Jump to content
The Education Forum

Good summary of presentation by Ed Tatro


Recommended Posts

http://www.olneydailymail.com/articles/200...xt#blogcomments

"Author pokes holes in official Kennedy theory

By Kevin Ryden

Published: Monday, May 7, 2007 3:03 PM CDT

...

LBJ

While the Mafia, CIA, Russians, Cubans and any number of groups could have killed Kennedy, Tatro said, they could not get Kennedy's car to drive only 11 mph without a bubbletop through Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

That came from within LBJ's powerful inner circle and some of the Secret Service, according to Tatro, who did not have kind words about the 36th president of the United States.

“He was one of the most amoral human beings who ever lived,” he said. “I think he's second only to Hitler.”

...

Johnson was friends with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and had information about Kennedy's womanizing and other issues and bribed his way into being on the ticket, Tatro said.

He said notes from Kennedy's former secretary, Eleanor Lincoln, indicated that JFK wanted to drop LBJ from the ticket.

“So, there's your motive,” he said.

Trip to Texas

On April 23, 1963, Johnson went on Texas radio to announce that Kennedy would be coming to the state in the fall. Neither Kennedy or the White House ever announced that, Tatro said.

The only reason Kennedy decided to go, according to Tatro, was to attend a ceremonial dinner for an ailing Texas congressman.

Jack Valenti, who died last Thursday, invited Kennedy and was a close and loyal friend to Johnson. “That's how they got him (Kennedy) there,” Tatro said.

Valenti married Johnson's secretary, with whom Johnson had an affair, Tatro claimed. Valenti's daughter ended up tall “with big ears,” he said, alleging that Valenti's daughter was, in fact, Johnson's.

...

The route the motorcade took in Dealey Plaza was surrounded by buildings and trees, he emphasized, something that bothered Jerry Bruno, who scouted the area for security for Kennedy.

Texas Gov. John Connally, another close friend to Johnson who was sitting next to Kennedy in the motorcade and was shot, pushed for the route Bruno did not like, according to Tatro. Expressing his displeasure to Bruno's advice, Connally apparently stated, “This is not how we do it in Texas,” Tatro said, later alleging that Connally's job was to “sucker Kennedy to get (him) to Texas.”

Bruno was asked by the White House to come back to Washington, D.C., and another aide was sent to smooth over relations with Connally.

That man, Tatro said, was Bill Moyers, who is now a famous journalist and public commentator. “One of the greatest men of all time. Hogwash,” Tatro said sarcastically.

When Moyers was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Tatro said he was “less than clear on all the details” and could not recall if he had ever even visited Dallas.

...

Those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman have the funds and technology to make their point, Tatro said, adding that people like him have limited resources.

Jack Ruby

After Ruby was convicted of killing Oswald, he wrote a lot of letters from prison.

In one of those letters, Tatro said Ruby wrote, “If you hear honking of horns, it will be me. They will want my blood.”

Tatro played an audio recording of the newscast in which Oswald was shot. In the recording, one hard honk can be heard, followed by a soft honk and then the gunshot that killed Oswald.

Tatro believes Ruby was “trying to squeal.”

Tatro noted a disparaging quote by Ruby about Johnson: “Compared to Lyndon Johnson, I am a saint.”

Ruby also made many telephone calls while in prison to powerful individuals within organized crime, but the Warren Commission never investigated, Tatro said.

In the late 1970s, the Washington Post published an editorial which stated that two shooters who did not know each other could have killed Kennedy.

Tatro downplayed the editorial and said it showed “how stupid” the Washington Post believed people were.

The Warren Commission

...

The Canadian government also destroyed documents about Oswald, Tatro said after explaining that he tried to obtain that information in 1990.

“If the guy did it alone and is a nut, what are you destroying this stuff for?” Tatro asked.

Former President Gerald Ford was a member of the commission. In 1966, he wrote a book, “Portrait of the Assassin,” which explained that Oswald acted alone.

Tatro said Ford had the book published regardless of knowing that all Warren Commission members were barred from profiting from their knowledge. The book also contained top-secret information, which Tatro said Ford did not have permission to print.

“That's treason,” he said.

Ford was never charged with any wrongdoing.

Popular but canceled

In 2003, Tatro was part of a History Channel program called “The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Guilty Men.” Part of the program discussed Johnson's alleged involvement.

According to Tatro, it was the History Channel's highest-rated show ever and made more than $2 million in DVD sales.

After the program concluded, Johnson's former advisors, including Valenti and Moyers, demanded the show never be played on the cable network again, Tatro said.

The show was removed from the History Channel's programming.

Kevin Ryden can be reached at kryden@olneydailymail.com."

---

Has anyone read anything about LBJ bribing his way onto the ticket in 1960? Doesn't really makes sense to me. Kennedy had plenty of money.

Some of the info is new to me and I don't know if it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone read anything about LBJ bribing his way onto the ticket in 1960? Doesn't really makes sense to me. Kennedy had plenty of money.

Some of the info is new to me and I don't know if it's true.

Myra, I've met Ed a couple of times. He knows more about Johnson--and his possible involvement--than just about anybody. He is a bit over the top, however. He really hates Johnson. I mean REALLY hates Johnson.

As far as Johnson bribing his way onto the ticket, that's doubtful. The more likely story is one you'll find in the history books. These indicate that JFK offered the second position to Johnson with the expectation Johnson would refuse. Johnson was, after all, the Senate's majority leader, an extremely powerful position. If JFK hadn't offered the position to LBJ it could have made for a difficult presidency. So he made the offer, and was shocked when LBJ said yes. Reportedly, LBJ was talked into saying yes by some of the leading lights of the party--"it's best for the party, etc,." There are some reports that RFK visited LBJ the next day to try and get him to change his mind, but that LBJ refused, and that this was a factor in their mutual contempt, but that's neither here nor there.

What is clear is that, with the vice-presidency, LBJ was given a few extra perks. Kennedy allowed Johnson a measure of control over all Federal business in Texas, and over the Navy. Two consecutive secretaries of the Navy were Johnson cronies with ties to the oil industry--Connally and Korth. Both would eventually be exposed in corruption scandals. It is LBJ's close connection to Navy, along with Oswald's connection to the Marines (a division of the Navy) that leads some to wonder if Oswald wasn't working for the Office of Naval Intelligence (basically the CIA of the Navy). Unfortunately, the Pentagon's files on Oswald were "routinely destroyed" or some such nonsense. so we' may never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra, I've met Ed a couple of times. He knows more about Johnson--and his possible involvement--than just about anybody. He is a bit over the top, however. He really hates Johnson. I mean REALLY hates Johnson.

...

To know Johnson is to hate him. What's not to hate?

Myra, I've met Ed a couple of times. He knows more about Johnson--and his possible involvement--than just about anybody. He is a bit over the top, however. He really hates Johnson. I mean REALLY hates Johnson.

As far as Johnson bribing his way onto the ticket, that's doubtful. The more likely story is one you'll find in the history books. These indicate that JFK offered the second position to Johnson with the expectation Johnson would refuse. Johnson was, after all, the Senate's majority leader, an extremely powerful position. If JFK hadn't offered the position to LBJ it could have made for a difficult presidency. So he made the offer, and was shocked when LBJ said yes. Reportedly, LBJ was talked into saying yes by some of the leading lights of the party--"it's best for the party, etc,." There are some reports that RFK visited LBJ the next day to try and get him to change his mind, but that LBJ refused, and that this was a factor in their mutual contempt, but that's neither here nor there.

