The Katzenbach memo.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Two items from a short memo sent to Bill Moyers, Preidential assistant, from Nicholas Katzenbach Assistant Attorney General.

" The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and that the evidence was such, that he would have been convicted at trial. Speculation about Oswalds motivation ought to be cut off."

"I think however that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in a responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation, OR CONGESSIONAL HEARINGS OF THE WRONG SORT."

I know most members are aware of this memo, and that it has probably been discussed before, but what do members make of it? Do you see it as the usual beaurocratic knee-jerk responce to possible controversy, or is their something more sinister going on in your opinion.....Steve.

[Jack White]

Lyndon's coverup begins.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Lyndon's coverup begins.

Jack

Katzenbach's memo was written on 25th November 1963,a day earlier, the 24th Walter Jenkins writes a memo about his conversation J Edna Hoover.

Hoover;" The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr Katzenbach is having something issued, so that THEY can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

The hoodwink club LBJ- Edgar Hoover- Nicholas Katzenbach.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[Ron Ecker]

I remember reading somewhere that Hoover wrote the memo and Katzenbach signed it. Can't cite the source, but the memo certainly sounds more like Hoover than anyone who might think of himself as a public servant. (If anyone in the higher corridors of power actually thinks that he or she is a "public servant," which I have seriously come to doubt.)

[JL Allen]

No one knew anything with certainty at that point. The nation and the world was in a complete state of shock. Oswald had only been shot to death by Jack Ruby the morning before that memo was issued. For some bureaucrat to make a statement that he knew precisely what the circumstances of the assassination were and who was at fault and how exactly it should be foisted upon the public's conciousness is absurd. This is one of the most glaring examples of what was really going on and a complete indictment of not only our government at the time but any government which scrambles to obfuscate and cover-up these types of violent overthrows.

Edited January 11, 2007 by JL Allen

[John Dolva]

Two items from a short memo sent to Bill Moyers, Preidential assistant, from Nicholas Katzenbach Assistant Attorney General.

" The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and that the evidence was such, that he would have been convicted at trial. Speculation about Oswalds motivation ought to be cut off."

"I think however that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in a responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation, OR CONGESSIONAL HEARINGS OF THE WRONG SORT."

I know most members are aware of this memo, and that it has probably been discussed before, but what do members make of it? Do you see it as the usual beaurocratic knee-jerk responce to possible controversy, or is their something more sinister going on in your opinion.....Steve.

an alternative::

Speculations were coming hard and fast, not least among Kennedys people.

This message asks for two things. The second puts the first in context.

Katzenbach was Roberts.

I think the memo is being misread.

Full public disclosure. : " a statement that all the facts will be made public property in a responsible way should be made now"

Then, in order that the rapidly emerging official belief and statements about Oswald being the sole assassin, or indeed THE assassin, is properly evaluated, : "The public must be satisfied..."

This places the trust in the public, the voter.

IOW, if, through full disclosure, the public is NOT satisfied...>>>stage two...

All up, it seems (to me) a responsible, balanced kind of statement like Kennedy himself would have made, instead of shooting off in any particular direction based on suspicion.

I think it's the NOT following this memo that is the problem.

Edited January 11, 2007 by John Dolva

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Two items from a short memo sent to Bill Moyers, Preidential assistant, from Nicholas Katzenbach Assistant Attorney General.

" The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and that the evidence was such, that he would have been convicted at trial. Speculation about Oswalds motivation ought to be cut off."

"I think however that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in a responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation, OR CONGESSIONAL HEARINGS OF THE WRONG SORT."

I know most members are aware of this memo, and that it has probably been discussed before, but what do members make of it? Do you see it as the usual beaurocratic knee-jerk responce to possible controversy, or is their something more sinister going on in your opinion.....Steve.

This places the trust in the public, the voter.

John, this memo was almost certainly written by J Edgar Hoover, and only put out under Katzenbachs name. How much trust do you think old Edna placed in the public?

[John Dolva]

One feature that characterised the Kennedy presidency which all his government were thoroughly aware of was chain of command.

Who was Katzenbachs superior? Attorney General RFK or the head of the FBI? Would he just sign anything someone put in front of him? Perhaps JEH was asked to tie himself into such a commitment. The memo was approved and K put his name to it.

Consequently the oppsite happened. Findings were and remain hidden. The public was not satisfied and five odd further hearings hasn't changed things.

When Robert was poised to take charge and change things back to the intent of the Memo he was...??

Edited January 12, 2007 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Olney

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warre...ort/letter.html

Assistant Counsel

FRANCIS W. H. ADAMS

Persons who either already knew too much, or else wanted ALL evidence released to the public, either did not get on the Commission or else were listed and served absolutely no purpose other than more "whitewash".

