CHAPTER VI
THEORIES
"Elementary, my dear Watson."
Sherlock Holmes
NOTICE: If you did not read the rest of the manuscript, then my theories are meaningless. I find that MOST of the "OSWALD ALONE" believers simply read some of this chapter (if they read anything contained on this site at all) and then tell me how wrong I am, because "obviously" Oswald did it.
Don't just "assume" that all that I present is what you've already heard. See if your belief stands up to being cross-examined, first.
It appears that the time has arrived for us to try to connect all the dots and see whose pictures should have been hanging in post offices all over the country. Prior to this, anything that was speculation on my part has been noted that way. Now, unless otherwise noted, all conclusions are speculation on my part. Please remember that these are only theories, not proven fact. They are not meant to actually accuse anyone of being involved in the assassination and/or cover-up. The facts in this case are all sheerly circumstantial. To be proven, they must be presented in a court of law and be subjected to cross-examination and past history in regards to this event has proven to me that everything is subject to change, based on new or recently released evidence!
These theories are however, based on all the evidence, testimony and statements I can find and all are the most logical deductions that I can draw from them.
Still, you should take them for what they are...the opinions of someone who has never interviewed any of the cast of characters, visited Dallas nor taken a single course in criminology.
Unlike the government studies we've reviewed, where it appears that the investigation started with the conclusion and then worked its way back to it again, disregarding anything that did not conform through faulty reasoning, we will start at the beginning, put the pieces together, logically, and see where it points.
WHY was JFK Assassinated ?
We will look at the reasons and suspects the way any police investigator would look at an unsolved murder. Why is the first order of business.
When detectives look for a suspect in a murder, they are immediately drawn to the suspect(s) with the most to gain by the death of the victim. Murders are usually committed for reasons of passion or gain. Identify the reason and it will lead you to the killer. That is the standard investigative axiom.
By the fall of 1963, the actions and policies of President Kennedy's administration had produced a number of influential and powerful enemies, both foreign and domestic. Most of them would have benefited, to varying degrees, by the removal of the President. To some of these enemies, his removal from office had become almost a necessity, since his administration had greatly reduced, or had promised to greatly reduce, their power and/or financial standing. Since he was only in his first term, all of these enemies faced the very real, and frightening, probability that, not only would JFK be in office until 1968, but also the possibility that Robert Kennedy might replace his brother in the White House and continue those policies that were causing the current problems, for up to another eight years. A Kennedy family political dynasty was, in 1963, a real threat that most could not afford to ignore.
There were only two ways that held any promise of removing the administration from power: the loss of the 1964 Presidential Election or the death of John Kennedy. Since JFK enjoyed adequate popularity, his losing the 1964 election did not seem a good enough bet and his health, since his fight with Addison's Disease was a closely guarded secret, appeared excellent. Therefore, the only remaining option would have been assassination, IF the individual or group were desperate enough. The Kennedys had among their enemies, a number of groups to who murder was not an abstract word. In fact, to several of these groups, murder was a frequent occurrence, basically just the means to an end. Were they angry enough to assassinate a President?
Desperate/Angry Groups
Among those who had strong reasons to want the President's mandate terminated were several groups who possessed the means, motive or opportunity to have planned and carried out the assassination.
The key factors that we'll use in determining who was really involved will revolve around who was capable of what we have just shown happened, the ability to:
1) assassinate Kennedy and frame Oswald
2) control the investigation
3) "persuade" Jack Ruby to murder LHO on national television
The List of PROBABLE Suspects
The list of those groups, in no particular order:
ORGANIZED CRIME
"Oswald was just the patsy..."
New York Mafia boss Frank Costello shortly before his death
"Kennedy's not going to make it to the election. He's going to be hit"-----1963
"Now only two people are alive who know who killed Kennedy."----1975
Miami Mafia boss Santos Trafficante
High on this list are the various "Crime Families" who controlled many of the illegal activities in the major metropolitan areas around the U.S. This loose coalition of families, whom many political insiders have credited with helping JFK get elected in 1960, felt betrayed by the Kennedy brothers after the election.
HSCA head Robert Blakey believes that the mob was behind the assassination and the HSCA final report also supports that theory.
The Castro take over of Cuba, with its nationalization of all free trade in the late 1950's, and subsequent closing of mob business interests there, used to launder money, had cost this group literally millions. Kennedy's failure to invade Cuba or overthrow Castro, first produced the ill feelings against the administration. Without Castro's overthrow, the mob had to stay out of Cuba, with its previously lucrative gambling, tourism and sugar businesses. Robert F. Kennedy's Justice Department soon began a very active set of investigations and prosecutions of organized crime activities, in which he personally was deeply involved. He targeted major mob figures and business dealings, especially those that involved labor unions. By 1963, it was common knowledge that the Mafia families held no love for the Kennedys.
Yet, they were also involved at the same time with the CIA (and with the alleged approval of the Kennedy brothers) in a plan to assassinate Castro...an odd but true paradox.
While Mafia hit men are legendary in folklore and Hollywood, key political assassinations in this country are usually beyond their scope, since retribution from the government would likely be both swift and costly. The mob also did not possess the ability, alone, to either set up Oswald or control the investigation. The CIA-Mafia connection that existed at this time, documented in the 1970's by Congressional investigators, may have given the mob the ability, through the CIA to set up Oswald and hit JFK, but it is still highly doubtful that they or the CIA could have orchestrated the necessary cover-up.
Either way, to accomplish all that happened, they needed help.
Many have stated that, perhaps, it was the need to keep the CIA-Mafia relationship secret that was the reason behind some of the cover-up, if only because the government-Mafia ties go back to World War II and the New York docks and were not common knowledge, even by 1963.
To help keep the wartime docks free of sabotage, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI-coincidentally the organization that probably trained Oswald in the Russian language), approached members of the New York Mafia. They also attempted to enlist the help New York County District Attorney Thomas Dewey. The ONI asked Dewey to stop his prosecution of mobster "Socks" Lanza in exchange for mob help on the docks they dominated. Lanza agreed to the deal and was instrumental in enlisting the New York mob's most feared member, "Lucky" Luciano into the ONI plan.
Luciano, having served 5 years of a 50 year sentence in the brutal Dannamora Prison in upstate NY, was granted a "parole" to a medium security prison outside Manhattan, in exchange for his help and influence. He was also allowed to have underworld visitors, a fact that DA Dewey did not appreciate, but could not stop. Luciano soon began running the Mafia again, this time from inside prison and Mafia hit men may have eliminated anyone they thought disloyal.
Possibly setting the stage for another "political" assassination, with "government" consent, 20 years later?
Whatever the "cost", the US Government considered it worth it, since no more instances of sabotage took place on the NY docks and the Mafia later assisted Allied troops in both Sicily and Italy. However, a long-term dangerous liaison was created...
In addition, it is obvious when viewing recently released documents versus what was originally claimed, that a conscious effort was made by the FBI, with Director Hoover's authorization or at his command, to keep any information or leads pointing toward the mob's involvement, out of the Warren Commission's knowledge. We now have proof that a great deal of information about Jack Ruby’s ties to organized crime was purposefully suppressed.
We also know that Walter E. Craig, in 1963-64 president of the American Bar Association, was appointed to the Warren Commission to, according to the WCR, "participate in the investigation and to advise the Commission whether in his opinion, the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice."
Since it is obvious that virtually NO attempt was ever made to cross-examine any of the evidence, one wonders why the president of the ABA would not have protested...until we find out that, in 1972, after being appointed to a federal judgeship, Mr. Craig presided over the murder trial of Joe Bonanno, Jr., son of mob boss Joe Bonnano, Sr. In that trial, Judge Craig ridiculed the government's case by his improper behavior while prosecution witnesses were testifying. His conduct included, "rolling his eyes, burying his face in his hands, laughing openly and mimicking one witness in a falsetto voice." His conduct was branded by one juror as, "anything but impartial."
Despite his actions, the jury still convicted Bonanno, only to have Judge Craig overturn the verdict 6 weeks later after a 70 minute hearing...Craig claimed that Bonanno's involvement in another crime made have been prejudicial (this is the same man who DID NOT question all that was said about Oswald's background, including his "defection" and alleged involvement in the attempted assassination of General Walker and the murder of JD Tippit. He also did not react to Marina Oswald's testimony being held against LHO).
The jurors were so incensed by Judge Craig's conduct and his reversal that one of them, Robert Clark, filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court calling for Judge Craig's impeachment, since it was known the Craig had shown undue leniency with known Mafia criminals in his courtroom.
Is it just coincidence again that THIS man was chosen to make sure that the WC proceedings "conformed to the basics of American justice" or, is it more probable that he acted on behalf of the mob, and was appointed to do just that?
THE CIA
“If the
United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the
government, it will come from the CIA. The Agency represents a tremendous power
and total unaccountability to anyone”
Arthur Krock , The New York Times ,October 3, 1963
One of the first government agencies to feel Kennedy's wrath. After the fiasco of the failed Bay of Pig Invasion in 1961, Kennedy, while taking public blame for the failure, privately blamed the CIA because of their highly erroneous projections of internal opposition to Castro and the amount of support that the exiles would need to accomplish a foothold in the country. He resented what he thought were promises made to the exiles without his approval and he threatened to destroy the CIA. His firing of Director Allen Dulles, who would later be appointed to the Warren Commission by Lyndon Johnson, and General Charles Cabell, whose brother was the mayor of Dallas, sent notice that times were changing. JFK's further action of taking all covert military operation control away from the agency and putting them directly under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seriously weakened both the "Company's" power and prestige. Many CIA officers, especially those in the Latin American group, felt that Kennedy had betrayed them and their Cuban exile allies by withholding promised air support on the day of the invasion, and his later orders to shut down all operations against Cuba from U.S. soil further infuriated them. This combination of factors flamed the blatant hatred of many of these CIA officers and operatives; men who were trained in both assassination and covert operations. These were men of action; sometimes even reckless action.