...

Pat, I find it more likely that Bobby Baker persuaded LBJ to take the VP slot because he knew that climbing over a dead president was the only way his southern Senator boss would ever be president. I think vile ol' Senator Kerr was on board with it too.

Agree that it's very unlikely that he bribed his way onto the ticket.

...

What is clear is that, with the vice-presidency, LBJ was given a few extra perks. Kennedy allowed Johnson a measure of control over all Federal business in Texas, and over the Navy. Two consecutive secretaries of the Navy were Johnson cronies with ties to the oil industry--Connally and Korth. Both would eventually be exposed in corruption scandals. It is LBJ's close connection to Navy, along with Oswald's connection to the Marines (a division of the Navy) that leads some to wonder if Oswald wasn't working for the Office of Naval Intelligence (basically the CIA of the Navy). Unfortunately, the Pentagon's files on Oswald were "routinely destroyed" or some such nonsense. so we' may never know.

Mmm, interesting. Wasn't aware of that possible link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

There's also this: In 1956, Joe Kennedy tried to convince LBJ to run for President with JFK as his running mate. This would have allowed JFK to mitigate problems about his religion - from the safety of the number 2 position - and do so with a national platform. Whether or not LBJ was elected in '56 was beside the point. The main goal was to get JFK onto a ticket, deal with inevitable problems, so that he'd be stronger for '60 or '64 if need be.

When LBJ refused, Bobby Kennedy was furious - and thus began their animosity.

Now here's a greenhorn fact for you: I read the above info somewhere in the past few days but I can't remember the source - a hazard of speed-surfing. So if anyone can chime in with supportive details, it would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Joe Kennedy's offer to finance an LBJ/JFK ticket in 1956 and LBJ's refusal to run (that is, run openly) for the nomination is discussed on pages 646-647 of the LBJ biography Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.

The man who delivered the offer and the refusal was Tommy Corcoran. He said that Bobby was infuriated, as Bobby "believed it was unforgiveably discourteous to turn down his father's generous offer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
Mark,

Joe Kennedy's offer to finance an LBJ/JFK ticket in 1956 and LBJ's refusal to run (that is, run openly) for the nomination is discussed on pages 646-647 of the LBJ biography Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.

The man who delivered the offer and the refusal was Tommy Corcoran. He said that Bobby was infuriated, as Bobby "believed it was unforgiveably discourteous to turn down his father's generous offer."

Thank you, Ron. Next I'll start losing nouns when I talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Joe Kennedy's offer to finance an LBJ/JFK ticket in 1956 and LBJ's refusal to run (that is, run openly) for the nomination is discussed on pages 646-647 of the LBJ biography Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.

The man who delivered the offer and the refusal was Tommy Corcoran. He said that Bobby was infuriated, as Bobby "believed it was unforgiveably discourteous to turn down his father's generous offer."

Thank you, Ron. Next I'll start losing nouns when I talk.

Thank you Ron AND Mark.

I've been wanting to read Caro's LBJ books anyway; I think he has the right perspective on the man (i.e., "what's not to hate?"). So I'll have to get going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new

book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge

Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl

representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly

complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the

crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend,

Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses

excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's

presentation.

Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, the journalist with CIA links,

who interviewed Oswald in Russia and subsequently pegged him in a

published article shortly after 11/22/63 as an obvious loser who must

have killed JFK, sat one row in front of me, but approximately 20

seats away. She kept turning around to look at me. I expected she

recognized me from somewhere, but couldn't remember who I was. One row

behind me, and two rows directly behind MacMillan sat a couple who

clearly recognized me, but I didn't know who they were at the time.

Bugliosi began his speech by complaining about the podium

which possessed wheels. As a result he couldn't lean on it at all. He

also complained about the instability of his microphone stand. He

admitted that he complains all the time and employs sarcasm

incessantly. He interjected an anecdote about a hotel room in which

the bathroom light didn't work unless he managed to push a switch near

the front door of his room.

He made mention about the difficulty in pronouncing his name

which clearly irritates him since he has brought the issue up at other

speaking engagements. He cited one person who called him, "Mr. Bella

Lugosi." The audienced found his schtick amusing.

The rest of the night was all business, selective preference

dripping in condescending ire. Bugliosi called Reclaiming History, "A

book for the ages." He made it clear that "Modesty is not a vitue" in

his self-absorbed mind. He felt it a necessity to be assertive and

confident in overdrive in order to assure all conspiracy theorists

that he is beyond reproach in integrity and fighting spirit, that they

just can't beat his positions on the JFK matter. He admitted that he

wanted to make a lot of money, but that marketability was second in

priority to scholarship. There is no question in my mind that Bugliosi

absolutely loves himself and intentionally projects that image, one

that also oozes with controlled disdain while on stage.

He said that he could have prosecuted Oswald in

two-three-four days, but after 44 years of conspiracy books, the JFK

assassination has become "the most complex murder case in history." It

has become a "bottomless pit" and that admission may have been his one

assertion that will not be challenged.

Basically, his speech paraphrased the introduction to his

book and the half hour filmed interview available on his web site. His

primary contention is Oswald's sole guilt. He cited that 53 pieces of

evidence confirm that Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit

murders and he rattled off five points concerning the matter....

Oswald owned the Carcano; he was the only TSBD employee to flee; he

killed Tippit; he pulled a gun at the theatre where he was arrested;

and he lied about owning a rifle. Bugiosi knows Oswald lied because

the backyard photos show him with the rifle.

Bugliosi boasts that "no reasonable person" can disagree

with him. The unyielding arrogance and unmitigated self-assurance of

his declarations were endless--- No credible evidence of conspiracy

exists. Bugliosi admits that motive, means and opportunity abounded

for many organizations to commit the crime, but these basics, espoused

constantly by conspiracy theorists, are just not enough. Motives prove

nothing. Besides, the FBI found no Oswald connections to groups like

the Mafia or the CIA, and no one who is "credible" has ever leaked

anything substantiating a conspiracy.

The integrity of the FBI, is obviously unquestioned by

Bugliosi as he made his assertions, and the definition of "credible"

certainly is one that might be interesting to determine if a phalanx

of reseachers were allowed open access to him in a proper forum.

Bugliosi states as fact that Oswald was such a loser that

no organization would have trusted him as a hired killer, and that the

Mob or the CIA would have killed him instantly, if they had employed

him. He cited that he has amassed 32 concrete proofs that no

conspiracy existed and those who believe in a conspriacy are either

silly or ignorant of the evidence. The simmering rage and belittling

of "conspiracy buffs" was ever-present.

Bugliosi stated that the parade route was set so late that

no conspirators could have been ready in time. To think otherwise is

just "silly." He explained the head snap as a neuro-muscular reaction,

that the Zapruder frames show a 2.3 inch forward head movement before

the eventual snap backward. And anyone who alleges that the Zapruder

film has been altered is a fool. Before answering questions from the

audience, he made it clear that no other weapons were found and no

other bullets were discovered either.

