How wide was the conspiracy?

[Sid Walker]

Once again, Katzenbach was in the right place at the right time to help hose down untoward angst in Washington over the USS Liberty attack - see

Notes of a Meeting of the Special Committee of the National Security Council, June 9, 1967.

[Pat Speer]

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.

Mark, I don't think it was a valiant effort. What many miss is that ONCE Oswald was captured, and the evidence against him started piling up, the great fear was that right-wing groups such as the JBS would seize upon the assassination as a battle cry for WWIII. The missile crisis was but a year earlier. Katzenbach's statements such as "speculation should be cut off etc." are short for "speculation (that Oswald was working for the Russians or Cubans)" should be cut off. The great unspoken, of course, was that "speculation (that Johnson or some right-wing group supporting Johnson killed Kennedy)" should be cut off as well. If you read Katzenbach's HSCA testimony you'll see that he had to explain this document, and he told them he wrote the memo in response to pressure from the State Department, who were trying to build up Johnson's stature overseas. The concern was that questions about Johnson's involvement would impede his ability to conduct foreign policy and weaken the U.S.' stature in the cold war. As a result, the whole of the government got in line and cleared Johnson, by refusing to question Hoover's case against Oswald. Now was this right? Absolutely not. I find it revolting. But if I'd been there at the time, and thought I'd known Kennedy, and thought I'd known Johnson, and had found it ridiculous to think Johnson was behind the assassination, maybe I would have played ball.

What's important about this is that those, such as Warren, who claim that believing in conspiracy entails believing a widespread conspiracy and deliberate cover-up, are blowing smoke. If someone asks you to make a case supporting what you think is PROBABLY true, and you play along for the "greater good" etc., that's not the same as covering up. Did the American media "cover-up" that there were no WMDS in Iraq? No way. They were sold a bill of goods by the White House and "helped" the White House make its case, presumably for the "greater good." Now, realizing they were played, they are exacting their revenge. The same thing happened to LBJ. The media gave him the benefit of the doubt and helped sell the public that Oswald acted alone. Years later, they went after him big time, helping to end his presidency, and printing the Pentagon Papers to help destroy his legacy.

[John Dolva]

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.

Mark, I don't think it was a valiant effort. What many miss is that ONCE Oswald was captured, and the evidence against him started piling up, the great fear was that right-wing groups such as the JBS would seize upon the assassination as a battle cry for WWIII. The missile crisis was but a year earlier. Katzenbach's statements such as "speculation should be cut off etc." are short for "speculation (that Oswald was working for the Russians or Cubans)" should be cut off. The great unspoken, of course, was that "speculation (that Johnson or some right-wing group supporting Johnson killed Kennedy)" should be cut off as well. If you read Katzenbach's HSCA testimony you'll see that he had to explain this document, and he told them he wrote the memo in response to pressure from the State Department, who were trying to build up Johnson's stature overseas. The concern was that questions about Johnson's involvement would impede his ability to conduct foreign policy and weaken the U.S.' stature in the cold war. As a result, the whole of the government got in line and cleared Johnson, by refusing to question Hoover's case against Oswald. Now was this right? Absolutely not. I find it revolting. But if I'd been there at the time, and thought I'd known Kennedy, and thought I'd known Johnson, and had found it ridiculous to think Johnson was behind the assassination, maybe I would have played ball.

What's important about this is that those, such as Warren, who claim that believing in conspiracy entails believing a widespread conspiracy and deliberate cover-up, are blowing smoke. If someone asks you to make a case supporting what you think is PROBABLY true, and you play along for the "greater good" etc., that's not the same as covering up. Did the American media "cover-up" that there were no WMDS in Iraq? No way. They were sold a bill of goods by the White House and "helped" the White House make its case, presumably for the "greater good." Now, realizing they were played, they are exacting their revenge. The same thing happened to LBJ. The media gave him the benefit of the doubt and helped sell the public that Oswald acted alone. Years later, they went after him big time, helping to end his presidency, and printing the Pentagon Papers to help destroy his legacy.