JFK felt that the CIA was out of control. Enough to assassinate him? They certainly possessed the means and motive to both assassinate the President and implicate LHO. Whether they could also control the investigation and the cover-up, without additional help, remains to be seen. I would think that aspect beyond the capabilities of this agency alone. CIA domestic operations were tricky to perform because the Agency's entire structure was geared for foreign actions. Since the post-assassination investigation was run by the FBI, a CIA cover-up would have had to include, to some extent, the upper echelons of both of these organizations, and the ability to so influence the Warren Commission so as to keep it from LBJ.
Many conspiracy believers point to this combination as the most logical. I do not agree with this theory, simply because it appears that JFK was led to Dealey Plaza that day so that Oswald could be the patsy, and I can find no evidence that anyone directly associated with this group had anything to do with that, nor could either group have influenced the planned the motorcade route. To me that means that others, closer to the President, were also involved. Also, I cannot find any solid reason for the later necessary, CIA-FBI cover-up coalition, since the creation of the CIA alienated J. Edgar Hoover, who wanted the CIA's duties for the FBI. Therefore, the FBI and CIA were not, at the upper levels, used to useful interaction. Besides, most of the information that seems to point elsewhere than LHO was specifically withheld from the WC...nor did they ask for it, maybe because they didn't know it was there...and the FBI was THE investigative body for the Warren Commission, so Hoover controlled what they saw.
Additionally, there was nothing that either of these groups could have used to so scare Jack Ruby, to the best of my knowledge.
Again, we have a group who probably could not have done it on their own.
ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS
Another group with a motive for assassination. Their anger over the deaths and prisoners that resulted from the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy's failure to invade during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, his actions to shut down exile activities staged from the U.S. and his semi-secret overtures of peace to Castro manifested themselves in demonstrations in the greater Miami area, probably spurred on by their CIA handlers. These actions had led to the last minute canceling of a presidential motorcade during Kennedy's visit to Miami, a short time before the Texas trip.
They certainly had both the motive and, because of their CIA training and hot tempers, the ability to have carried off the assassination, but once again, not the wherewithal to have subverted the investigation. Oswald has been tied, through many different witnesses and occurrences, to this group. While it would have been possible for them to use LHO to some extent in an assassination attempt, it does not seem possible for them to have had the ability to alter the motorcade route to go through Dealey Plaza or controlled what happened without tipping off the FBI or Secret Service. If they couldn't have done it during the Miami visit, basically in their backyard, Dallas would seem quite out of reach. They also lacked the ability to keep the subsequent investigation focused on LHO. Likewise, they had no hold over Ruby that would have compelled him to murder Oswald.
CASTRO
I can find insufficient motive here to assassinate Kennedy. Maybe if it had happened in 1961 or 1962. By 1963, the relations between the two countries were improving and replacing Kennedy with Johnson would not have bettered the Cuban position. The only wild card might have been, as theorized by some, that Castro became aware of the CIA plot to assassinate him and turned the tables. That however, wouldn't explain how Castro would have been able to set up Oswald nor motivate Ruby. He would have also taken a big, possibly suicidal risk. The U.S. is only 90 miles away. If anything went wrong or his people identified...he's a possible, but a weak one who would have, nonetheless, needed help from within the U.S.
RUSSIANS
Much the same as the Castro group, I can find little, if any motive. While it may have appeared that Kennedy had gotten the best of Khrushchev over Cuba, it was in reality simply an exchange of missiles in Cuba for obsolete missiles in Turkey and a promise by JFK not to invade the island. I don't feel that the loss of face would have been sufficient motive to assassinate Kennedy. Moreover, the tensions of the period were lessening by late 1963, especially with Kennedy's planned withdrawal from Vietnam, scheduled to begin in 1964. Any Russian attempt on Kennedy could well have triggered WW III or other severe repercussions, had it failed or had its cover "blown". While many U.S. citizens do not understand the Russian psyche, one thing they do not do is cut off their noses to spite their faces. Exchanging Kennedy, who had shown such restraint during the missile crisis, where he held the nuclear upper hand and knew it, for the unknown, and more conservative, Johnson, would have been such an action.
THE U.S. MILITARY
Motive, means, ability-all yes. Disillusioned by Kennedy's diplomatic, instead of military handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, his failure to allow the U.S. Navy and Air Force to support the exiles in the Bay of Pigs and his policies regarding Vietnam, those in charge here, fumed. Kennedy's actions had the military, and others, feeling that he was very weak on Communism and unwilling to fight. Placing all covert, paramilitary, actions under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to effectively "scatter" the CIA, and holding the military responsible for those operations was not appreciated either. While the military could have possibly pulled off the assassination and framed LHO, it is highly improbable that they could have controlled the civilian investigation, nor did they have any hold whatsoever on Jack Ruby. I would also find it difficult to believe that ANY active duty officer would have been the ringleader of a coup. NEVER in U. S. history, despite wars, peace, poor leadership and the inevitable budget crunches, has the military ever done anything disloyal to the Constitution. Civilian, political authority has always remained supreme, as General Douglas MacArthur, despite his tremendous power, prestige, popularity and ego, found out in 1951. I cannot see a purely military involvement. However, the tacit approval or involvement of some high-ranking military personnel is a strong probability.
LBJ and FRIENDS
Motive-Yes. Means-Yes. Ability-Yes. This group includes: Texas oil men and staunch conservatives H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson; George and Herman Brown of Brown and Root, military contractors; John J. McCloy, New York banker and future WC member; FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover; Eugene Locke and Charles G. Purnell of the Law Firm of Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell, Texas's largest, who represented, among others, General Dynamics of Fort Worth; Texas Governor John Connally; and former Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, whose law firm represented a number of large Military-Industrial Complex giants and northeast banking interests. While there are probably more to this group, these are the charter members. The Kennedy Presidency was costing and would cost these men millions of dollars. During his second term he was planning to take away the oil-depletion allowance (oil money); his foreign policy decisions would soon lead to the drastic slowing down of military production (military/industrial money); he intended to scrap the entire Federal Reserve System (banking money); and he was looking into dropping LBJ from his ticket in 1964. This last action meant that whatever limited influence this group had over Kennedy's decision-making process would be gone completely. His liberal policies and overtures of peace to the USSR and Cuba were also in stark contrast to the conservative, anti-communist sentiments of this group. Those actions also seriously impacted a number of their wallets, by reducing military spending. His policies towards racial integration and equality were similarly unpopular with this group. Remember, Hoover would later have Dr. Martin Luther King followed, bugged, and subjected to an FBI-sponsored "he's a communist" smear campaign. Also on the line, and permanently side-tracked by a Kennedy political dynasty, were the careers of two of America's most unrefined, and ruthless politicians.
"After tomorrow, I'll never have to worry about those damn Kennedys again."
LBJ to his longtime lover Madeleine Brown, November 21, 1963
LBJ, longtime protégé of U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn, was a crude, down and dirty back room, arm-twisting politician, and Kennedy's opponent for the 1960 Democratic nomination. He had traded his support for JFK into a VP slot on the ticket that had led nowhere. He knew, by 1963, that his political future and ambitions, which included a vow to be President, were virtually nonexistent. The Vice-President position he held was, as it has been for most of the second half of the 20th Century, of little power, and even less prestige, especially since JFK spent less than 3 hours in private sessions with Johnson for the time he was president. His own powerful Democratic Party in Texas was split between the conservatives under him and Connally and the new liberals of Kennedy and U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough. He was also aware that JFK was looking to drop him. In fact, Richard M. Nixon had, publicly, mentioned that very fact while in Dallas, the day before the assassination.
In addition, for the 3 years Johnson had been Vice-President, a number of political scandals had come to light that involved him:
The Billie Sol Estes agricultural scandal of 1961:
Sol Estes, a longtime Johnson crony, used Johnson's influence to trade cotton-growing rights on his submerged "land" for growing rights on arable lands. The Department of Agriculture investigator assigned to look into the matter, Henry Marshall, was found shot to death on June 3, 1961 in Franklin, Texas. The local Justice of the Peace, another Johnson crony, found that, officially, Marshall had committed suicide...by shooting himself in the head 5 times with a bolt-action rifle!! Estes until just recently refused to talk about the entire affair, thus keeping Johnson insulated. Estes served 15 years in prison and within a year of his release in 1983, he testified before a grand jury re-investigating Marshall's murder. According to a 1999 interview with a French magazine, Estes said that he implicated Johnson in both Marshall's death and John F Kennedy's assassination. Marshall's death has been re-classified as a murder and, at this time, is unsolved.
The TFX fighter contract scandal of 1962:
This one, for a new fighter for the Navy, was right out of the movie The Pentagon Wars. The multi-billion dollar contract was awarded to General Dynamics of Ft Worth. The problem was that the plane they developed was not carrier capable, thus making it somewhat less than useful to the Navy. It eventually became the F-111 "Aardvark", after an extremely lengthy and expensive gestation period. The original contract was "won" because of the arm-twisting of Johnson friends and fellow Texans, then Secretary of the Navy John B Connally, and his successor Fred Korth, both of who were appointed by Vice-President Johnson. Korth was eventually forced to resign, in November, 1963, when General Dynamics was found to have falsified the data it submitted on the carrier capabilities of the aircraft. This time it was Korth who kept his mouth shut and Johnson again skated through by the skin of his teeth. Connally resigned to run for governor of Texas prior to the scandal being in the public domain.
The Bobbie Baker scandal of 1963:
Baker was Johnson's right-hand man while serving as Secretary to the Senate Majority Leader, Johnson's position prior to becoming Vice-President. When Baker's influence and sex peddling became known in September, 1963, it did not take a genius to see where the investigation was going to lead when the Senate Rules Committee announced:
"We are starting with the Bobbie Baker case...where it spreads from there we don't know."
