Jump to content
The Education Forum

How wide was the conspiracy?


Recommended Posts

Can anyone figure out what this guy is saying, or how to answer it?

Ok now this depends on the level of conspiracy you believe in. If it is 2 or 3 people I could see it happening.

Now a conspiracy as you seem to be talking about(but whih you seem reluctant to directly talk about) would require more people.

If evidence was forged, if witnesses were silenced, if there was more than one shooter, if evidence was planted, this involves more and more people. As you are unwilling for whatever reason to specify what level of conspiracy you believe in, I would find it hard to put a number on it.

With all conspiracies the most important point is"how many people are involved". The wider the conspiracy the less plausible it becomes. How wide do you believe the conspiracy went?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone figure out what this guy is saying, or how to answer it?

Ok now this depends on the level of conspiracy you believe in. If it is 2 or 3 people I could see it happening.

Now a conspiracy as you seem to be talking about(but whih you seem reluctant to directly talk about) would require more people.

If evidence was forged, if witnesses were silenced, if there was more than one shooter, if evidence was planted, this involves more and more people. As you are unwilling for whatever reason to specify what level of conspiracy you believe in, I would find it hard to put a number on it.

With all conspiracies the most important point is"how many people are involved". The wider the conspiracy the less plausible it becomes. How wide do you believe the conspiracy went?

the people who wacked Hoffa have done just fine, haven't they?

shooters

armorers

paymasters

transportation

escape planners

patsey

erasers

maybe 30

but I personally knew a larger number of guys who were sitting off coast of Israel waiting for a go signal that never came some 35 yrs ago. Most have passed-none have talked-ever-and they never will. worked a training team with their Senior Training NCO for a decade-heard the story nine yrs after we started working together.

Edited by Evan Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intelligence network responsible for the covert action at Dealey Plaza were very experienced in what they were doing. They did it before and they've done it since.

Successful conspiracies are difficult to unravel because they are successful and those responsible took over the power of the presidency and the US government.

I think a reasonable comparison would be the July 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It too was not only an assassinaton, but an attempted coup, and if successful, those responsible would have taken over the Nazi government and agreed to a ceasefire, at least on the western front.

It was unsuccessful only because Hitler didn't die. Most of those involved in the logistics were immediately executed, as were many of their families, and eventually there were hundreds implicated and executed, including Rommell.

There are at least four people - Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft, Bernd Gisivious and Dr. Kutemeyer, who were involved in both operations.

They learned their lesson in 1944 and the victim was not going to leave Dealey Plaza alive.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:50 AM' post='98449']

I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:50 AM' post='98449']

I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

Dawn

If you are correct about this, Don - and I think you are - the mystery is essentially solved.

Since before the time of JFKs slaying, ownership of the US mass media has been dominated by (pick the correct answer from this multiple choice list):

Islamists

Britons

Russians

Australians

Mormons

Protestants

Africans

Catholics

Zionists

Giving 'Zionists' as the answer to this question - no matter how much evidence is adduced to support the proposition - has characteristically been a career destroying act in the western world.

I think that confirms what we need to know.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:50 AM' post='98449']

I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

Dawn

If you are correct about this, Don - and I think you are - the mystery is essentially solved.

Since before the time of JFKs slaying, ownership of the US mass media has been dominated by (pick the correct answer from this multiple choice list):

Islamists

Britons

Russians

Australians

Mormons

Protestants

Africans

Catholics

Zionists

Giving 'Zionists' as the answer to this question - no matter how much evidence is adduced to support the proposition - has characteristically been a career destroying act in the western world.

I think that confirms what we need to know.

The assassination of President Kennedy languishes in American history, and has become a caricature of sorts, in the national conciousness. The study of history has one particular limitation when it comes to conveying the reality of past events, irregardless of whether the topic is warfare, the life of a famous person or politics. The limitation is simply that there is no substitute for being there, and with the passing of time, as the persons associated with the subect matter pass into eternity the topic often loses a key component of accuracy. Nowhere is this more clear than with the death of President Kennedy. From a observers standpoint, it would likely appear that the current political situation [with regards to the verbal sparring between Republican’s and Democrat’s] has some bearing in the sense that Republican’s and many conservatives see the historical JFK as the antithesis of all that their dislike towards liberalism settles upon, whereas many Democrat’s see JFK as the embodiment of all that was once noble about America and its place in the world, and that is irrespective towards the issue of conspiracy. To dig deeper, one must realize that recorded historical events are not a final product, frozen forevermore; in the realm of historical study new information about an event such as World War 2 may occasionally rise, and historian’s will have an additional piece of a space-time continuum to add to the mix. There is no such impartiality to taboo subjects, and the assassination of JFK is the ultimate taboo in a country that has been increasingly tilting to the right for four decades and counting.