Mr. DODD - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Katzenbach, nice to have you here with us today. I suppose that an awful lot of the speculation that grew out of the Warren Commission, after the completion of its work, over the past 15 years, a lot of it stemmed, and I will ask if you agree or disagree with this--stemmed from the memorandum, the so-called memorandum from Mr. Moyers, the November 25 memorandum that you drafted and sent to Bill Moyers. As I recall, over the past 15 years, on any number of occasions I have either read or heard people refer to that first paragraph in that memorandum, three points, and I will quote it for you, then-I don't know if you have a copy or not, I will see that you get one in front of you. I am quoting here: 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. This was November 25, 1963, 3 days after the assassination. Now, unfortunately they don't always quote the other paragraphs in that memorandum, which I think to an extent mellow that single paragraph, but still that paragraph has been quoted extensively as an indication that the Warren Commission was really a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it was not designed to investigate the assassination of the President from a de novo position, but rather to confirm what the FBI had already concluded, what the Dallas police had concluded, and that, therefore, the Warren Commission didn't really fulfill its obligation, the obligation that Chief Justice Warren outlined when he said our responsibility is to get at the truth. I am creating that scenario for you because that is how I think it has been portrayed over the years. I have listened today to you talk about the various motivations, and it is hard, one can only sympathize, not empathize, with your position in those days, what it must have been like to be in the position you were in and have the responsibilities you had. Can you tell this committee, or help us try and straighten out what your motivation was at that moment that you wrote those words--and this is 3 days after the assassination--"the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin." Why was it so important that the public be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin?

Mr. KATZENBACH - Because, very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that that was the correct conclusion. My whole attitude in that memorandum, and I think it is contained or reflected in other paragraphs that you mentioned, I think it was reflected in other conversations, other memorandums that you have, one overwhelming feeling that I had, and that was in the assassination of the President of the United States, all of the facts, all of the evidence, everything that was relevant to that had to be made public.

Mr. DODD - You say then, I should quote--in fact, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that this memorandum, if it is not already admitted into evidence, be admitted now.

Chairman STOKES - I believe it is already in part of the evidence. Mr. DODD. I think all of it should be there. You say in the first paragraph: 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 all that the facts have been told and a statement to this effect be made now. I think that is fine, but still I am perplexed, absolutely perplexed, on why it was in the public interest to prove that Oswald was the one, and that as reflected in the next sentence, did not have confederates who were still at large. Why was it so important to prove that 3 days after the assassination?

Mr. KATZENBACH - Because for the very simple reason, if that was not a fact, and all the facts were not on the table, then it seemed to me that nobody was going to be satisfied, and I thought that the public was entitled--if there was a conspiracy, then we ought to say there was a conspiracy. If there were confederates at large, it ought to be said there were confederates at large. I knew then already that Oswald had been in Russia, Oswald had been in Mexico. Now, if you are going to conclude, as the Bureau was concluding that this was not part of a conspiracy, that there were no confederates, then you had to make that case, with all of the facts, absolutely persuasive. If you didn't reveal these facts, somebody else was going to reveal them. Now, if there was a conspiracy, there was a conspiracy, and you put those facts out. But if you were persuaded Oswald was a lone killer, you had better put all of the facts out and you better not cover up anything, and you better say now all of the facts are going to be made public. That was the advice I was giving Moyers and that was the advice I was giving the President and that was the motivation for the Warren Commission. I don't think this is artistically phrased. Perhaps you have never written anything that you would like to write better afterwards, Congressman, but I have.

Mr. DODD - You won't get me to say that.

Mr. KATZENBACH - But I think if you take that, take the other paragraphs of it, take other things I was quoted as saying, other things I said, that there is a consistent view on my part.

Mr. DODD - I didn't want to pull this out of context. I want to make sure it is all in there. In fairness to you, it should all be in there.