Johnson removed himself from Washington and stayed out of the limelight, cowering on his ranch until Kennedy’s fateful Texas trip began. No doubt he saw his political life about to dissolve and faced the possibility of a prison sentence. He also knew that any last chance of cajoling Kennedy to keep him on the ticket for 1964 evaporated with the first mention of Baker's name. Even if he avoided jail his political aspirations appeared doomed.
Interested in more detail on this? Visit The Men on the Sixth Floor
Interestingly enough, Baker chose as his attorney, Abe Fortas, longtime friend of LBJ. Fortas would later be appointed to the United States Supreme Court where he gained "fame" as the first justice to ever resign under pressure.
Fortas quit being Baker's attorney just after the assassination because he took a new post. The following is an excerpt from a November 26, 1963 memo from then Texas Attorney General Wagoner Carr:
Mr. Fortas informed me that he has been assigned to coordinate the FBI, Department of Justice and Texas Attorney General's efforts regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.
It appears that Fortas was another attempt to control the investigation, since the memo in question is dated prior to LBJ's creation of the Warren Commission.
Do YOU see a pattern here?
Johnson, who had suffered a major heart attack in the mid 1950's, was also well aware that his health would probably not allow him to run for the presidency in1968, his next possible attempt. With his own state political base in disarray, he had only one potential path into the White House: succession. He had also become financially dependent on his inner circle of businessmen-friends, whose support was and had been, vital to both LBJ's political career and his wallet. Many have said that no one ever profited, wealth wise, more from the Presidency, than did LBJ. And history shows that no President ever saw that his friends and benefactors made more money, through government contracts, than did LBJ.
Some biographers have pointed out that, not only did LBJ deal with and have as close friends and associates, some sleazy, corrupted individuals, but that there is also the possibility that he, himself, was involved in another political murder, much earlier in his career.
Also incriminating was Johnson's conduct in the immediate aftermath of the assassination:
1) He asked his wife to notate the exact time he was informed of JFK's death (which was also the exact moment he became president)
2) He sat eating and drinking Kennedy's bottled water on board Air Force One during the trip back to Washington while everyone else was in mourning and shock.
3) He got into an argument with the Kennedy staff when he insisted that protocol called for him to be the first out of the plane on its arrival at Andrews Air Force Base, rather than having the casket removed first (he lost...and then brooded over it for days).
4) On Saturday morning, he fired Mrs. Lincoln, JFK's long time secretary and had all Kennedy's things quietly removed from the White House. He also insisted that Jackie be moved out of the White House by Monday...the day of JFK's funeral.
Clearly, he wanted to show that he was President now, and his conduct also showed that, obviously, he wasn't too upset over the former president's death. In fact, as a further testament to his prodigious ego and absolute lack of class, he had a photograph of himself hung in the White House before noon on November 23, 1963.
In the political atmosphere of Washington, he went from a laughing stock and self-imposed exile on November 21st to its most powerful man the very next day.
No one gained more from the assassination than did LBJ.
"Hoover lied his eyes out to the (Warren) Commission, on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it..."
Congressman Hale Boggs, member of the Warren Commission.
Hoover, long time friend and DC next-door neighbor of LBJ was one of the most conservative and rabid anti-communists in Washington. It is also well known that he hated all of the Kennedys, whose liberal northern political views and "blue-blood" background were the complete opposite of his southern-born beliefs. The Kennedy brothers and Hoover were about as far apart on the political, and personal spectrums as was possible. And within the Kennedy Administration, he had the longest tenure as a Washington insider, having served as the FBI Director for 5 other presidents. Hoover's future was now to be decided by both RFK, his nominal boss and over thirty years his junior, and JFK, whose bedroom antics Hoover had despised, and documented, as far back as 1942. He was approaching mandatory retirement age (70) and could only remain as FBI Director by Presidential Decree, something he had little chance of ever voluntarily obtaining from JFK. If Johnson, his longtime friend and political crony were President, his chances were far greater. He too, stood to gain much by a "change", or possibly lose everything without one.
The keys to Hoover’s power were his files on virtually anyone of substance, and every president from Roosevelt to Nixon feared him. He had been collecting those files since he had assumed the leadership of the FBI.
His files on JFK had documented the life-long womanizing, including a liaison with a possible Nazi spy in 1941-1942, sharing a paramour (Judith Campbell Exner) with Mafioso Sam Giancanna both before and after his election, his trysts with the actress Marilyn Monroe (eventually, Hoover also accumulated something on her and RFK), with members of the same group of prostitutes who were responsible for the sex/espionage scandal that rocked British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's cabinet (and forced the resignation of British Defence Minister John Profumo), and his affairs with both the woman who became Jackie Kennedy's press secretary and the wife of a US Army enlisted man, whom Kennedy met through none other than Bobbie Baker. Hoover had also collected information on the CIA-Mafia attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Such items, if exposed, would have been politically devastating...but in those days, the press thought twice before looking into a president's personal life.
During the 1960 campaign, Hoover had secretly sent copies of some of the damaging information to Kennedy's Democratic primary rival---Johnson---hoping to short-circuit Kennedy's presidential bid. He also may have helped Johnson get the consolation prize of the VP slot through blackmail, after Kennedy still won the nomination.
To back his bets, he then shared some of the damaging information with Richard Nixon, Kennedy's Republican opponent, during the 1960 general election. Hoover really didn't care who became president, as long as Kennedy wasn't elected. Unfortunately, despite all his efforts, Kennedy still won the election.
Hoover was not the type of man to slip quietly into retirement (as Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon found out), and it appears that he let Kennedy know very early, that he was not against using what he had if the President attempted to oust him (something he also did with Johnson and Nixon, after their elections). Kennedy was therefore forced to keep him...at least until the second term, when Hoover could be disposed of without worrying about its political effects. Such an action was indeed being contemplated during 1963...and Hoover knew it.
Hoover was also known for his complete and ruthless domination of the FBI. Serving as its Director since 1924, he had literally built the Bureau from scratch and was, at that time, both nationally and internationally renowned. His stature with the voting public always made taking him on a political nightmare, without even considering what dirt he had on whatever president was in office. He was also immensely spiteful, and always attempted to ingratiate himself with each president by passing on whatever gossip, even if unsubstantiated, his agents found on anyone who might be an opponent to the desires or political agendas of the president (at times his need for gossip was so intense that he actually stopped field agents from doing their REAL jobs, fighting crime and insuring the security of the United States)...occasionally even producing dirt on members of the administration, so as to show proof of how dangerous crossing Hoover could be.
JFK appears to have attempted to at least neutralize Hoover for the first term, by assigning Robert F. Kennedy, who had never practiced law and was only slightly more than half Hoover's age, as the Attorney General...and J. Edgar's boss. Insiders were shocked at how RFK, out of the public view, helped take away Hoover's cherished "direct to the President" reporting line, which he had used to circumvent all previous Attorneys-General and consolidate his power since the Roosevelt administration. They also cringed at how RFK made Hoover "jump" when he commanded. Nothing could have infuriated him more.
He showed both his hatred for the Kennedy brothers and his spitefulness through the two phone calls he made to RFK on the day of the assassination. He first called to say that the President had been shot and later that the President was "gravely wounded". After each call, he simply hung up without a word.
Despite his highly polished, and zealously guarded reputation as the enemy of any criminal element, he made the rather odd statement that there was no "Mafia", a statement that RFK's aggressive Mafia prosecutions made embarrassing to Hoover. Many biographers and investigative reporters have since shown that the ties between the Mafia and Hoover appear quite strong. He also appears to have been subject to compromise because of his fancy for young boys and his relationship with his longtime companion and FBI #2 man, Clive Tolson...all supposedly captured on film by members of the mob.
During the 60's however, none of this was publicly known.
He likely was under tremendous pressure from his Mafia cronies, to derail RFK's onslaught, a task at which he was failing miserably. The deeply compromising information on Hoover's homosexuality, which, if released, would have undoubtedly forced him into an embarrassing retirement and ruined him, was likely used as Hoover would (and did) use such information on anyone else.
With Kennedy's death, Hoover managed to hang on as FBI director until his death, in 1972 and the number of Justice Department prosecutions of Mafia figures dropped to almost nothing within the remaining time that RFK stayed as Attorney General, and stayed that way under Johnson and Nixon.
Was this also coincidental??
We now know that Hoover lied to the Warren Commission about Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City in September, 1963. We also now know that he was aware that someone was impersonating Oswald in a number of incriminating phone calls to the Soviet embassy there, as well as on several other times in other incriminating places, yet not only did he not inform the WC of this, he never so much as ordered anyone to look into it...strange behavior for an FBI Director, unless...
In addition, there is the fact that, beginning in 1962 and continuing until 1968, Hoover became obsessed with destroying Dr. Martin Luther King. In fact, in 1964 Hoover went so far as to order FBI agents to forge letters and documents in his efforts to destroy Dr. King. Among Hoover's other unprecedented attempts to undermine King were years of illegal wiretaps (which he got "authorized " by Robert F. Kennedy as a quid pro quo, after keeping JFK's name out of the Macmillan/Profumo scandal), attempts to scandalize King's personal life through press leaks and, a letter to Dr. King at a time of great mental stress and physical exhaustion, written by an FBI employee, telling King that he should commit suicide!!
Obviously, FBI agents and employees did what they were told, regardless of whether or not it was legal. They also kept their mouths shut about it. Hoover's vendetta against King did not become publicly known until 1975, well after the deaths of both men.