What of the issue of the higher-up’s? The apparatus of government in 1963. History bears out the fact that President Kennedy was indeed like Caesar, surrounded by enemies. Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, J.Edgar Hoover. That these men are directly implicated [Dulles, though not directly implicated, has to be considered suspect with regards to his obsfucation in not providing all the facts and documents pertaining to essential matters re the Castro assassination plots and the maze of disinformation regarding "Oswald" in Mexico City] in the mysterious, and not so mysterious circumstances of his assassination is a historical fact. Yet the subject has become anachronistic in a populace that is well known for a pervasive short-attention span, with regards to history.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:50 AM' post='98449']

I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

Dawn

If you are correct about this, Don - and I think you are - the mystery is essentially solved.

Since before the time of JFKs slaying, ownership of the US mass media has been dominated by (pick the correct answer from this multiple choice list):

Islamists

Britons

Russians

Australians

Mormons

Protestants

Africans

Catholics

Zionists

Giving 'Zionists' as the answer to this question - no matter how much evidence is adduced to support the proposition - has characteristically been a career destroying act in the western world.

I think that confirms what we need to know.

The assassination of President Kennedy languishes in American history, and has become a caricature of sorts, in the national conciousness. The study of history has one particular limitation when it comes to conveying the reality of past events, irregardless of whether the topic is warfare, the life of a famous person or politics. The limitation is simply that there is no substitute for being there, and with the passing of time, as the persons associated with the subect matter pass into eternity the topic often loses a key component of accuracy. Nowhere is this more clear than with the death of President Kennedy. From a observers standpoint, it would likely appear that the current political situation [with regards to the verbal sparring between Republican’s and Democrat’s] has some bearing in the sense that Republican’s and many conservatives see the historical JFK as the antithesis of all that their dislike towards liberalism settles upon, whereas many Democrat’s see JFK as the embodiment of all that was once noble about America and its place in the world, and that is irrespective towards the issue of conspiracy. To dig deeper, one must realize that recorded historical events are not a final product, frozen forevermore; in the realm of historical study new information about an event such as World War 2 may occasionally rise, and historian’s will have an additional piece of a space-time continuum to add to the mix. There is no such impartiality to taboo subjects, and the assassination of JFK is the ultimate taboo in a country that has been increasingly tilting to the right for four decades and counting.

What of the issue of the higher-up’s? The apparatus of government in 1963. History bears out the fact that President Kennedy was indeed like Caesar, surrounded by enemies. Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, J.Edgar Hoover. That these men are directly implicated [Dulles, though not directly implicated, has to be considered suspect with regards to his obsfucation in not providing all the facts and documents pertaining to essential matters re the Castro assassination plots and the maze of disinformation regarding "Oswald" in Mexico City] in the mysterious, and not so mysterious circumstances of his assassination is a historical fact. Yet the subject has become anachronistic in a populace that is well known for a pervasive short-attention span, with regards to history.

frankly, I did not like JFK and thought he was weak and indecisive in most instances-BUT, we vote the people we don't like out of office.

I'm sure I'm politically to the right of 99% of the people who participate here, but he was POTUS and he was murdered by a conspirarcy and I want to see the guilty held responsible regardless of their political leanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
[

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

Dawn

I think it's interesting to examine the cases of Jim Koethe, journalist in Jack Ruby's apartment the night of Ruby shooting Oswald; and Karyn Kupcinet, daughter of a powerful journalist and TV talk show host in Chicago, Irv Kupcinet.

Karyn was killed first. An unsolved murder, the apartment, in my opinion, made to look ransacked. Only thing missing: A large number of methamphetamines (Desoxyn) from her medicine chest. What about her fur coat hanging prominently in her closet, which was opened?

Then Jim Koethe. Dead from a karate chop to the neck less than a year later. Valuables were stolen, but some doubt if the man caught with some of his stolen merchandise, did the killing. If the 2 crimes are related, in Koethe's death, they learned to steal the valuables.

When Dorothy Kilgallen died, her best girlfriend and confidante, Florabel Muir, died 2 days later. No autopsy. Kilgallen was the only reporter to interview Ruby, alone for a few minutes.

Kathy

I wish to correct an error I found in this post of mine. I don't know who Florabel Muir is. The woman who was Kilgallen's confidante was Florence Pritchett. She died 2 days after Dorothy. They did not do an autopsy and chalked it up to natural causes. She knew what Dorothy knew about the assassination. Sorry that I provided incorrect info.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn: "Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63."