I do not claim that the above synopsis covers everything

Bugliosi offered, but it covers most of his overview. The questions

asked by the audience showed little or no knowledge of the inticate

and complex aspects of the case. Most annoying were those who gushed

over him like rock and roll groupies as well as the philosophical

questions as to why the masses would (foolishly) buy into conspiracy

theories. Such discussion never pressed Bugliosi to defend any of his

premises and the Q & A was so short-lived, there was little time to

engage him in any meaningful dialogue.

One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a xxxx at

one point and Bugliosi just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's

outburst tended to reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists"

are obsessive and rude in their approach to the case. Audience members

behind Marsh lashed out at him later as book buyers lined up for

Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh angrily shouted back at them.

At this point I walked over to Priscilla Johnson

MacMillan and asked her if I could get a photograph of the two of us

together. The gentleman who had sat behind her offered to take the

picture. I thought I might be able to use it if I ever publish my own

book about the complicity of LBJ, his handlers and his cronies in the

Dealey Plaza caper.

She asked me who I was, and I told her that I had

testified before President Clinton's Assassination Records Review

Board (ARRB) in Boston in 1995 right after her testimony. I told her I

was a member of those who spoke in Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men,"

that I had corresponded with Oswald's mother, was friendly with Marina

Oswald and Judyth Baker. I concluded by saying that I disagreed with

everything Bugiosi had just said.

The man who took the photo was named Paul and he told me

that he had taken my course years ago at Quincy College. His derisive

tone was such that it was evident to me that he was rejecting

EVERYTHING I had ever said in twenty-five hours of class (3,000

slides). I was momentarily stunned and a little hurt. I told him that

my class was twenty years ago and I added, "Imagine what I know now."

He replied, "Unless you can link that little weasel, Oswald, to LBJ,

you don't have a case." His constant smile was hard and unfriendly.

I tried briefly to cite a few issues, (nine witnesses

who observed a bullet hole in the windshield), but he had no intention

of listening. I was just not "there" in his closed mind. As I walked

away, knowing the futility of pursuing any meaningful interaction, I

was thinking to myself that I knew Oswald's best friend, George de

Mohrenschildt, is described in recently declassified military

documents as a "business associate" of Lyndon Baines Johnson, but

those Brattle Theatre folks wouldn't have read them if I had those

documents right in my hands.

I decided to have Bugliosi sign my book and get a

photo of him too. When I reached the signing table, I told him, "I've

known Gary Mack for thrty-five years."

His eyes lit up and a broad smile beamed. He said,

"I'll be seeing Gary Thursday."

Then I told him that I had edited Madeleine Brown's

memoirs and was a primary recruiter for those who participated in "The

Guilty Men". The smile faded.

I told him that I had read some of the book and I

said, "We will have to agree to disagree." I added that I knew a lot

of information that he didn't. He advised me to read the rest of the

book to make sure of that. I told him I would do so. He smiled again.

He wanted to know my name, and when I said, "Ed Tatro," he admitted

knowing it in some vague manner from his research.

I concluded (sarcastically), "I'm one of the kooks."

In a rather gracious moment, he said, "But you're

searching for the truth."

I replied, "Yes." I refrained from saying that I knew

a lot of it, but I didn't want to act like him, and it was clear

throughout the night that the book buyers behind me were barely

tolerating folks like me.

The line of people behind me was lengthy and I saw no

real purpose in confronting him on any issues of substance. The time,

place, and circumstances were just not conducive to anything

productive.

While in line, I had briefly offered advice to Tony

Marsh that this was no place for him to get into a shouting match,

that he was not appreciated here by this gathering, and it might be

best to keep his cool.

I managed to meet Priscilla again and she said, "Paul

told me you used to teach a course on the assassination. When is your

book coming out?" I wasn't sure I had mentioned my book previously,

but it was clear to me that she and Paul were friends. The question

was---Did they become friends later in life or were they friends when

he took my course? I don't know that answer. I do know an FBI

informant named Hollis Mosher, (identified as such in his obituary),

took my course four or five times so it shouldn't surprise me if a

friend of a CIA asset had done so also. Am I being wisely cautious or

am I paranoid? We know that Bugliosi would call the latter notion,

"just silly."

I told her that she must be thrilled with this book,

and she said she had not read it yet, but she admitted that she was

glad that Bugliosi had confronted the conspiracy theories. I spoke

candidly by telling her that many researchers had brought forth some

outrageous concepts, but for Bugliosi to lump all assassination

critics into one lump was unfair. Having earned three college degrees,

I certainly do not consider myself insane, irrational or unreasonable.

She seemed to accept that criticism, but stoically so with an

accepting shrug.

Bugliosi headed in Priscilla's direction and thanked

her profusely for her input. He told her that he could not have

written the book without her help.

The gathering was breaking up and Bugliosi's rather

sizable entourage of disciples followed him out to a waiting auto.

Rick Russo and Bugliosi began a rather intense debate over the nature

of JFK's head wounds. Rick cited many witnesses who had observed a

frontal shot, but Bugliosi rejected anything he pointed out. It's

difficult to share any meaningful postions on a street corner, one

inundated by youngsters unwilling to hear any viewpoint contrary to

Vince Bugliosi's.

One 20-something said, "No one said any shots came

from the grassy knoll that day" to another Bugliosi supporter. I

snapped, "What are you talking about? Sixty-four witnesses said shots

came from the grassy knoll."

He said, "Not that day!"

Of course, as this clown was defending his comment, I

could still picture the video of Bill Newman telling a Dallas

television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the

grassy knoll.

It was time to leave. I talked to one 28 year old who

admitted knowing virtually nothing, and I advised him to read as many

books as he could.

Twenty years ago I had watched Bugiosi debate Mark

Lane in Boston. After the debate ended, I engaged Bugliosi in

conversation. A lingering crowd of twenty or so observers gathered

around us. I told him that there were lots of problems with the

evidence and I gave him one example. Since I was constantly teaching a

course at the time, the names were fresh in my mind. I discussed the

chain of transfer for the "magic bullet," CE 399. The bullet was found

by hospital employee, Darrell Tomlinson who gave it to O. P. Wright, a

hospital security guard. Wright gave it to a Secret Service man named

Richard Johnsen, who brought it back aboard Air Force One. Johnsen

turned it over to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service and he

gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd who gave it to Robert Frazier of the

FBI who conducted the ballistic tests upon the bullet.

Unlike Todd and Frazier, Johnson and Rowley admitted

that they never marked their initials into the bullet, a grave error

in judgment if Oswald had ever been properly brought to trial. Any

clever defense attorney would have introduced the possibilty of a

bullet switch to frame his client, particularly in a political murder

such as this.

Bugliosi dismissed the issue immediately by claiming

that errors like that occur all the time. I countered that they

shouldn't happen, especially in a case concerning the murder of the

president of the United States. It is evident to me that Bugliosi's

cavalier approach and powers of denial concerning the BIG DALLAS LIE

have existed for decades. Thus, I wasn't really surprised when his

advanced placement version of Posner's Case Closed hit the book

stores.

Now we know, thanks to the excellent research by

Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, (See the History Matters web site),

that FBI agent Bardwell Odum's name was cited on FBI documents in

which hospital employees, Tomlinson and Wright stated with confidence

that the bullet they had handled had resembled CE 399. Odum insisted to

Thompson and Aguilar that he never handled the bullet, never showed it

to the two witnesses and never wrote the FBI documents in evidence.