He also ordered the Chicago FBI office to "neutralize" black activist and comedian Dick Gregory, by "alerting" the Mafia to the fact that Gregory had referred to them as, "...the filthiest snakes that exist on this earth..." It is to be noted that when TV personality Geraldo Rivera first aired the Zapruder film to a national audience in the mid-1970's, sitting beside him were photographic expert Robert Groden and none other than Dick Gregory.
In the intelligence field neutralize is synonymous with kill.
Richard M. Nixon
"...I 'm not a crook..."
Nixon, during a Watergate related speech.
Nixon, who always felt that JFK had stolen the 1960 election from him by cheating better than Nixon had himself, was both a personal friend of Hoover and tied to Mob money. His fear and hatred of the Kennedys was only exceeded by his burning ambition to become president. A Kennedy dynasty loomed as a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to that goal.
Defeated for governor of California in 1962, his dying political career would, and did, only resurrect itself with JFK's removal.
Nixon's political views were also more in line with those of Johnson and his conservative wing of the Texas Democratic Party, than were Kennedy's. In fact, Connally switched party affiliations after LBJ's death and was a member of President Nixon's cabinet, as Secretary of the Treasury.
In retrospect, Nixon's ability to get involved in illegal activities is both documented and unquestioned, as are his financial ties to both big business and the Mafia.
It required the deaths of 2 Kennedy brothers for Nixon to gain the White House, and probably the political self-destruction of a third, to maintain it.
The "Party"
As amazing as it may seem, most of this group attended a party on the night of November 21, 1963, in Texas, at the home of close LBJ (and Hoover) friend and financial backer, oilman Clint Murchison. Many of the members of this group broke off from the main party for a "meeting" in another part of the house. What was discussed is not known but, after the meeting broke up is when Madeline Brown, LBJ's longtime paramour claims he told her:
"After tomorrow, I'll never have to worry about those damn Kennedys again."
This group did have the money and power to plan and cover-up the assassination and also the ability to control the investigation and to set-up and frame Oswald. They however, would have needed to "hire" the people to actually perform the act. They also possessed at least some ties to Jack Ruby, since Ruby did have documented ties to Nixon, when Nixon was in Congress. Ruby was also linked to the mob, and was said to deeply fear them. Nixon also has been tied to organized crime. These ties may have been the right combination for the "motivation" needed.
It must have been a tremendous fear, enough to force a man to commit murder in front of millions of witnesses and continue to be frightened until told later that his target was dead. After this knowledge, relayed to him by DPD detective Don Archer, Ruby became quite calm (Archer was interviewed for the 1988 CIT documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy). Is this not an odd sequence? His fear of failure seemed to be far worse than the fear he had for the consequences of his actions, which included the death penalty. Maybe he had reason to believe he'd get off, if he was successful, or murdered if he wasn't.
Who actually was behind it ? What we definitely see is that no single group, it seems, possessed all the necessary abilities. It looks like we will need to involve more than one of these groups in the conspiracy if we are correct in assuming that the ability to control the investigation, frame Oswald and "motivate" Ruby were necessary to identify the conspirators. Under those assumptions, it appears that a "coalition to kill" was created.
Who Was Involved?
"If I told you everything I know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our whole political system could be disrupted."
J. Edgar Hoover to Billy Byars, Jr.
My own theory, taking into consideration all the evidence, is that aspects of the CIA, Mafia, Cuban exiles and the Texas group were all involved, to varying degrees, in the conspiracy. Political necessity, financial survival and mutual hatred can make for seemingly strange bedfellows. It is possible to eliminate each group from independent action and no lesser combinations appear to have possessed all the abilities needed to have accomplished everything that was accomplished. The combining of assets and involvement also acted as an additional cover, should the "lone nut" story blow. Evidence of the possible participation of each group sent many researchers and investigators running in different directions, some of which overlapped and all of which led to confusing dead ends. The highly descriptive, military-used term clusterfuck comes to mind; the Russians call it maskirovka. Many theories, all containing some fact, and leading in many different directions, would slow any subsequent investigation to a crawl and so confuse investigators that if they did find something significant, they probably wouldn't know it or it could be easily dismissed.
My theory is that the need for some type of action was initially proposed, in a vague manner, by either the LBJ group or the Mob. There are many documented connections between members of each group and each group, by 1963, was feeling the squeeze from the Kennedy Administration. Most of these conspirators may have not done much more than just provide funds and/or the initial idea. Some, including LBJ himself, may have been involved by just knowing what was in the works and doing nothing about it. They are however, the group who started the events that climaxed on November 22nd.
The operational parts of the assassination and the set-up of LHO were planned and carried out, gladly, by the JFK-hating Latin American group of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Section, with help from their Cuban friends and Mafia connections. This group included senior field officers like William Harvey, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Ted Shackley, E. Howard Hunt and assorted CIA contract agents such as Charles V. Harrelson, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, Gerald Patrick Hemming, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. Most of them can also be linked to the Mob and/or the exiles. While most of this is deductive reasoning, there is substantial circumstantial evidence to tie these suspects to the assassination and each other. When we compare it to what we have seen as "evidence" in the government studies of the accused, we'll find at least as much as the Warren Commission had to tie Oswald to the crime.
William K Harvey
It is entirely possible that he was the lead planner in the assassination. He was in charge of the joint Mafia-CIA Castro assassination program. It is quite probable that he used the training and planning methods developed there to train the JFK team or, also possible, simply re-directed an existing team at Kennedy. While heading the Castro joint venture he clashed, repeatedly, with Robert Kennedy and is reported to have told others that he considered RFK's conduct as "traitorous" and later, as his distaste for the Kennedys grew, he referred to them as "fags". Harvey was the CIA's brain trust on covert assassinations, having written the "book" on how to plan and get away with them, when ordered, in the early 1960's. He was also a close co-worker with the Mafia's Johnny Rosselli, while both worked on the Castro assassination in Miami during 1963.
David Atlee Phillips
Phillips was investigated by Gaeton Fonzi during the HSCA probe. Fonzi felt certain that Phillips was the elusive CIA man known to the anti-Castro Cubans as "Maurice Bishop". Fonzi felt this way because of both Phillips' position and the remarkable resemblance he bore to a drawing of Bishop made from a description detailed by one of the Cuban exiles, Antonio Veciana, leader of the CIA-backed militant Alpha-66 group. Veciana, who failed to positively identify Phillips as Bishop, told Fonzi that he had seen Bishop and Oswald together in Dallas a short time before the assassination. Phillips was also the CIA's Mexico City Station Chief and also the CIA expert on spreading disinformation (cover stories), during the period that LHO was allegedly there, trying to obtain a visa to visit Cuba. He claimed that the CIA had both pictures and voiceprints of Oswald. When requested to produce them by the FBI, they were unable, citing defective or not-working machinery. The one photograph that they did produce and claim was LHO in no way resembled him. It did however, resemble the man Dealey Plaza witness Amos Euins placed in the 6th floor window.
Researcher Mark Lane has claimed that Phillips admitted that LHO was not in Mexico City at this time during a "debate" he and Phillips had in the 1980's. Phillips is now deceased, and I have been unable to adequately confirm that statement. However, the recent release of documents showing that the FBI knew, over the assassination weekend, that someone was impersonating Oswald on the phone in Mexico City at that time, does add a certain circumstantial corroboration to Lane's account.
Because of his position, Phillips was also a major contact with those mob-connected operatives involved in the CIA's Castro assassination plots.
E. Howard Hunt
Hunt, a key CIA field officer during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and linked to anti-Castro Cubans for many years, is one of only two people on earth to not remember where he was when the assassination took place (Richard Nixon was the other). He has always maintained that he was in Washington, with his family. However, several people have placed him in Dallas that day, and no one can verify his story. In fact, the "hobo wearing a hat" who was taken from the railroad car behind the knoll looks quite a bit like Hunt.
When a small circulation magazine, Spotlight , stated in a 1978 article attributed to former CIA official and author Victor Marchetti, that Hunt was involved in the assassination, Hunt sued them for libel. Researcher Lane, also an attorney, defended the magazine during their second trial (Hunt had won the first, but that decision was overturned on appeal). The jury who heard the case in federal court, found sufficient reasons to believe that Hunt had lied about where he was and credible testimony establishing his presence that day, in Dallas. Hunt's statement, under oath, that he spent the day in Washington with his family, explaining what was going on to his children, was in direct conflict to his claim that his children were now suspicious of his possible involvement, due to the Spotlight story. When Lane pointed out that if Hunt had been with his children, they would have known that he was not in Dallas, the jury denied the suit.
An interesting sidelight here, is that, while the press gave front-page coverage to the first verdict, they virtually ignored the second.
Morales was one of the CIA's top assassinations men. He would later be involved in the infamous "Operation Phoenix" in Vietnam that is reported to have caused the assassination deaths of up to 80,000 Vietnamese civilians suspected of being Viet Cong. Morales and Phillips first worked together in Caracas, Venezuela in the late 1940's and again in Cuba starting in 1959. Morales was also involved, with both Hunt and Phillips, in the Bay of Pigs invasion and was said to have been flying over the beachhead in a helpless rage watching his friends below getting slaughtered or captured. He was known for his violent temper and hard-drinking habits (he became a drinking buddy of the Mafia's Rosselli when they worked together on the Castro assassination project in early 1963).
He also is reported, by more than one person, to have told some close friends in 1973 that, referring to JFK,
" Well, we took care of that sonofabitch, didn't we ?"
Morales died of a sudden "heart attack" within days of being placed on the HSCA list of individuals to be investigated in 1978. Researcher Fonzi felt that Morales was a link that could have been cracked.
Ted Shackley
Shackley was the nominal boss of this entire group and simply on this basis is included. It is hard for me to believe that so many of his "men" could have been involved without his knowledge. With so many "assets" involved, both CIA and Mafia, for Shackley to have not known, would have required either a truly fantastic cover-up or for Shackley to have been a completely oblivious supervisor.