The full Memo is here, read that first before accepting the false interpretations:

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 obversely NOT), satisfied. This is quite the opposite to 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.)

Did he change his spots overnight? Hardly.

Again and again this memo is taken as Katzenbach (and therefore by implication one must include RFK (Katzenbachs Boss)) and the FBI were ordering control of the investgation that ensures a particular outcome.

Yet in the same memo there is the call for full disclosure of findings.

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

Well, obviously, 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, (had the memo been fulflled to the letter) 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'.

The call is STILL that the public must be satisfied that Oswald acted alone, that he was indeed 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 the full disclosure, that Katzenbachs Memo asked for, 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 (RFK) where they threatened to come into position to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I think you're being way too kind to Katzenbach here. I'm quite familiar with the entire memo, and I don't think I'm misreading its meaning. Let's look at it:

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. 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.

You are reading this as a call for the truth; I think it clearly says that the public "must be" satisfied with the lone assassin scenario. Otherwise, why not simply state that "a thorough and honest investigation must be conducted into all the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of the primary suspect."

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

Could the desire to cover up the truth be any more obvious than "speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off?" Why would an honest government official not want to investigate the motive behind the assassination of the president? I read the "too pat" comment as being simply part of an effort to stop the initial local theorizing in Dallas about Oswald being part of a communist conspiracy. Katzenbach doesn't want there to be any conspiracy, not even one directed from Moscow or Havana.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Katzenbach again signals his desire to bury the truth quickly with his objection to "Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." He was just one of several powerful people already laying the groundwork for the establishment of the Warren Commission.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I think you're being way too kind to Katzenbach here. I'm quite familiar with the entire memo, and I don't think I'm misreading its meaning. Let's look at it:

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. 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.

You are reading this as a call for the truth; I think it clearly says that the public "must be" satisfied with the lone assassin scenario. Otherwise, why not simply state that "a thorough and honest investigation must be conducted into all the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of the primary suspect."

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

Could the desire to cover up the truth be any more obvious than "speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off?" Why would an honest government official not want to investigate the motive behind the assassination of the president? I read the "too pat" comment as being simply part of an effort to stop the initial local theorizing in Dallas about Oswald being part of a communist conspiracy. Katzenbach doesn't want there to be any conspiracy, not even one directed from Moscow or Havana.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Katzenbach again signals his desire to bury the truth quickly with his objection to "Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." He was just one of several powerful people already laying the groundwork for the establishment of the Warren Commission.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

Don, a reasoned and respectful response, thank you. I am aware that it is posible to interpret the Memo in this way (and others).

However (I think), in context of those very first days, hours, SPECULATION was rife and if not confirmed by a factual, open. full disclosure. investigation of amongst other things "The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced." and their right off the bat 'Oswald a communist nut did it and that's it' followed by R Oliver's , D. Smoots, Ned Touchstone et al and various other nations arguments this way and that, Oswald was 'silenced' ie he could not speak in his own defence at any trial. So he called for a case that would stand up to trial and if it did, then satisfaction could be had by the public. (and throughout this matter, Katzenbach, as assistant Attorney General, and, by implication, his superior, Attorney General Robert F.Kennedy)

"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." IOW the possibility exists that the public (full disclosure assumed) may NOT be satisfied. If that would have been the case (which if IMO the evidence had existed to the contrary then another set of 'rulings', 'memos' or whatever would automatically follow.)

Therefore, Katzenbach:

"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off (BOTH, my insetion/ emphasis) public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

is akin to a continuation of a Kennedy's government MO of his at that time, (dead) President, Kennedy. IOW a balanced appeal for sense and stability. The fact that WC and the numerous other following hearings 'of the wrong sort' ensued can't be taken as his fault. This was written in a particular atmosphere. I think there is a good argument that his memo is a reasoned response.

To support this contention I included the description of Katzenbachs action as one of the Kennedy's men. Particularly: 'under fire', a proven cool customer.

Johnson was still not a 'real' president to many.

The memo was written. Then events unfolded. The basic intent of the memo for a case that Oswald was indeed as speculation had it, a lone nut, or a part of a conspiracy, was correctly dealt with by calling for a provable case absent of the defendant.

That this did not happen, and despite a number of other 'hearings of the wrong sort' satisfaction is lacking. Therefore the memo is proper and has been successful. What it called for has not been forthcoming, and it still stands.

In my opinion, that it has been, and continues to be, 'brushed aside' (or misused) with analysis that (IMO) support the obfuscation of the conspirators is really the important point.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I think you're being way too kind to Katzenbach here. I'm quite familiar with the entire memo, and I don't think I'm misreading its meaning. Let's look at it:

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. 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.