Furthermore John Hunt's meticulous research (see his

essays, particularly, "Frazier Speaks,") confirms that CE 399 does not

contain the carved initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd. Thus, CE 399 is

NOT the same bullet which Todd handed to FBI agent Robert Frazier. I

doubt Bugliosi even knows about Hunt's explosive essays about the

bullet/ballistic anomalies in this case.

Twenty years ago, I tried one last time with the

Manson prosecutor. I told him Emory Brown and I had discovered a

sidewalk mark consistent with a bullet scar (and a suspicious history

as well in its background), which coincided with photo blow-ups in my

possession of a human-like figure holding a rifle-like object on the

grassy knoll south, the unfamous knoll.

Bugliosi said he wanted me to send him copies and

wrote his name and address on a piece of paper. But the next night the

Boston newspapers quoted Bugliosi as saying, "Kennedy assassination

buffs are like wolves baying at the moon."

I never contacted him. I'm glad I didn't...

Suffice it to say, on May 22, 2007, Rick and I left

Cambridge with a general sense of cynicism, but with a quiet

understanding, that even if we can't win this mighty quest, that we

have much work to do in an effort to fight the good fight for the

principles of justice and democracy. We must never capitulate despite

the odds against our success. We must not allow Bugliosi's mastery of

fallacious arguments to stand unchallenged. He is a worthy adversary,

but his lone nut theory is more than "silly." It is a classic

representation of Orwellian propaganda and needs to be addressed

despite our limited resources and minmal access to the national media.

SINCERELY,

EDGAR F.TATRO

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

To know Lyndon Johnson is to hate Lyndon Johnson. "Corrupt" and "manipulator" do not do him justice. LBJ was a murderer long before he murdered John Kennedy. LBJ was a stone cold killer; a "Nazi of the first order" in the words of Jack Rudy.

Lyndon Johnson, with the help of J. Edgar Hoover's info, BLACKMAILED his way onto the 1960 Demo ticket. Sam Rayburn was putting pressure, too. As was Phil Graham of the Washington Post, and a big time player in the CIA's Operation Mockingbird.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoover’s dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys

During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandi—abetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy.

"LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy—during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).

According to Lincoln, Kennedy had definite plans to drop Johnson for the Vice Presidency in 1964, and replace him with Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In 1964, new President Lyndon Johnson gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a lifetime waiver from the mandatory retirement age of 70 that Hoover would hit on 1/1/65! In other words, Hoover could live to age 120 and still be head of the FBI. In my opinion, both LBJ and Hoover were conspirators, along with the CIA, in the JFK assassination. LBJ’s and Hoover’s jobs were to cover up the murder.

Evelyn Lincoln, the close secretary of John Kennedy, says JFK was going to DROP (!) Lyndon Johnson from the 1964 Democratic ticket and replace him with Terry Sanford of North Carolina: Lyndon Johnson had an urgency to kill – LBJ ruthless & desperate

Evelyn Lincoln:

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

In 1968 she wrote a book, Kennedy and Johnson in which she wrote that President Kennedy had told her that Lyndon B. Johnson would be replaced as Vice President of the United States. Lincoln wrote of that November 19, 1963 conversation, just before the assassination of President Kennedy,

“ As Mr. Kennedy sat in the rocker in my office, his head resting on its back he placed his left leg across his right knee. He rocked slightly as he talked. In a slow pensive voice he said to me, 'You know if I am re-elected in sixty-four, I am going to spend more and more time toward making government service an honorable career. I would like to tailor the executive and legislative branches of government so that they can keep up with the tremendous strides and progress being made in other fields.' 'I am going to advocate changing some of the outmoded rules and regulations in the Congress, such as the seniority rule. To do this I will need as a running mate in sixty-four a man who believes as I do.' Mrs. Lincoln went on to write "I was fascinated by this conversation and wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, 'Who is your choice as a running-mate?' 'He looked straight ahead, and without hesitating he replied, 'at this time I am thinking about Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon.'

Lyndon Johnson, using the dirt that his friend J.Edgar Hoover had on JFK, blackmailed his way onto the 1964 Demo ticket. Sam Rayburn was helping Lyndon Johnson in this process: http://www.reformation.org/president-lyndon-johnson.html (excellent link)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Amoral" is just an inadequate word to describe Lyndon Johnson. He was capable of ANYTHING - any corrupt action, any crime, any lie, any murder. Anything. A scared and insecure Lyndon Johnson was a very dangerous animal. http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/1314-presidents.html

Madeleine Brown talks about the time LBJ made her black nanny of 10 years, Dale Turner, disappear FOREVER. Lyndon Johnson probably had her murdered because Dale saw Lyndon with Madeleine in a hotel hallway when he was Vice President, probably in the Manger Hotel in San Antonio.

OUR MATE CAME UP MISSING [Lyndon Johnson gets rid, probably murdered Madeleine’s nanny Dale Turner!]

"Dale Turner, our mate... came up missing and I've never found her since," says Madeleine of the woman who was basically the nanny to her two children and had been with Steven since he was born. She says LBJ spotted Dale observing the two of them together at a hotel in San Antonio and it upset him. "He covered his tracks very well," says Madeleine. "He didn't want anyone to know about our relationship, so after Dale saw him he told me that I would have to tell her goodbye. I said 'I can't do that, she's been with us ten years!' And he said, 'I said you'll have to tell her goodbye.' After we were returned to Dallas she called me at work and told me that she had some very important business, and I said, 'That's fine Dale, go take care of it, just take the boys to my mother's, [who] we lived close to.' I said, 'Take all the time you want.' She lived in with us and that was very convenient... Dale never did return. We had the "color law" in Texas in those years. If you did report a [missing] black, they could care less. It's very sad and tragic, but it did happen... Through the years I have tried to find her or find out what happened." She heard 'Mack Wallace' took care of her implying LBJ's orders caused the murder of the woman who had been the nanny of the President's son.

Madeleine Duncan Brown on Lyndon Johnson:

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/1314-presidents.html

________________________________________

When we focus on the Kennedy Administration and sex, people automatically think of Marilyn Monroe and other glamorous lovers of JFK. Fewer are familiar, however, with Lyndon B. Johnson's long time mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown. Last year [1997] Madeleine published her steamy memoirs of her love affair with LBJ that began in Texas long before he became president, and resulted in an illegitimate son named Steven. Murder, intrigue, treason, and lots of hot sex, it's all here in this book, Texas in the Morning: The Love Story Of Madeleine Brown And President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Madeleine did one of her first radio interviews on The Zoh Show on July 31, 1997, arranged by her publisher, Baltimorean Harrison Edward Livingstone, a Zoh Show listener. Livingstone believes Madeleine deserves our gratitude for coming forward after withstanding extreme efforts to silence her, even to the extent of imprisoning her son, and possibly causing his death. Steven died in a Naval Hospital in 1990 under mysterious circumstances.

Among Madeleine's incredible memoirs there is the night before JFK's assassination when Madeleine remembers Lyndon at a party with Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, John J. McCloy and other rich and powerful men who she believes discussing plans to assassinate the president on November 22, 1963. Of course, Madeleine's detractors will say she's watched too many Hollywood conspiracy movies, but Madeleine Brown says she's telling the truth. If what she says is true, the United States government orchestrated a political coup like the ones we associate with rogue third world nations. According to Madeleine Brown, and in the opinion of many other people, we have not had a legitimate federal government since.