Documents have shown that Ferrie was a CIA contract agent, was in the same Civil Air Patrol unit as Oswald and, along with ex-FBI agent Guy Bannister, was tied to the same building in New Orleans where Oswald ran his "Fair Play for Cuba" chapter. He also took an unexplained trip immediately after the assassination. He and two friends abruptly drove several hundred miles from New Orleans to "go ice skating" in Houston. Witnesses at the rink, however, stated that all Ferrie did was make and receive calls from a pay phone there. To add to this intrigue, Ferrie was reputed to be the personal pilot of some of the Mafia leaders in New Orleans, and quite a daredevil in the air. His death, ruled a suicide, took place almost immediately after the story of Garrison's investigation became public. Garrison always considered Ferrie both a key suspect and witness.
Shaw might well have been convicted of conspiracy in 1969 by Garrison, had the evidence of his CIA connections and his admission to the booking officer in New Orleans that he used the alias "Clay Bertrand" not been withheld during the trial. Afterward, many of the jurors in the case stated that they were convinced that the assassination was indeed the result of a conspiracy...they just never felt that Garrison had linked Shaw to either the plot or the CIA. The truth about Shaw's status with the Agency was finally established through the testimony of then CIA Director Richard Helms in 1979, during a Congressional CIA probe. Shaw also claimed, under oath, to have never met David Ferrie or Oswald. Researchers have since uncovered photographs of the Shaw and Ferrie together at a masquerade party, in New Orleans before the assassination. Because of Ferrie's unique physical problems, he was completely devoid of hair, to have met him and not remembered is highly unlikely. In fact, according to some recent statements made before the Assassination Records Review Board , by former HSCA deputy counsel Tanenbaum, the HSCA had photographs of Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie together, which have never been made public.
Also, the Clay Bertrand persona is mentioned in the WC testimony of New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews. Andrews stated that Bertrand had called him over that November weekend and asked him to go to Dallas and represent Oswald.
But, because of the ruling of the judge in the case, the New Orleans jury was not allowed to hear that Clay Shaw had admitted, when asked if he used any aliases, that he did use the name Clay Bertrand.
Forensic anthropologists have stated that one of the three "hobos" pulled from a rail car behind the "grassy knoll" bears a 90%+ probability of being Harrelson (Harrelson once admitted, but now denies any such involvement). He is currently serving a life sentence for the brutal contract assassination of another federal official...a judge. Harrelson has also been linked to both right-wing groups and the CIA.
Gerald Patrick Hemming
Hemming, an ex-Marine, soldier of fortune and one-time CIA contract agent who started his own Mission: Impossible firm called Interpen, has admitted, in many interviews, at least some knowledge of the real events of November 22, 1963. The description of an individual, seen carrying a rifle case, given to the Dallas Police by a citizen so matched Hemming that an unidentified police or government official wrote "Hemmings?" across the report.
Obviously someone thought he might be a candidate.
The Others
The other two mentioned, Martinez and Sturgis, were soldiers-of-fortune and CIA contract agents who seemed to be anywhere and everywhere that Hunt was, such as the Bay of Pigs in 1961 and also including Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Building on June 17, 1972. Both were among the original burglars arrested and convicted for that crime. Neither ever divulged anything about the involvement of "higher-ups" in the Watergate scandal.
Fonzi, while working for the HSCA, uncovered evidence that showed that Sturgis was actually interviewed in connection with the assassination by the FBI. Interestingly, that fact, along with several possible connections between Sturgis and Oswald, did not make it into any of the 26 Warren Commission volumes.
The CIA
“Texas oilmen and the CIA
killed Kennedy”
Lyndon Baines Johnson
With so many CIA connections, was it possible that the upper-echelon of that organization, which was slowly but surely being shattered by the Kennedy brothers, were the ones behind the whole scenario ? My research does not point me in that direction. I do not feel that anyone in the CIA above Shackley's level, Western Hemisphere Section Chief, was involved. Nor do I think that the CIA, as an organization, was a part of the attempt. However, I do believe that former Director and soon to be Warren Commission member Allen W. Dulles had some foreknowledge. But, I do not think that Dulles tipped off then Deputy Director of Operations (Plans) Helms (he wasn't a JFK appointee, hence he was "old guard") until sometime later (I don't know when), about the Latin American section's probable involvement. And, while I don't think Dulles (if he knew) told Helms where the order to do it came from, they both had the political acumen to understand the necessity of becoming involved in the cover-up of the actions of their people (that is probably why LBJ chose Dulles to be on the Commission).
These were the actions that President Nixon, despite his own part, tried to use against Helms and the Agency a few years later during the Watergate cover-up.
Nixon always referred to the CIA's part in the Kennedy Assassination as "that Bay of Pigs thing", and tried to use it to get Helms to tell the FBI (Hoover had passed away) not to investigate Watergate because of, again, national security.
It was the release of the tape of a conversation between Nixon and his then chief-of-staff H. R. Haldeman, dated June 23, 1972, that included Nixon's orders to do this, which has been deemed the "smoking gun" of Watergate. This revelation is the one that finally forced Nixon's decision to resign in 1974, rather than face probable impeachment. He was succeeded of course, by none other than his own Warren Commission member, Gerald R. Ford, who immediately pardoned him for "all crimes", and who today continues to defend the WC conclusions.
Also, the famous "gap" tape, with 18 minutes edited out, was a conversation between Nixon and Haldeman. Many believe that they were discussing parallels between the two political "problems" and the methods and means to use them in the Watergate cover-up. Some, including this author, feel that the involvement of Hunt and his Cubans, in both affairs, was the real cause of the Watergate cover-up.
Another intriguing individual is former FBI man Robert Maheu.
Maheu emerged, during the Congressional investigation of the CIA, as the point man for the CIA-Mafia attempts to assassinate Castro. He was also a high-ranking official in the Howard Hughes billion-dollar business organization, running the Hughes' Las Vegas gambling interests. That type business would likely have been the first re-installed in Cuba by the Mafia after Castro's death or ouster. Maheu's firm Robert Maheu and Associates, has long been tied to the CIA and Maheu may have even been the basis for the "Jim Phelps" character on TV's Mission:Impossible.
I can't fail to see the irony in the fact that many of the same people (Helms, E.H. Hunt, Ford, Hughes, Sturgis and Martinez, among others) involved in the events that helped Nixon gain the Presidency in 1968, were also responsible, because of Watergate, for his resigning that office in 1974. Hunt's huge money demands for his silence, over $1,000,000, were also a major factor. Were these hush-money demands only due to his Watergate involvement? Would we have ever learned the truth about Watergate, if Hoover had still been alive or the CIA really involved in it?
I'll discuss the correlations between the two scandals in detail, later in this narrative.
Another interesting coincidence is that Hunt's wife, Dorothy, was killed in a commercial plane crash, in 1973, while she was ferrying around a large sum of the hush money. The FBI helped investigate that crash and found that there was no evidence of sabotage...
The Ambush
Included in the actual assassination were teams (at least four, probably more) of shooters, teams for security (including the bogus "Secret Service" agents and the civilians who pointed police to the TSBD) and at least one Oswald look-alike. The shooters themselves were probably composed of some independent mercenaries of various backgrounds, paid for by Mob contracts, and CIA contract agents with Cuban exile backgrounds. All were told only what they needed to know to complete their own task. Some were supplied through Mafia connections, others through the CIA group. The CIA contract agents, with their Cuban exile ties, fit in quite nicely, since Oswald, whom I believe had worked for the U.S. intelligence community since 1958, had been involved with the anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans. He continued to pursue these ties in Dallas, as witnessed by the Warren Commission testimony of exile member Sylvia Odio, though the "Cubans" he was now with were actually on the CIA payroll. These "sightings" acted as an additional level of cover for the "op" by forcing investigators to examine his possible ties to both Cuban groups. This effectively pointed away from those really involved and, circumstantially, pointed to Oswald as the suspect. Such evidence, used in conjunction with the planted physical evidence, was sufficiently incriminating, if not closely examined. Since those involved included J. Edgar Hoover, close examination was not forthcoming and only that which would appear to point to Oswald was to be made public.
Setting the Stage
Dallas was probably chosen as one of a number of possible assassination scenarios because it was part of Johnson's power base and ex-CIA executive, General Charles Cabell's brother, Earle, was mayor, allowing for suitable early control over the events. General Cabell remember, had also been fired after the Bay of Pigs invasion. The groups behind it all, and the CIA’s Phillips, a key connection, were also native to this area, with links to the many "seedy" sides of Dallas. These businesses and people can also be tied to the Mafia element, as can the CIA contingent. Plus, most of the Dallas Police Department at this time was very conservative. It has even been rumored that, to be a Dallas cop, the first requirement was a John Birch Society membership card. Such individuals were not going to cry over the death of the "liberal Bostonian" and, subsequently would be more easily maneuvered into acts that would help point to the type person Oswald was to be depicted as.
The motorcade route, originally designed to take the party to the Women's Building on the State Fair grounds where security could have been tighter, and Dealey Plaza avoided, was revised to go through the Plaza, and on to the Trade Mart, in the law offices of LBJ friend Eugene Locke. Both LBJ and Connally insisted that the luncheon take place at the new Trade Mart, because they felt that the upscale businessmen whom Kennedy wanted to attract would find it more appealing. Despite the objections of some of JFK's advance men, the site of the luncheon was changed and the President rode to his death.
As a part of the standard Secret Service presidential security planning, the motorcade route itself was run, prior to the motorcade, by Special Agents Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels.
Because of this action, the President's Secret Service contingent was aware that the motorcade had to negotiate two sharp turns within a few yards of each other which slowed the vehicles down to speeds (11 MPH at the time of the fatal impact) far below the 45 MPH speed that the Secret Service required for motorcades.