You are reading this as a call for the truth; I think it clearly says that the public "must be" satisfied with the lone assassin scenario. Otherwise, why not simply state that "a thorough and honest investigation must be conducted into all the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of the primary suspect."

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

Could the desire to cover up the truth be any more obvious than "speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off?" Why would an honest government official not want to investigate the motive behind the assassination of the president? I read the "too pat" comment as being simply part of an effort to stop the initial local theorizing in Dallas about Oswald being part of a communist conspiracy. Katzenbach doesn't want there to be any conspiracy, not even one directed from Moscow or Havana.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Katzenbach again signals his desire to bury the truth quickly with his objection to "Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." He was just one of several powerful people already laying the groundwork for the establishment of the Warren Commission.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

The case is a lot more complicated than most people want to believe. It wasn't some lone nut guy killing the president and then grieving paranoids making up a big fat conspiracy myth. Nor was it a big fat evil government killing the president and then enlisting their buddies the media to help them cover it up.

The country was in a state of chaos after the killing. Men like Katzenbach and Moyers believed it was their duty to enlist their friends in the media to help calm the public down. This meant, at least temporarily, assuring the public what they themselves did not know--that Oswald acted alone. The media, as usual (think of the build up to war in Iraq), played ball. A few weeks later, after Hoover had leaked his report, the media began to really believe Oswald acted alone. Meanwhile, Warren was deliberately dragging his feet. By the time the Warren Commission BEGAN its investigation, the media, on Hoover's cue, had already sold the public that Oswald acted alone. The Warren Commission by this time realized that they were there to rubber-stamp that Oswald acted alone, and basically went through the motions.

SO... did any of these men KNOW there was a conspiracy? It's doubtful. And yet they covered up the truth in the name of bureaucratic necessity...national security. Basically, Johnson was scared people would blame him and they all rushed to the aid of their frightened president. The same way everyone lined up behind Bush after 9/11. The more I think about it the more revolted I am. I think the constitution should be changed and the office of President abolished. We don't serve him...he serves US.

Chapter 1-3 of patspeer.com describe this in more detail. Feel free to check it out.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Dorothy Kilgallen died, her best girlfriend and confidante, Florabel Muir, died 2 days later. No autopsy. Kilgallen was the only reporter to interview Ruby, alone for a few minutes.

Kathy

I wish to correct an error I found in this post of mine. I don't know who Florabel Muir is. The woman who was Kilgallen's confidante was Florence Pritchett. She died 2 days after Dorothy. They did not do an autopsy and chalked it up to natural causes. She knew what Dorothy knew about the assassination. Sorry that I provided incorrect info.

Kathy

When I raised this issue on my website and on this forum, Florence Pritchett's son, Earl Smith III, said that she had been suffering from leukemia. The interesting thing about Pritchett was she was married to Earl Smith, the former US ambassador to Cuba and right-wing activist. It is possible that she was Dorothy Kilgallen's main source for her proposed book on the assassination. She was also probably the source for Kilgallen's stories about the CIA being involved in the assassination plots against Castro that were reported in New York American. Florence was definitely a source on JFK as they two had been lovers since 1944. In fact, JFK would have married her if she had not been married before. You can read all about this fascinating woman here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsmithF.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country was in a state of chaos after the killing. Men like Katzenbach and Moyers believed it was their duty to enlist their friends in the media to help calm the public down. This meant, at least temporarily, assuring the public what they themselves did not know--that Oswald acted alone. The media, as usual (think of the build up to war in Iraq), played ball. A few weeks later, after Hoover had leaked his report, the media began to really believe Oswald acted alone. Meanwhile, Warren was deliberately dragging his feet. By the time the Warren Report BEGAN its investigation, the media, on Hoover's cue, had already sold the public that Oswald acted alone. The Warren Commission by this time realized that they were there to rubber-stamp that Oswald acted alone, and basically went through the motions.

Pat,

I agree with Don. I think you and John D are being too kind to Katzenbach.

It's hard to misinterpret point 1.,

the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial

I can only see this as an urgent call for a coverup. How did he know there were no confederates of Oswald still at large? And he's basically calling for Oswald to be framed. Isn't that a bizarre thing for the Deputy AG to say? He's not calling for an open investigation with full public disclosure of the facts. I can't see how it could be interpreted that way. I also think he's writing like someone who knows at lot more than the public knows.

The aftermath of the assassination would have been interesting times to witness and I envy those who did. Maybe some of those on the Forum who were around could gives their thoughts on this. Was the atmosphere so chaotic that Katzenbach's memo could be interpreted as a valiant attempt to restore calm? My view is that the people were more stunned than anything else but I could be wrong.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
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...