LBJ WAS RED-FACED

Madeleine describes an anxious and red-faced LBJ emerging from that party briefing. The words she remembers are: "After tomorrow those God-damned Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That's not a threat, that's a promise."

WHO'S MADELEINE DUNCAN BROWN AND WHERE DID SHE COME FROM?

"I came from a devout Christian family and I had wonderful parents and grandparents on both sides. We lived in a small community in the Bible Belt of Texas," Madeleine Brown describes her background. After I graduated from high school I went to work for the Republic National Bank for $90 a month. It was great. From there I went into advertising.... I was 23 at the time, and women weren't quite as developed, you might say, as they are today. I lived a very sheltered life."

"ALICE AND WONDERLAND TYPE PARTIES"

She recalls the first time she met Lyndon. One of the advertising firm's clients, radio station KTBC, one of Lyndon Johnson's properties,was giving a huge party, "and they invited me to come. That night I met Lyndon and he invited me to come to another party in Austin. They used to have real big parties. I'm talking about Alice in Wonderland type parties. When I went to Austin and we were dancing at the Driskill Hotel he put a key in my hand and everything followed suit."

She didn't know who he was other than one of the rich and powerful and she was "excited" at the prospect of a rendezvous. Madeleine was a young widow in her twenties at the time and remembers feeling an incredible chemistry with this intriguing man. "It was so powerful," she recalls. "Even today as I speak or think of him my body reacts to his name. It was an exciting experience for me. We had a strong sex life together."

She acknowledges that her book is "a little bit on the X-rated side."

Zoh suggested perhaps they had been lovers in a former lifetime, and Madeleine considered, "It was either that or it was just something that happens between a male and a female. I half-way believe in reincarnation. Again, our life was so beautiful together until... but of course having Steve made it worth it all."

TEXAS OIL CONTROLLED WASHINGTON

"A lot of people do not realize it, but [at that time] the oil people in Texas controlled Washington," continues Madeleine, remembering the days when she first met Lyndon. "Even starting way back in 1920 President Taft would come to Texas and this Clint Murchison, one of the big oil people, had married a girl from Tyler, Texas, and even J. Edgar Hoover came during those years. And so Clint established himself in Washington and it began to grow. And even President Roosevelt and Harry Truman all through -- you can read the book, ‘who's who of the elite’, and see how these presidents tied together. Texas had actually controlled Washington. They were very strong in our government. In 1960 when lay people thought they really had selected the candidates to run for the Presidency, they did not. Joe Kennedy, the father, had the mafia behind him and, of course, H. L. Hunt, and oil people were supporting Kennedy. And these two men met in Los Angeles, California and they decided who would run on the ticket. H. L. Hunt finally said, "We'll concede if Lyndon goes on as Vice-President." So, the two men chose the candidates for the 1960 election. Lay people don't really understand that unless they understand the policies of America."

LITTLE GIRLS SHOULDN'T HAVE BIG EARS

Madeleine remembers seeing J.Edgar Hoover while together with Lyndon on their second date together in Austin. She asked Lyndon about it, and it was the first time he warned her with the soon to be oft-repeated phrase. "He told me little girls shouldn't have big eyes and big ears and they didn't see, hear, or repeat anything. When I did ask Lyndon that's when he told me I should never see, hear, or repeat anything." Later in the book, Madeleine alleges that during their subsequent 21 year love affair, after their son, Steven, was born, J. Edgar Hoover began blackmailing Lyndon over their relationship.

John Connally once said about LBJ: "There is no adjective to describe Lyndon. He was cruel and kind, generous and greedy, sensitive and insensitive, crafty and naïve, ruthless and thoughtful, simple in many ways, yet extremely complex, caring and totally uncaring; he could overwhelm people with kindness and turn around and be cruel and petty towards those same people." Madeleine says that when she first learned she was pregnant, he asked her to have an abortion. But when she refused because of her religious beliefs, he said, "It takes two to tango and I will take care of my responsibilities." And that's what he did, continued Madeleine. "He had Jerome Ragsdale come out to the house, and of course it crushed my mother and father. In those years a woman just simply... didn't have a child out of wedlock. If they did, families would send them away and sometimes they never came back to our area. So I crushed my parents, and even today I grieve sometimes because they were such wonderful, wonderful people. But Jerome Ragsdale and my father worked out all of the financial things and that's the way it continued until 1975."

Madeleine said, "If it ever leaked out, Ragsdale would take the fall for it... Of course Lyndon had total control in Texas in the press, the media." They had it all planned for Jerome Ragsdale to come forward and say he was the father, should any scandal erupt.

THERE WERE TWO SONS

Madeleine already had a son from her earlier marriage when she gave birth to Lyndon's son Steven. She says the two boys were very close and remained so throughout their lives until the knowledge of paternity was revealed. "Steven was so close to me, and he was the best looking thing, great big ole' guy, heart as big as an ocean," said his mother. He died [of cancer] under mysterious circumstances in 1990 and since then she has made peace with her other son, Jimmy.

HOOVER BLACKMAILED LBJ ABOUT Madeleine

"Of course, that was just J. Edgar Hoover, he did this to people," said Madeleine. "He blackmailed them." Lyndon suddenly told her that she would have to get married. "I said, 'Get married?' Another one of the White House Secretaries [had been] married off to a well known person, [but] I said 'I don't KNOW anyone to get married [to].' " But Lyndon had already arranged everything. "He said, 'You've been shooting skeet out at the Dallas Gun Club and I believe the fellow's name is Charles West', and I said, 'But I don't KNOW him', and he said, 'Well, all arrangements have been made.' ...It was called a paper marriage, in order to get some of the heat off in Washington.... it did take some heat off of Lyndon."

Madeleine was so totally devoted to Lyndon that she was willing to stand by him not only through this paper marriage, but even to the suppression of knowledge about murders of important officials. Her autobiography is like a romantic political intrigue novel. She recalls the death of U.S. Agriculture official Henry Marshall who was found dead on his farm.

Madeleine says it was well known Kennedy was going to drop Lyndon from the ticket because of Lyndon's involvement with the Bobby Baker scandal in Washington, and in Texas the agriculture people had been accused of subsidizing cotton contracts. There were a lot of scandals going on, insider trading on lucrative contracts in the cotton market for individuals in the government. Henry Marshall looked into it and he was going to go public. "Someone leaked information from the agricultural department... Henry Marshall with all of his records and things, he had to be silenced. There was a trigger man here in Texas, Malcolm E. Wallace... Anyway Henry Marshall, they first said he committed suicide. Can you believe five shots in the stomach with a .22 and [they said he] killed himself?"

Madeleine was very proud of the fact that 23 years later, one of her son's law classmates helped overturn the suicide verdict of Henry Marshall's death and turned its classification into homicide.

OUR MATE CAME UP MISSING [Lyndon Johnson gets rid, probably murdered Madeleine’s nanny Dale Turner!]