Mr. KATZENBACH - I was very conscious of those facts which were going to be seized upon. Is this a Russian conspiracy? And I was very conscious, perhaps as a little bit of a history buff, that nobody ever put to bed satisfactorily the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. DODD - You seemed in the next paragraph--I quote you again here--you say: Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, et cetera). 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. Am I off base there in detecting a feeling that you had on November 25, 1963, that there was something more to this, that you felt, in fact, whether intuitively or based on other information, that this guy had been set up, Oswald was not alone? I sense that in that paragraph, reading it word for word, and carefully, that you had some thoughts running through your mind, and you were expressing them to Bill Moyers in those words.

Mr. KATZENBACH - I don't think I had a view one way or the other, other than what I was being told the FBI investigation had, but I was saying you have got a lot of facts here, if you say Oswald was the lone killer, he wasn't in conspiracy with anyone, had nothing to do with any foreign government, you have got a lot of awkward facts that you are going to have to explain, and you had better explain them satisfactorily You had better put it all out on the table.

IF>THEN etc. This naturally presupooses: IF NOT>THEN...

Straightforward and simple...Katzenbach makes it very clear.

One has to consider the known (to Katzenbach) antipathy between the Kennedy's and the FBI (Hoover) and the known (to K) Hoover dominace whereby the FBI (Hoover) did not appreciate being a part of a commission in any but an independent investigatory body.

Katzenbach had to balance a number of considerations. He was first and foremost a lawyer, with a particular interest in foreign affairs. Probably one reason Kennedy choose him as part of the team in 1961.

It's only in the comfort of hindsight that the misinterpretations of his Memo can be made as they suit or not suit any particular consoiracy theory.

Katzenbach had real enemies.

RFK announced he would run for president.

RFK announced he would reopen the JFK assassination investigation.

RFK was assassinated.

It wouldn't surprise me if after Oxford '62, and then Alabama, Katzenbach (along with McShane*) was on the 'hit list'.

a prolonged campaign was launched to discredit both including the (discredited now as a lie) Dallas, Simms co. produced film "Oxford, USA".

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...32|1|1|1|82946|

Dan Smoot, Revilo oliveR, Ned Touchstone, Gen.Walker, the DPD, Hoover et al were some of the primary original Conspiracy Theorists. In fact as other topics have shown it appears their conspiracy theories were already in place, and kicked in from day one.

Others were Earl Warren, Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. For them it was an instinctive reaction.

In My Opinion: In various forms, (unfortunately with a disproportionate prominance) the first groups ideas, now in many instances proven falsifications, continue to dominate and lead astray.

The second groups idea, and that instinctively had by many 'lesser' individuals, has largely fallen by the wayside. Therefore we have today an excellent opportuity to solve the case, as much of the material has not been giveb the attention and hence not as readily sanitized.

This in itself can be seen as an indicator of the true source of the conspiracy.

(IMO) : 'the Conspiracy Theorist' (often, unfortunately, unwittingly) 'is the Conspirators best friend'.

Edited May 1, 2007 by John Dolva

[Kathleen Collins]

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

Thanks for the info and the link. In one section of the biography it says Dorothy Kilgallen did not have either a lethal dose of barbituates or a lethal dose of alcohol. But the combination killed her. This reminds me of the Anna Nichole case. Cyril Wecht and others said the same thing -- that Anna did not have a lethal dose of any drug, but in combination the drugs she had in her system killed her. (Plus she was suffering from some bad infection and her body temperature went up to 105.)

Another thing, and this could be applied to Irv Kupcinet:

"In 1965 Dorothy Kilgallen managed to obtain a private interview with Jack Ruby. She told friends that she had information that would "break the case wide open". Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, Kilgallen handed her interview notes to Florence Smith. She told friends that she had obtained information that Ruby and J. D. Tippit were friends and that David Ferrie was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

On 8th November, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, was found dead in her New York apartment. She was fully dressed and sitting upright in her bed. The police reported that she had died from taking a cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates."

Kupcinet, a Chicago columnist, was trying to get as much info as possible on the Chicago angle re the assassination. His daughter was murdered on Thanksgiving 1963. The homicide was never solved.

Kathy