I myself, earlier in 1963, saw President Kennedy in a motorcade. Remembering it now, I am quite certain that a man standing on the curb with an Uzi would have had difficulty hitting him because of the speed with which he passed. I can remember being very disappointed since he passed my position so quickly that I didn't even get a good look at him.
I also was present in July, 1997 when President Bill Clinton visited Oriole Park at Camden Yards to watch a baseball game. I personally counted 5 teams of Secret Service riflemen on the roof of the stadium alone (please note that in each of those cases, I had to do something out of my everyday schedule to get within eyesight range of them).
Are we supposed to believe that this violation of the protocol in Dallas was just a tragic mistake, at exactly the wrong spot, which accidentally left JFK a sitting duck for a man who took his rifle to work with him that day, just in case the Secret Service screwed up?
Hardly.
If the motorcade needed to slow to that speed, additional precautions, in the form of a military intelligence bolstered Secret Service contingent, should have been on the ground in Dealey Plaza. They were not. In fact, according to retired U. S. Air Force Intelligence Colonel Fletcher Prouty, the military intelligence group assigned to back-up the Secret Service in Texas was told that they were not needed in Dallas. Dealey was therefore left unguarded. The wounding of Connally is interesting also. LBJ did not want him to be in the Presidential limousine. He wanted Senator Yarborough, a Kennedy liberal and his political enemy to ride with the President and Mrs. Kennedy. It is entirely possible that the killers were supposed to take them both out. There was a heated argument between JFK and LBJ over who should ride with whom. Kennedy refused to change the arrangements and never switched Connally and Yarborough. Maybe the killers weren't informed of this.
It needs also be noted that its possible we might have seen similar foul ups with other security measures for trips before or scheduled after Dallas that may have been parts of other assassination scenarios that were not utilized...but the Secret Service, in 1993, destroyed all records of Kennedy's travel arrangements for 1963...after the 1992 law prohibited such actions.
Taking Control
"They (FBI) haven't run out all the leads , but they are concluding Oswald was the assassin....that there can't be a conspiracy. Now that's not normal...Why are they so eager to make both of these conclusions?"
Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin
In relation to the after-the-shooting actions, the autopsy and its results were of paramount importance in both the cover-up and the efforts to point the finger at Oswald. The conspirators controlled this area by making sure it was performed by a military autopsy team. The autopsy was thus simply and easily controlled by just giving orders, through the military chain of command, on both how it was to be done and what was to be found. CIA personnel would have been perfect for this role, especially now that Johnson was the military Commander-in-Chief.
The federal government, its police forces and the military had absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in the case. It was a civilian, Dallas matter, yet the conspirators managed to steal the body away and do with it what they wanted.
It was undoubtedly altered before it arrived at Bethesda. There are far too many mutually corroborating stories told by the non-commissioned staff members at the Naval Hospital about two ambulances arriving, and the descriptions of both the casket and the body wrappings at Bethesda do not in any way agree with the descriptions from Dallas. There is too much to just dismiss the idea, or simply say that the people involved are wrong. When combined with the facts that no ballistically identifiable fragments were recovered at the autopsy and the strange "autopsy-like" descriptions of the wounds and damage given by Humes, it is difficult not to believe in the theory.
This "pre-autopsy" autopsy, was used to both remove any large fragments that could be ballistically identified and change the appearance of all frontal entry wounds to frontal exit wounds, by simply increasing the size of the wounds. Remember, the autopsy doctors were military, so the wound alterations didn't need to be perfect, just reasonably acceptable. They were, but just barely.
Once that was established, the legal "best evidence" took over and every attempt to circumvent the lone assassin conclusion was forced to overcome what wasn't possible...the phony autopsy conclusions.
The Linchpin
"He (Hoover) got everything, knew about everything. We didn't dare hold back anything"
FBI Assistant Director Catha DeLoach
Hoover was the key figure in the cover-up. His involvement, before the assassination was carried out, was essential. Only knowing where he stood would have cleared the way for the attempt. No other single person could have done more than he in regards to controlling the investigation, and no group could have pulled off the cover-up without his involvement. He was the linchpin. I find it virtually impossible to believe that he either failed to see where the information his agents were submitting was headed or for what reason, other than his own involvement or that of the LBJ group, he would have kept silent, unless the Mafia had indeed blackmailed him, beforehand.
He had no love for the CIA (in fact, much evidence points to his having it "infiltrated" by people loyal to him from its inception...Maheu was probably one of those) and, while he had reason to cover-up any strictly Mafia involvement, he would have been faced with covering it up from both the public and the new President. Besides, the discovery by the FBI of a domestic conspiracy, would have bathed Hoover in overwhelming power and glory, the type of adulation he lived for. He had to have been a participant, even if compromised into it. We must also remember that the Warren Commission was his idea initially. He told LBJ that such a committee was necessary to show the public that LHO, alone, was the killer. He was also not above blackmail, as most of his biographers have stated.
In March 1964, LBJ told Benjamin C Bradlee, then Newsweek White House Correspondent and later Executive Editor of The Washington Post that he was going to finally get rid of Hoover. Newsweek ran the story, only to have LBJ, during a special news conference that night (March 8, 1964…in the middle of the WC investigation), appoint Hoover "Director for Life". Was the possibility of the airing of a little "dirty laundry" used to abruptly change the President's mind? Johnson summed it up best when a young aide strongly suggested Hoover be replaced,
"No son, if you've got a skunk around, its better to have him in the tent pissing out, rather than outside pissing in."
He always blamed Bradlee for running the story too early; like maybe before LBJ could get to Hoover's personal files?
Those personal files took weeks to destroy after Hoover's death.
He would most certainly have had plenty of evidence and by some careful manipulation of it, could have implicated LBJ et. al. and covered his own involvement, but he could not have implicated the Mafia without being himself destroyed because of his homosexuality. And, only someone with the clout and prestige of a Hoover could have possibly accused the new President and been believed. Its doubtful that anyone, at that time, could have blamed Hoover and been believed.
The problem with all that was that each group was so interwoven into the other, with mutual overlapping ties and vulnerabilities, that a quid pro quo was really the only choice available...if one part fell, it all came tumbling down. So, a patsy, whose ties to some area that the public would hate, and the rest of the government would fear, became a logical choice to take the blame.
"I know naaaathing..."
Sgt Schultz, TV's "Hogan's Heroes"
It is also quite probable that more than one co-conspirator tried to both insulate himself and file away certain information against his partners for future use, if necessary. All no doubt played dumb, even around each other.
John W. Dean, III, the "whistle blower" of the Watergate scandal, draws us a most interesting, inside picture of what he called the "internal stonewalling" by Nixon's key aides when their cover-up started. In his book, Blind Ambition ,Dean describes the actions and attitudes of those responsible for both the original crimes committed and the cover-up. He wrote that they always refused to admit their own involvement, even to each other. It would appear that this same attitude served the Kennedy conspirators well. The lack of both media and government pressure made this "playing dumb" quite easy. Nothing about anyone's possible involvement was ever an issue, unlike the Watergate case.
The CIA men, regardless, had little to worry about in this area, since anything that would cause them problems would, undoubtedly, have caused a mess of problems for the agency itself and possibly, by association, Dulles and the WC. Hence the later involvement of Helms, and the agency, during the Shaw investigation in New Orleans and the HSCA hearings in 1977-78.
And the Mafia, under contract to the CIA for an attempt on Castro, knew that CIA protection would also be in their corner.
It has also become quite obvious that the conspiracy required the participation of someone within the Secret Service. Far too much doctored evidence pointing to LHO can be traced to and through the Secret Service, including all of the major bullets and fragments, the "missile" allegedly recovered at Bethesda that has never surfaced, and the receipts for the autopsy X-rays and photographs. They were also responsible for what amounted to the "abduction" of JFK's body from Dallas and they, and they alone, were responsible for the lack of security during the motorcade. It also appears that they routed the motorcade onto Elm Street...ostensibly for the most shallow of reasons.
The Secret Service officials whose names keep reappearing frequently with the most questionable aspects of this case are Protective Research Section Chief Robert Bouck, White House detail SAIC (Special Agent In Charge) Floyd Boring and Dallas SAIC Forrest Sorrels. Bouck is the last documented receiver of the X-rays and photographs prior to the 1967 FBI request for the chain of possession summary; on November 26, 1963, he also issued a receipt to the White House for a "...shroud used to cover the body in transit...". No such item has ever surfaced, nor was the body originally covered with a shroud in Dallas; the agents who secured the limousine at the White House were also under his supervision. In addition, Bouck's duties would have also left him as the one to forward any threat information received from other agencies to the Presidential detail. Interestingly, Bouck told the HSCA that he believed there had been a conspiracy.
Based on the enormous research done by Vince Palamara, Boring has emerged as the man on the Presidential detail whose conduct was the "oddest". Sorrels actually set up the route. He claimed that he used Elm Street because he could not access Stemmons Freeway directly from Main St (he could have). He also knew that the motorcade could have continued straight on Main (at 45 MPH) and gotten to the Trade Mart via Industrial Blvd. He claimed to have dismissed that route because it would have motorcaded through a "seedy" section of Dallas. Such sights had not changed motorcade routes in New York nor Tampa...why Dallas? Because of these items, I feel that they are the most likely candidates, although this is far from being solid. Betrayal from within the inner sanctum always makes an assassination easier.
The Role of Robert F. Kennedy
It has been asked frequently why RFK, if there was a plot, failed to do a thing about it. We need to address this very valid question.
For a long period immediately after his brother's death, Robert Kennedy was a broken man who mourned the loss of his brother so much that he could not carry out his job as Attorney General. He had also lost a great deal, if not all of his power when the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza.