"Dale Turner, our mate... came up missing and I've never found her since," says Madeleine of the woman who was basically the nanny to her two children and had been with Steven since he was born. She says LBJ spotted Dalel observing the two of them together at a hotel in San Antonio and it upset him. "He covered his tracks very well," says Madeleine. "He didn't want anyone to know about our relationship, so after Dale saw him he told me that I would have to tell her goodbye. I said 'I can't do that, she's been with us ten years!' And he said, 'I said you'll have to tell her goodbye.' After we were returned to Dallas she called me at work and told me that she had some very important business, and I said, 'That's fine Dale, go take care of it, just take the boys to my mother's, [who] we lived close to.' I said, 'Take all the time you want.' She lived in with us and that was very convenient... Dale never did return. We had the "color law" in Texas in those years. If you did report a [missing] black, they could care less. It's very sad and tragic, but it did happen... Through the years I have tried to find her or find out what happened." She heard 'Mack Wallace' took care of her implying LBJ's orders caused the murder of the woman who had been the nanny of the President's son.

She says she wrote the book because she felt that after Lyndon was out of office that he should have come forth and recognize Steven. "At parties, he'd call him 'son', but he never did come out and say 'this is my son' or anything like that." Madeleine says he was hurt by it, but after Steven got sick with cancer, she decided to go public with the affair in this book. She hoped to have Steven take his place along with the Johnson girls as Lyndon's only son.

JACK RUBY HAD A MAP OF THE KENNEDY DALLAS ROUTE

In her book, Madeleine describes Jack Ruby holding a map of the Kennedy Dallas route making comments about where they were going to blow his head off. She says that together with executives from the ad agency where she worked they would go to the Carousel Club and play cards. "Remember Dallas was very small," she says, "it wasn't a metropolitan city. And in the afternoon the club wasn't open, but we'd go over, some of the executives from the ad agency, we'd sit there and play cards, but we could always find out what was going on, it was kind of a place to learn all. We were playing cards there one afternoon, and it was a couple weeks, I think, prior to the assassination, and Jack Ruby came over to us. He always called us "classy guys". And he said, 'Guess what I have?' And I glanced up and I said, 'What is it?' And he said, 'When that son of a bitch comes to Texas,' he said, 'It's the map where he's going.' It kind of stunned me and I said, 'All I know, Jack, is you run with the great white fathers of Dallas, and you know what's going on.' But it stunned me that knowing who he was that he would have this kind of confidential information. Now, the map was later published in the newspaper, but Jack had it before it ever hit the newspaper. Then he commented, he said, 'Doesn't he know that he should stay out of Dallas?' Kennedy's name was mud in Dallas and he said, 'Some of these jocks will blow his head off.' I said, 'We hope not.' We kind of passed it over, but once the assassination happened, and [what I heard] at the party the night before, things went falling in place."

She intimates that Ruby knew the Dallas police department, and that Lee Harvey Oswald and Ruby were together at the Carousel Club. She talks about rumors of high level authorities changing the motorcade route, the lack of security and press in Dealey Plaza at the crucial moment, witnesses who claim the motorcade slowed or virtually stopped during the shooting and other disturbing allegations coming from one who was so close to the events as they happened.

IT WAS THE OIL PEOPLE WHO KILLED KENNEDY

"When I met Lyndon at the Driskill Hotel on New Years Eve, 'course he was President then, I asked him. I said, 'People in Dallas think you had more to gain than anyone from the assassination of John Kennedy, and I've got to know. I'm very disturbed about it.' He had one of his "Johnson fits" and said again, 'You don't see, hear, or repeat anything.' But he also said, 'It was the oil people that I knew and intelligence that had caused the assassination.' I have never disbelieved it because I knew the things that were going on in Dallas, Texas."

"...Malcolm Wallace was there in Dallas, Texas. I saw Mack Wallace out at the Dallas Gun Club practicing two or three days prior to the assassination... I have always felt that since the witnesses did hear the shots coming from the grassy knoll..."

Madeleine also remembered another incident before the assassination that gave her reason to think twice. She says that she and H. L. Hunt, one of the richest men in America used to park in the same parking lot on Jackson Street, and one day when they were walking up the same street they walked together almost every day, he said to her: "Come here, honey, I want to show you something." She looked at what he was holding and saw one of the caricature drawings of President Kennedy as a mug shot, saying "Wanted For Treason". Madeleine says she said to H.L. Hunt: "Oh my God, H.L., you can't do the President that way!" She continues, "I was so naive at the time, and he said, 'Hell I can't! I'm the richest man in the world, and I can do what I want to.' And he did. After the assassination... H.L. Hunt went to Washington and stayed three weeks with Lyndon over the oil depletion. H.L. Hunt came back to Dallas and said 'We've won the war.' The oil depletion was never mentioned again. And of course that was one of the things he hated John Kennedy over. But H.L. Hunt bragged almost all the time. He said, 'Well, we got him out of office.' That was it."

STEVEN FINDS OUT WHO HIS FATHER IS

A brush with death brought the truth out of Madeleine after a heart attack. "I told him, I wanted to go to the other side without any hurt in my heart," she says. "And so I told him where the papers were that were showing Lyndon was his father. Steven was wounded by it and he was very bitter. He felt like I had been very deceitful to him... He had a raging fit just like Lyndon did and he filed a law suit for his part of the money." Unfortunately the notoriety Steven brought upon himself by claiming his rights to the inheritance of the Johnson estate was used against him by the U.S. Navy. "Unfortunately he had served time in the Navy after graduating from A&M," says Madeleine. She begged him not to file the law suit, "I said you don't want to do that, we're okay, we're going to be okay for life." But he did it anyway. "After him being 10 years out of the Navy, they decided that -- or the Navy or someone did -- that he was a deserter from the U.S. Navy, and it brought all kinds of problems." Steven was taken from Dallas to Corpus and then to San Antonio where Lyndon's records were. And suddenly he was sick and in the hospital. They did some tests on him, and the next thing Madeleine knows is he's missing from the Brooks General Hospital. "He was gone for about two months," she says. "I exercised everything I could to locate him, hiring a detective in Washington. We tried to get his law suit postponed, but they wouldn't do anything in Dallas for him. When the case came up from court they marked on the case "Failed to Appear in Court". And then after this happened we located Steven in Bethesda, Maryland. By the time we got him back home, he was so sick he ultimately passed away."

It shows how much power these people have, she says, and how they can sculpt documentation to prove whatever they want to. "It's very heart breaking."

Many people wonder why Madeleine has not been "bumped off". "Why have I survived?" she wonders? "I actually am better off now than I've ever been." She has some real reservations about a terrible automobile accident she had in 1967, but continues to live a very cautious, secluded, quiet life.

Her book is dedicated to Steven Mark Brown, December 27, 1950 to September 28, 1990 and to his father Lyndon Baines Johnson August 17, 1908 to January 22, 1973.

Zoh noted the unifying factor of fidelity and infidelity so prominent in Madeleine's life. Faith and contract and partnerships between mates and lovers, or ourselves and our federal government, often you can find a pattern of extreme infidelities alongside fierce loyalties in all relationships. Madeleine claims Lyndon's loyalty to her was a special kind of fidelity. The resulting infidelity this implies of his relationship to his wife, Lady Bird, can be compared to his infidelity to the community as has been demonstrated in his highly criticized methods of handling the Vietnam War.

