the United States, each [i.e. both Eisenhower and Kennedy] must bear the ultimate responsibility for the activities of his associates.

As most members know, "Ultimate Sacrifice" reports in depth on a US plan, controlled by RFK, to initiate a "palace coup" in Cuba to replace Castro, and that part and parcel of the planned coup was the physical elimination of Castro. The coup plans were hidden from the WC, the CC and the HSCA. So I believe it fair to conclude that while it may be difficult to prove that the Kennedys were aware of most of the CIA plots against Castro, they themselves advocated a final plot. Of course, since Castro was conveniently saved from the final plot by the assassination of JFK, no steps were taken to implement the final plot.

It is difficult for me to believe that J. R. Carroll did not understand the rhetorical device I was employing in suggesting there was as much evidence to implicate Jackie Kennedy as there was to implicate so many of the other "suspects" on this forum such as C. Douglas Dillon and John J. McCloy. I made it clear I was not seriously suggesting that Jackie was a suspect while others here have seriously suggested the involvement of people such as Dillon and McCloy, thereby (in my opinion) wrongfully besmirching the historical reputation of these individuals.

Why does Carroll rush to defend Jackie (who, as noted above, I made clear I was not seriously suggesting as a suspect) while he says nothing in defense of Dillion, McCloy, etc. He mentions concern over the feelings of Caroline Kennedy. Does he not believe that the children and/or grandchildren of people smeared on this Forum would have the same feelings as Caroline? Why are their feelings not equally entitled to protection? If it is frivolous to suggest Jackie as a suspect solely because she had MMO then it is equally frivolous to suggest the involvement of others based solely on MMO.

Mr J R Carroll writes:

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 suggest J. R. Carroll has in that statement posted an argument he knows to be false. He knows that my reason for lamenting the recent history of this Forum is the increasing number of baseless charges leveled and has nothing to do with the memberships of Thompson, McKnight and Talbot. He knows, or should know, that I posted how much I respected the work of Thompson, and I do also respect McKnight and Talbot. And, by the way, none of these gentlemen would make the baseless charges against people so often made by the less sophisticated members of this Forum.

In closing one wonders how much J. R. Caroll really knows about the historical record. As noted above, he is either ignorant of or misstated the conclusions of the Church Cmmittee. He also wrote:

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.

To whom is he refering? I believe that all of the significant people involved in the CIA plots against Castro did testify, either to the Church Committee or to the HSCA. Perhaps he can suggest a CIA official who claimed that JFK authorized the plots but did not testify.

And what I said is not a big lie. I strongly believe that the Kennedys would find very objectionable the posts suggesting that JFK's friend and sailing partner Douglas Dillon did it; or McCloy (if memory serves me it was RFKwho suggested McCloy as a WC member).

Edited February 6, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Parenthetically, it was the inability of the Church Committee to decide whether there was presidential authorization that makes the "Church Committee testimony" that Professor Mellen (in "AF2J") attributes to Helms and Harvey so unbelievable. (In each case she states that Helms and Harvey both testified to clear presidential authority.) I note neither Professor Mellen nor her supporters have ever posted the testimony she cites in a footnote.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Norman T. Field]

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.

Yup, instead brain fade. Executive Action it is. You actually get to hear LHO say, "I'm just the patsy".

[J. Raymond 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.

Yup, instead brain fade. Executive Action it is. You actually get to hear LHO say, "I'm just the patsy".

People give different interpretations to the meaning of the word "Patsy," but every writer who has attempted to transcribe Lee Oswald's words has agreed that he said "I'm just A patsy."

[Norman T. Field]

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.

Yup, instead brain fade. Executive Action it is. You actually get to hear LHO say, "I'm just the patsy".

People give different interpretations to the meaning of the word "Patsy," but every writer who has attempted to transcribe Lee Oswald's words has agreed that he said "I'm just A patsy."

Everyone agrees? Must be a conspiracy!

[Christopher T. George]

Hi all

Getting back to the original topic (yes, I know it's hard), the Kennedys' supposed antipathy to "Assassination Research," I should think the reason is not hard to fathom. They have lost one of their own, or two of their own, if you could RFK along with JFK. I should think that sense of loss would outweigh any impetus to know the details of any conspiracy involved. They possibly either don't care, or maybe they know more than they have said, and don't want to know more.

Best regards

Chris george