By 1963, Bobbie was JFK's point man on all matters about Cuba; from private overtures of peace, to the overseeing of the CIA-backed exile operations, such as MONGOOSE and others. Bobbie knew of the CIA-Mafia plot to assassinate Castro. He probably also knew the names of many of the operatives involved, including, possibly, Lee Harvey Oswald. When he heard that name associated with JFK's death, he may have believed that it was one of the operations that he had responsibility over that had gone rouge and caused his brother's death.
It has been suggested that RFK's desire was to keep the fact hidden that one of the covert operations he controlled had been responsible for JFK's death. Some have claimed that this was behind the cloak of "national security" and the strangeness of the autopsy. I find that belief possible, but highly improbable. While RFK may have influenced some of the autopsy procedures, to protect the Kennedy family and his political future, he could not have gotten away with hiding anything important, since there were FBI agents present. If they had reported anything irregular to Hoover that would have reflected only on RFK, Hoover would have undoubtedly used it, publicly, against Bobbie, whom he despised.
Since we know that the FBI reports did show several notable irregularities and Hoover did not publicly pounce on them, we must assume that they weren't caused by anything RFK had to do with the procedure. There would have been no reason for Hoover to just "hold" any information about the connection between RFK and the assassination, since he could have gotten nothing worthwhile from Bobbie with JFK gone, and the FBI release of such information would have been politically devastating to the entire Kennedy family. Hoover would have literally jumped at that opportunity, had it existed, since that action would have not only pointed to RFK, but also away from the real conspirators. It obviously did not.
Maybe, by the time RFK recovered and started putting the real story together (if he did), his power to do anything about it was gone...he now worked for Lyndon Johnson. We also must remember that Hoover, who would have been the Justice Department's chief investigator, was one of the conspirators.
If RFK had become President, he might have done something. Could that have been the reason, in 1968, that he too, was killed, also by an alleged "lone nut", again under very strange circumstances? It has been claimed that Bobby kept a file that traced the assassination back to Howard Hughes near him at all times. That file allegedly disappeared immediately after his murder.
Foreknowledge
It has been obvious for many years that someone knew, in advance, what was going to happen. That knowledge obviously did not come from LHO. From the well documented case of Rose Cheramie, the prostitute with ties to Jack Ruby and the Mob, who was found, disoriented, on a road in Louisiana, on November 20, 1963, and informed both the doctor who treated her for drug abuse and a local police officer called in, that Kennedy was going to be assassinated in Dallas; through the fortune-telling admissions of ultra-right winger, Joseph Milteer, whose taped, before the assassination, conversation with Florida State Police informant Willie Sommersett (which was offered to the WC, who declined to hear it) and verified presence in Dallas on November 22, showed an eerie ability to both accurately predict the events and to be there to witness them; to the also documented "Wall Street killing" that took place on the afternoon of the assassination. Millions (in 1963 dollars) were made in the short period between the shooting and the early closing of the New York Stock Exchange, by people who "sold short", earlier that day (prior to the assassination), on blue-chip issues.
Short-selling is a speculative and potentially dangerous method of stock trading that anticipates a substantial drop in a stock's price over a short period of time. Those who made the money that day were said to have been connected to the New York/New England banking industry and Dallas oil money. These trades took place very close to the time of the assassination that day and the numerous were allegedly very abnormal.Unusual numbers of trades like thatare usually investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for some inside trade information...the SEC did not act . Knowing that, a full disclosure on all this should have been undertaken by the WC; that it was ignored speaks volumes.
What about Lee Harvey Oswald, our main character? Where does he fit in and why was he chosen? It certainly was not a case of just his being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The motorcade was brought to him, on purpose, so that he could take the fall. The shooting otherwise could have taken place elsewhere, and perhaps then, some other poor soul would have been heard to say, "I'm just a patsy".
Choosing the Correct Patsy
Lee Harvey Oswald, ex-Marine, loner, trained intelligence operative and provocateur was the perfect choice for a patsy. That is not to say that he was the only choice, just the only one we know of because he was the one used.
From the beginning it was imperative to the cover-up that LHO's intelligence background and ties to various federal agencies be hidden. Over the years this part of the "story" has had a number of large holes punched in it:
<< While stationed in Japan with the Marine Corps, LHO was treated for venereal disease, an offense that is frowned upon, heavily, by the Corps. Yet, LHO's records state that he acquired the disease "in the line of duty" and no punishment was handed down. How could a mere "radar operator" acquire VD "in the line of duty"? (CE Donabedian Ex 1)
<< During the HSCA investigation, former CIA Finance Officer James Wilcott testified that he had learned that LHO was paid by the CIA while stationed in Japan. Additionally it was learned that the CIA had a "201" file on Oswald. A "201" file is a personnel file.
<< He was tested for his "self-taught" skills in the Russian language by the military's language school at Monterey, California. Such skills were of no use to a "radar operator" enlisted man. Why then, was he tested ?
<< The ability to be self-taught in Russian is very rare because the language uses its own alphabet. No one can remember LHO learning anything Russian, they simply remember him reading Russian. There are several instances however, where he was missing from his unit for significant periods of time, under strange and unverified circumstances. It’s probable that he was receiving intelligence and/or language training during these periods. WC General Counsel J Lee Rankin let slip in an executive session that Oswald's training at Monterey was being looked into.
<< His trip to Moscow to defect cost four times the money he had. How did he do it?
<< If he were a true traitor, the State Department would have never allowed him to return, much less paid his way, or they would have had him arrested, or at least detained for debriefing when he did. Neither took place.
<< His job later, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, at Jaggar-Chiles-Stovall, while not necessarily giving him access to classified materials, was for a company that did classified work for the Army. Rather strange that a one-time defector with a dishonorable discharge could have passed a background check for such a company.
<< His "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" flyers were stamped with the address of the same building, in New Orleans, that ex-Naval Intelligence and FBI man Guy Bannister and CIA contract agent David Ferrie used to train and equip anti-Castro Cubans. One would think that, if LHO were truly pro-Castro, some type of altercation or vandalism, requiring the police, would have taken place at some time, in that building, given the fervor and hot tempers of the exiles, and the proximity, on the same floor, of the antagonists. His only altercation came out on the street while handing out his leaflets in public. The responding police officer believed that it had been staged.
<< The Internal Revenue Service claimed that he filed no tax return for 1962, yet there was evidence that he cashed an IRS refund check. Perhaps I'm stupid, but I think that the IRS only sends out refunds when you file a return. Why "lose" his return unless you don't want anyone to see his complete sources and amounts of income? How many tax returns do you figure the IRS has ever really lost?
<< In his book, DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK, Peter Dale Scott makes an observation (I have not been able to independently verify it) that it is possible that LHO purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano while working as an operative, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) (hence the Treasury Department, also parent organization of the Secret Service) as part of the Dodd Committee. That Congressional committee was investigating the ease of purchasing firearms through the mail. The rifle purchase did take place during the committee's investigation, and by purchasing it as Hidell, it could have been used as valid evidence of the need for stricter regulations. Of course, after Kennedy's assassination was tied to that gun, mail firearm sales were eliminated entirely. If Scott is correct, it is possible that Oswald never took possession of the rifle, and members of the Secret Service or FBI could have. It might also help account for why so much of the normally meaningless documentation for the obscure purchase survived.
<< On November 21, 1999 the Associated Press reported that recent released documents show that, not only did the FBI know over the assassination weekend that someone, for reasons unknown, was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City in September 1963, but that FBI agents had actually listened to the tapes of calls to the Soviet Embassy that were allegedly of Oswald. These FBI agents determined that the voice on the tapes was NOT that of the man shot by Jack Ruby in Dallas on November 24, 1963. This is a major development for a great number of reasons:
**Why would anyone be impersonating Oswald to the Soviet Embassy (or anywhere)?
**Why did J Edgar Hoover lie to the Warren Commission and state that Oswald was overheard calling the Soviet Embassy when he knew it to be untrue?
**Why did the CIA lie about the recordings by saying that they had been "routinely destroyed" before the assassination (something hardly possible IF the FBI listened to them AFTER it)?
The ARRB has stated that they, despite all their efforts, were unable to uncover the tapes.
<< In that same group of documents, Hoover states that the FBI had opened and resealed a letter from Oswald to the Soviet Embassy in Washington earlier in 1963. This also raises grave and perplexing questions:
** It seems more than reasonable to now believe that Oswald had to have been on some type of an FBI watch list. Postal Inspectors regularly "assisted" the FBI in this type activity. If that is true, then it also seems reasonable to believe that they would have been privy to the receipt, at Oswald's Post Office Box, of the rifle addressed to "A. Hidell" and reported it to the FBI, something they have always denied. This NEW but old evidence punches a large hole in that stance.
** If the FBI was privy to the weapon, it would appear that they would have insisted that Postal Regulations be strictly enforced and the rifle returned to Klein's or at minimum, obtained the signature slip that would have been required for whomever to take possession of the weapon. It is obvious that the package itself could not have fit into the box...an "oversize package" slip would have been placed in the box. This in turn would have needed to be redeemed at the counter and said package undoubtedly signed for by whomever picked it up.
Such evidence allegedly does not exist.
<<Researcher John Armstrong has done detailed research into the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald. His conclusions are that, for a long period of time, predating even his "defection", there were multiple Oswalds. I have read what Armstrong has written and I have seen most of the documentation he uses to back his claim (some of which are included in this work). While it is not conclusive, it is very persuasive. Armstrong uncovered multiple situations, prior to and including the period immediately before the assassination (and in one case after it) that has Oswald in two places at one time. He also points out that physical descriptions of him differ in significant areas, such as his height...it goes from 5'8" on entry into the Marine Corps to 5'11" on his discharge, back to 5'9" again at his autopsy. He also tracked two different schooling scenarios, including being enrolled in NYC and Ft Worth, Texas at the same time (with the FBI taking and never returning his Ft Worth records immediately after the assassination). More telling, and less subject to interpretation, is a missing front tooth and surgically removed tonsils that “reappeared” and a mastoid operation scar that "disappeared". Armstrong also uncovered evidence from the IRS that the W-2 forms used by the Warren Commission as proof on Oswald's employment from at least 2 places appear to have been phonies, with the company tax ID numbers being "created" in January, 1964...not 1956 and 1957!!