IF LYNDON WERE HERE TODAY

If Lyndon were here today, Madeleine supposes he would demand a night full of sex and in the morning he would throw open the windows and yell "Goddamn, I love Texas in the morning!" as he did so many times before. "I'd tell him, since he didn't take a step forward -- I did. And he'd say, 'You don't see, hear or repeat anything.' I'd say, I hear YOU Lyndon."

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO:

LBJ was deeply involved (perhaps the most essential element) in the cover-up and, no doubt, had foreknowledge of the plot against JFK. However, he did not orchestrate the "hit" on the POTUS! Wanna know why? Because he was NOT competent enough to do such a thing! Oh sure, he was brazen enough, he was amoral enough--even immoral enough--to do it, but NOT "operationally" competent enough to do it. Additionally, he lacked the financial resources to pull it off with absolute certainty; he was incapable of employing the "talent" to do the job--this job--because he couldn't afford it.

Moreover, he didn't need to "dirty his hands" on that level AT ALL--in order to accomplish his goals! He didn't need a Malcolm Wallace amateur to "attempt" the crime of the century. After all, the BEST were available through "other channels" to do the deed--and none were in any way traceable to LBJ. He was essentially a coward. Let's not give him too much credit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new

book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge

Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl

representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly

complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the

crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend,

Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses

excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's

presentation.

Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, the journalist with CIA links,

who interviewed Oswald in Russia and subsequently pegged him in a

published article shortly after 11/22/63 as an obvious loser who must

have killed JFK, sat one row in front of me, but approximately 20

seats away. She kept turning around to look at me. I expected she

recognized me from somewhere, but couldn't remember who I was. One row

behind me, and two rows directly behind MacMillan sat a couple who

clearly recognized me, but I didn't know who they were at the time.

Bugliosi began his speech by complaining about the podium

which possessed wheels. As a result he couldn't lean on it at all. He

also complained about the instability of his microphone stand. He

admitted that he complains all the time and employs sarcasm

incessantly. He interjected an anecdote about a hotel room in which

the bathroom light didn't work unless he managed to push a switch near

the front door of his room.

He made mention about the difficulty in pronouncing his name

which clearly irritates him since he has brought the issue up at other

speaking engagements. He cited one person who called him, "Mr. Bella

Lugosi." The audienced found his schtick amusing.

The rest of the night was all business, selective preference

dripping in condescending ire. Bugliosi called Reclaiming History, "A

book for the ages." He made it clear that "Modesty is not a vitue" in

his self-absorbed mind. He felt it a necessity to be assertive and

confident in overdrive in order to assure all conspiracy theorists

that he is beyond reproach in integrity and fighting spirit, that they

just can't beat his positions on the JFK matter. He admitted that he

wanted to make a lot of money, but that marketability was second in

priority to scholarship. There is no question in my mind that Bugliosi

absolutely loves himself and intentionally projects that image, one

that also oozes with controlled disdain while on stage.

He said that he could have prosecuted Oswald in

two-three-four days, but after 44 years of conspiracy books, the JFK

assassination has become "the most complex murder case in history." It

has become a "bottomless pit" and that admission may have been his one

assertion that will not be challenged.

Basically, his speech paraphrased the introduction to his

book and the half hour filmed interview available on his web site. His

primary contention is Oswald's sole guilt. He cited that 53 pieces of

evidence confirm that Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit

murders and he rattled off five points concerning the matter....

Oswald owned the Carcano; he was the only TSBD employee to flee; he

killed Tippit; he pulled a gun at the theatre where he was arrested;

and he lied about owning a rifle. Bugiosi knows Oswald lied because

the backyard photos show him with the rifle.

Bugliosi boasts that "no reasonable person" can disagree

with him. The unyielding arrogance and unmitigated self-assurance of

his declarations were endless--- No credible evidence of conspiracy

exists. Bugliosi admits that motive, means and opportunity abounded

for many organizations to commit the crime, but these basics, espoused

constantly by conspiracy theorists, are just not enough. Motives prove

nothing. Besides, the FBI found no Oswald connections to groups like

the Mafia or the CIA, and no one who is "credible" has ever leaked

anything substantiating a conspiracy.

The integrity of the FBI, is obviously unquestioned by

Bugliosi as he made his assertions, and the definition of "credible"

certainly is one that might be interesting to determine if a phalanx

of reseachers were allowed open access to him in a proper forum.

Bugliosi states as fact that Oswald was such a loser that

no organization would have trusted him as a hired killer, and that the

Mob or the CIA would have killed him instantly, if they had employed

him. He cited that he has amassed 32 concrete proofs that no

conspiracy existed and those who believe in a conspriacy are either

silly or ignorant of the evidence. The simmering rage and belittling

of "conspiracy buffs" was ever-present.

Bugliosi stated that the parade route was set so late that

no conspirators could have been ready in time. To think otherwise is

just "silly." He explained the head snap as a neuro-muscular reaction,

that the Zapruder frames show a 2.3 inch forward head movement before

the eventual snap backward. And anyone who alleges that the Zapruder

film has been altered is a fool. Before answering questions from the

audience, he made it clear that no other weapons were found and no

other bullets were discovered either.

I do not claim that the above synopsis covers everything

Bugliosi offered, but it covers most of his overview. The questions

asked by the audience showed little or no knowledge of the inticate

and complex aspects of the case. Most annoying were those who gushed

over him like rock and roll groupies as well as the philosophical

questions as to why the masses would (foolishly) buy into conspiracy

theories. Such discussion never pressed Bugliosi to defend any of his

premises and the Q & A was so short-lived, there was little time to

engage him in any meaningful dialogue.

One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a xxxx at

one point and Bugliosi just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's

outburst tended to reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists"

are obsessive and rude in their approach to the case. Audience members

behind Marsh lashed out at him later as book buyers lined up for

Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh angrily shouted back at them.

At this point I walked over to Priscilla Johnson

MacMillan and asked her if I could get a photograph of the two of us

together. The gentleman who had sat behind her offered to take the

picture. I thought I might be able to use it if I ever publish my own

book about the complicity of LBJ, his handlers and his cronies in the

Dealey Plaza caper.

She asked me who I was, and I told her that I had

testified before President Clinton's Assassination Records Review

Board (ARRB) in Boston in 1995 right after her testimony. I told her I

was a member of those who spoke in Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men,"

that I had corresponded with Oswald's mother, was friendly with Marina

Oswald and Judyth Baker. I concluded by saying that I disagreed with

everything Bugiosi had just said.

The man who took the photo was named Paul and he told me

that he had taken my course years ago at Quincy College. His derisive

tone was such that it was evident to me that he was rejecting

EVERYTHING I had ever said in twenty-five hours of class (3,000

slides). I was momentarily stunned and a little hurt. I told him that

my class was twenty years ago and I added, "Imagine what I know now."

He replied, "Unless you can link that little weasel, Oswald, to LBJ,

you don't have a case." His constant smile was hard and unfriendly.

I tried briefly to cite a few issues, (nine witnesses

who observed a bullet hole in the windshield), but he had no intention

of listening. I was just not "there" in his closed mind. As I walked

away, knowing the futility of pursuing any meaningful interaction, I

was thinking to myself that I knew Oswald's best friend, George de

Mohrenschildt, is described in recently declassified military

documents as a "business associate" of Lyndon Baines Johnson, but

those Brattle Theatre folks wouldn't have read them if I had those

documents right in my hands.