Katzenbach appears to have been a "hatchetman" who was utilized to either eliminate potentially unwanted individuals who had been recommended to the Commission, or to negate any influence which others may carry.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Olney

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warre...ort/letter.html

Assistant Counsel

FRANCIS W. H. ADAMS

Persons who either already knew too much, or else wanted ALL evidence released to the public, either did not get on the Commission or else were listed and served absolutely no purpose other than more "whitewash".

Katzenbach appears to have been a "hatchetman" who was utilized to either eliminate potentially unwanted individuals who had been recommended to the Commission, or to negate any influence which others may carry.

Gremlins again?

[John Dolva]

The full Memo is here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi...10135_0002a.htm (two pages)

It's Hoover who puts the spin on this that the public 'must be convinced'.

The Memos first paragraph is a call for full public disclosure. Then based on that the public is, (or is not), satisfied. This is quite the opposite of a call for coverup. Katzenbach calls the 'evidence' against Oswald 'too pat'.

Katzenbach showed his mettle during the Oxford Insurrection, earning the hatred of the segregationists. He had staunchly worked through the night with the threat of snipers and cuts in communication by dropping dimes in a campus telephone booth, reporting to the cabinet room where the Kennedys oversaw operations, and taking and passing on orders. He repeated this in Alabama, this time with immediate success. He was the Kennedy brothers Enforcer. He was no toady to the opposition. No friend to the assassins. Not a Walker.

Did he change his spots overnight?

Apparently this memo is taken as K and the FBI were ordering control of the investgation that ensures a particular outcome. Yet in the same memo there is the call for disclosure of findings.

What if those findings did not support 'this Oswald did it alone'?

Well, it seems to me that then the public would not be satisfied with that particular scenario. That's all. No mystery.

Then the findings, which the public would be made aware of, would show that there was a conspiracy. The case would fail in court. The test has been applied as per the memo, and failed. That's it.

The rest would follow.

____________

The opposite, as the memo tried to forestall, has happened. The public is not satisfied. Yet as far as those in power are concerned 'case closed'. In this regard the memo is a success. The call is still that the public must be satisfied that Oswald acted alone, that he was in deed the assassin and there was no Confederate involvement. They've had 43 years to accomplish this. Maybe it's time to accept that and stop the rounds of hearings as the memo warned against, and say : the public has not had satisfaction, the case has failed. (well, it's never even been tried in the first place, another failure, not of the memo but those who could act on it)

That's where full disclosure kicks in as the solution.. Again, this has not happened. It's not Katzenbachs or the memos fault but those who were in position to carry through on it failed by not doing so or were assassinated where they threatened to come into position to do so.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The full Memo is here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi...10135_0002a.htm (two pages)

It's Hoover who puts the spin on this that the public 'must be convinced'.

The Memos first paragraph is a call for full public disclosure. Then based on that the public is, (or is not), satisfied. This is quite the opposite of a call for coverup. Katzenbach calls the 'evidence' against Oswald 'too pat'.

Katzenbach showed his mettle during the Oxford Insurrection, earning the hatred of the segregationists. He had staunchly worked through the night with the threat of snipers and cuts in communication by dropping dimes in a campus telephone booth, reporting to the cabinet room where the Kennedys oversaw operations, and taking and passing on orders. He repeated this in Alabama, this time with immediate success. He was the Kennedy brothers Enforcer. He was no toady to the opposition. No friend to the assassins. Not a Walker.

Did he change his spots overnight?

Apparently this memo is taken as K and the FBI were ordering control of the investgation that ensures a particular outcome. Yet in the same memo there is the call for disclosure of findings.

What if those findings did not support 'this Oswald did it alone'?

Well, it seems to me that then the public would not be satisfied with that particular scenario. That's all. No mystery.

Then the findings, which the public would be made aware of, would show that there was a conspiracy. The case would fail in court. The test has been applied as per the memo, and failed. That's it.

The rest would follow.

____________

The opposite, as the memo tried to forestall, has happened. The public is not satisfied. Yet as far as those in power are concerned 'case closed'. In this regard the memo is a success. The call is still that the public must be satisfied that Oswald acted alone, that he was in deed the assassin and there was no Confederate involvement. They've had 43 years to accomplish this. Maybe it's time to accept that and stop the rounds of hearings as the memo warned against, and say : the public has not had satisfaction, the case has failed. (well, it's never even been tried in the first place, another failure, not of the memo but those who could act on it)

That's where full disclosure kicks in as the solution.. Again, this has not happened. It's not Katzenbachs or the memos fault but those who were in position to carry through on it failed by not doing so or were assassinated where they threatened to come into position to do so.

Making something "Public Property" as opposed to having complete "Public Access" to the property, are two separate things.

Supposedly, all of the information remains "Public Property".

Just that the Government does not feel that we need complete access to what reportedly is ours.

Kind of like holding our allowance as we can not be entrusted to spend it wisely.