I decided to have Bugliosi sign my book and get a

photo of him too. When I reached the signing table, I told him, "I've

known Gary Mack for thrty-five years."

His eyes lit up and a broad smile beamed. He said,

"I'll be seeing Gary Thursday."

Then I told him that I had edited Madeleine Brown's

memoirs and was a primary recruiter for those who participated in "The

Guilty Men". The smile faded.

I told him that I had read some of the book and I

said, "We will have to agree to disagree." I added that I knew a lot

of information that he didn't. He advised me to read the rest of the

book to make sure of that. I told him I would do so. He smiled again.

He wanted to know my name, and when I said, "Ed Tatro," he admitted

knowing it in some vague manner from his research.

I concluded (sarcastically), "I'm one of the kooks."

In a rather gracious moment, he said, "But you're

searching for the truth."

I replied, "Yes." I refrained from saying that I knew

a lot of it, but I didn't want to act like him, and it was clear

throughout the night that the book buyers behind me were barely

tolerating folks like me.

The line of people behind me was lengthy and I saw no

real purpose in confronting him on any issues of substance. The time,

place, and circumstances were just not conducive to anything

productive.

While in line, I had briefly offered advice to Tony

Marsh that this was no place for him to get into a shouting match,

that he was not appreciated here by this gathering, and it might be

best to keep his cool.

I managed to meet Priscilla again and she said, "Paul

told me you used to teach a course on the assassination. When is your

book coming out?" I wasn't sure I had mentioned my book previously,

but it was clear to me that she and Paul were friends. The question

was---Did they become friends later in life or were they friends when

he took my course? I don't know that answer. I do know an FBI

informant named Hollis Mosher, (identified as such in his obituary),

took my course four or five times so it shouldn't surprise me if a

friend of a CIA asset had done so also. Am I being wisely cautious or

am I paranoid? We know that Bugliosi would call the latter notion,

"just silly."

I told her that she must be thrilled with this book,

and she said she had not read it yet, but she admitted that she was

glad that Bugliosi had confronted the conspiracy theories. I spoke

candidly by telling her that many researchers had brought forth some

outrageous concepts, but for Bugliosi to lump all assassination

critics into one lump was unfair. Having earned three college degrees,

I certainly do not consider myself insane, irrational or unreasonable.

She seemed to accept that criticism, but stoically so with an

accepting shrug.

Bugliosi headed in Priscilla's direction and thanked

her profusely for her input. He told her that he could not have

written the book without her help.

The gathering was breaking up and Bugliosi's rather

sizable entourage of disciples followed him out to a waiting auto.

Rick Russo and Bugliosi began a rather intense debate over the nature

of JFK's head wounds. Rick cited many witnesses who had observed a

frontal shot, but Bugliosi rejected anything he pointed out. It's

difficult to share any meaningful postions on a street corner, one

inundated by youngsters unwilling to hear any viewpoint contrary to

Vince Bugliosi's.

One 20-something said, "No one said any shots came

from the grassy knoll that day" to another Bugliosi supporter. I

snapped, "What are you talking about? Sixty-four witnesses said shots

came from the grassy knoll."

He said, "Not that day!"

Of course, as this clown was defending his comment, I

could still picture the video of Bill Newman telling a Dallas

television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the

grassy knoll.

It was time to leave. I talked to one 28 year old who

admitted knowing virtually nothing, and I advised him to read as many

books as he could.

Twenty years ago I had watched Bugiosi debate Mark

Lane in Boston. After the debate ended, I engaged Bugliosi in

conversation. A lingering crowd of twenty or so observers gathered

around us. I told him that there were lots of problems with the

evidence and I gave him one example. Since I was constantly teaching a

course at the time, the names were fresh in my mind. I discussed the

chain of transfer for the "magic bullet," CE 399. The bullet was found

by hospital employee, Darrell Tomlinson who gave it to O. P. Wright, a

hospital security guard. Wright gave it to a Secret Service man named

Richard Johnsen, who brought it back aboard Air Force One. Johnsen

turned it over to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service and he

gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd who gave it to Robert Frazier of the

FBI who conducted the ballistic tests upon the bullet.

Unlike Todd and Frazier, Johnson and Rowley admitted

that they never marked their initials into the bullet, a grave error

in judgment if Oswald had ever been properly brought to trial. Any

clever defense attorney would have introduced the possibilty of a

bullet switch to frame his client, particularly in a political murder

such as this.

Bugliosi dismissed the issue immediately by claiming

that errors like that occur all the time. I countered that they

shouldn't happen, especially in a case concerning the murder of the

president of the United States. It is evident to me that Bugliosi's

cavalier approach and powers of denial concerning the BIG DALLAS LIE

have existed for decades. Thus, I wasn't really surprised when his

advanced placement version of Posner's Case Closed hit the book

stores.

Now we know, thanks to the excellent research by

Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, (See the History Matters web site),

that FBI agent Bardwell Odum's name was cited on FBI documents in

which hospital employees, Tomlinson and Wright stated with confidence

that the bullet they had handled had not resembled CE 399. Odum insisted to

Thompson and Aguilar that he never handled the bullet, never showed it

to the two witnesses and never wrote the FBI documents in evidence.

Furthermore John Hunt's meticulous research (see his

essays, particularly, "Frazier Speaks,") confirms that CE 399 does not

contain the carved initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd. Thus, CE 399 is

NOT the same bullet which Todd handed to FBI agent Robert Frazier. I

doubt Bugliosi even knows about Hunt's explosive essays about the

bullet/ballistic anomalies in this case.

Twenty years ago, I tried one last time with the

Manson prosecutor. I told him Emory Brown and I had discovered a

sidewalk mark consistent with a bullet scar (and a suspicious history

as well in its background), which coincided with photo blow-ups in my

possession of a human-like figure holding a rifle-like object on the

grassy knoll south, the unfamous knoll.

Bugliosi said he wanted me to send him copies and

wrote his name and address on a piece of paper. But the next night the

Boston newspapers quoted Bugliosi as saying, "Kennedy assassination

buffs are like wolves baying at the moon."

I never contacted him. I'm glad I didn't...

Suffice it to say, on May 22, 2007, Rick and I left

Cambridge with a general sense of cynicism, but with a quiet

understanding, that even if we can't win this mighty quest, that we

have much work to do in an effort to fight the good fight for the

principles of justice and democracy. We must never capitulate despite

the odds against our success. We must not allow Bugliosi's mastery of

fallacious arguments to stand unchallenged. He is a worthy adversary,

but his lone nut theory is more than "silly." It is a classic

representation of Orwellian propaganda and needs to be addressed

despite our limited resources and minmal access to the national media.

SINCERELY,

EDGAR F.TATRO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new

book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge

Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl

representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly

complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the

crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend,

Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses

excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's

presentation.....

Thank you for posting this. An extremely well-written article that deserves a wide readership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new

book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge

Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl

representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly

complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the

crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend,

Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses

excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's

presentation.....

Thank you for posting this. An extremely well-written article that deserves a wide readership.

I second that. Excellent read.

Thank you Bill.

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...