ARRB researcher Doug Horne believed that Armstrong had found something, but was later convinced by members of the IRS that the dates were merely deductions (no pun intended) on the part of the personnel who handled the inquiries and were likely the result of the IRS making computer changes in early 1964. Horne is now convinced that these are coincidental anomalies.
However, Armstrong has since pointed out that the "death claim" placed for benefits through the Social Security Administration, lists all the income registered under Oswald's social security number...and those figures match to the penny all of money listed on Oswald's W-2's NOT COUNTING THE QUESTIONABLE W-2'S.!!!
(for a more detailed look at John Armstrong's research you can visit Jim Hargove's excellent site by clicking: Harvey and Lee Home Page)
It therefore appears quite obvious that, due to some type of intelligence work, his background was both shadowy and confusing. These factors were used by the conspirators. Creating a pre-defection cover, while in the Marines, made him appear pro-communist. So did his Fair Play for Cuba membership and all the attempts by the CIA in Mexico City, to make it appear Oswald was again seeking to "defect".
Yet, there is not even one documented case of LHO so much as even being seen with a true communist, either before or after his Russian trip and there is not one piece of unchallenged evidence placing the Jack Ruby victim in Mexico City!
In fact, the trip to Mexico City, initially one of the major reasons why so many within the government were so cowered, appears to be a creation of the CIA, plain and simple...a creation designed to make it appear that Oswald was working hand-in-hand with Soviet intelligence...designed to affect the judgment of many within the government, especially Earl Warren.
That entire scenario, which cables show was first "discussed" between the Mexico City station (headed at that time by David Atlee Phillips) and CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in October, well prior to Kennedy's Texas trip, started out with the CIA claiming that they had
However, those items have fallen completely apart over the years...some of it even before the Warren Commission finished its business.
Now, through documents released under FOIA litigation, there is firm documentation that shows:
It now appears almost certain that a story was created prior to the assassination, with Oswald appearing to be working in concert with the KGB, perhaps finalizing plans for Kennedy's assassination and then making arrangements to escape afterwards to Cuba. When this card was played to Chief Justice Warren, he acted in what he believed to be the best interests of the country, (and no doubt as his CIA psychological profile predicted he would)...avoiding war...and limited the investigation (and conclusions) to Oswald alone...a noble stance, except that all his fears were created by operatives of the CIA for their own ends, and had no basis in fact...something the FBI's Hoover knew, yet did nothing about. In fact, as we now know, he helped perpetuate the lie.
It is hard therefore, to come up with anything alternative to some CIA foreknowledge, involvement and action in the planning of the assassination, based on the falsely documented September, 1963 Mexico trip as THEY presented it to Warren!!
On the other hand, it seems logical to believe that Oswald, probably under orders from his handlers (and thus, like any contract agent, believing that he was acting on behalf of the US government), which may have included Phillips and/or E. H. Hunt, was to keep track of, and infiltrate, a group of exiles who, he was told, were going to attempt to assassinate Kennedy. This kept him in touch with one of the "cover" groups and that association was also used to further incriminate him and confuse matters.
When he found out that the shooting had taken place, he possibly became uncomfortable, left the TSBD, went to his rooming house, all the time trying to figure out what had happened. Not knowing what else to do he then left to contact his handler at the Texas Theater (which, again coincidentally was owned by Howard Hughes, at that time the CIA's #1 domestic contractor and friend).
I personally feel that he got there before Tippit was shot. If that's true, then Tippit was probably murdered by one of the security group people, as a sacrifice, to inflame the Dallas Police so that, after they were again led to LHO by the guy who snuck into the theater (probably Tippit's actual killer), he would not be taken alive.
If Oswald did, in fact, shoot Tippit, he probably did so in self-defense, figuring rightly or wrongly, that Tippit was out to murder him.
The testimony of Officer M.N. McDonald, who arrested Oswald, states that an "unidentified" man, sitting near the front of the theater, told him where to find the man he was looking for. Who was that "unidentified" man and how would he have known who the police were looking for, unless he was there to point him out? That could have been answered had the Dallas Police used basic, normal, investigative procedures and sealed the theater to question all the patrons. They didn't (again!), and the man walked out, never to be seen nor heard from again.
Unfortunately for the conspirators, Oswald was taken alive, despite all their efforts, making it necessary for someone to force Jack Ruby into killing him two days later. That action was the basis for all the subsequent "scrambling".
What Went WRONG
In my opinion only one important item went wrong in the overall assassination plan :
The designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, lived long enough to be taken into custody, forcing the conspirators to eliminate him in a way that made the country wonder what was going on, and creating the need for a fuller investigation than would have otherwise been necessary.
It was this investigation and its findings, or rather the questions about those findings, that focused nationwide attention on the minute details of that weekend that were supposed to have remained devoid of publicity. Think about it.
If Oswald had been shot and killed at the TSBD immediately after the assassination and then the physical evidence found, who would have questioned it or the autopsy?
If he had been killed resisting arrest at the Texas Theater, little notice of that action itself or the case for his guilt would have been taken. Much like Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, commended for throwing his body over LBJ as the shots rained down in Dealey Plaza (a fact denied by Senator Ralph Yarborough who was also in the car), the man who killed Oswald while doing his duty, would have been a national hero.
It was the televised murder of LHO by Jack Ruby, necessary to silence Oswald, which set the wheels in motion. Without that, public attention would have been focused on the "heroes" who shot and killed the man who assassinated Kennedy, rather than on the flimsy case against Oswald.
I am of the opinion that Oswald was supposed to be shot at the TSBD before 1:00PM, "resisting arrest". There was testimony that someone flashed military intelligence credentials entering the Depository around 12:45PM (remember the MI unit was told to stand down...and we still do not know by whom or why). Someone on a federal level also re-emerges on the 6th floor before any federal officials are documented to be there, according to statements by Dallas Morning News photographer Tom Alyea, who filmed much of the search and "evidence" recovery over the objections of an unnamed and unidentified federal official. This man may have been the designated "hero". Obtaining such credentials, and bogus "Secret Service" ID's would have been no problem for the CIA contingent. By using these other agency credentials they, again, pointed investigators away from themselves and added to the confusion.
The assassination plan just never allowed for the speed with which Motorcycle Officer Marrion Baker got into the building (testimony from one witness said he entered within 10 seconds of the final shot), nor the possibility that he would confront Oswald and let him know what had happened.
Oswald, now aware that Kennedy had been shot, either sensed danger or feeling scared and confused by the turn of events, left the building, before the elimination could take place.
Had he been eliminated on November 22nd by anyone in law enforcement, no one, anywhere or anytime would have questioned that he shot Kennedy, after the autopsy and physical evidence were made public. There would have been little if any debate and no need for the Warren Commission or anything like it.
The Secret Service would have undoubtedly undergone some changes in its Presidential Security procedures (in fact, it did) but no one would have suspected anyone other than Oswald, alone, as the killer.
No one would have been the wiser and Oliver Stone would have had to make a movie about Area 51 instead.
"O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
Walter Scott, Marmion, VI
The Assassination and Watergate
The American people as a whole and those of us who have researched the assassination of John F Kennedy must thank Frank Wills, the observant security guard working the graveyard shift at the Watergate Building Complex in Southwest Washington DC, for both opening this country's eyes to what the "government" had done and opening our minds to what it could have done. Prior to the early morning of June 17, 1972, the vast majority of US citizens, if shown the Fox Television series, The X-Files, would have rejected that series' basic premise out of hand. Today, that series is one of the most watched in this country. All because of a piece of tape and one obscure security guard.
Also because of what came to light from the incidents of that night, support for getting to the truth about the events of November 22, 1963 has increased tenfold and inspired a far greater number of research projects than would otherwise have taken place.
How ironic that Richard M Nixon, one of the major beneficiaries of the assassination, would have been responsible, to a great extent, for regenerating the public interest in an event that he had helped hide in an effluvium of lies and contradictions.
And, for the past twenty years, researchers investigating the assassination have virtually tripped over other researchers investigating Watergate.
The reasons are quite simple: the backdrops, objectives and many of the names are the same. These are not coincidences. Far from it. The second is merely a continuation of the first, except that some of the main players were no longer around and many with equal ambitions, but less talent and understanding for intrigue and manipulation, got to make far too many crucial decisions...hence, Watergate was bungled, early, often and without doubt, while the government-sponsored, and still believed "conclusions" regarding the assassination are still pointed to as fact, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary available today.
It is not surprising that some of those who "got away with" the assassination of a President, returned for an encore in Watergate. They no doubt felt invincible. However, just as is true with motion pictures, the sequel is rarely as good as the original. The difference here being that the poor sequel has become a reservoir of information and knowledge, which has also generated vast support for those of us who continue to research the original. This was definitely not the intention.
Many have asked over the years: why Watergate? Nixon's re-election in 1972 seemed a near certainty from 1971 on. Why take such a tremendous risk under those circumstances?
To help answer that, one first needs to read any of the multitudes of biographies of Richard M Nixon. If you look up the word paranoid in any English dictionary, you'll see his picture. If you read any of his biographies, you'll see his actions. If you listen to the tapes, or read the transcripts, you'll understand the depth of his lack of character. Nixon saw enemies in every corner of his world. He was not alone. That paranoia affected many of those in power at the time. I happen to think that a part of it was the paranoia of guilt, brought about by their actions (or inaction) in regards to the Kennedy assassinations and the fear of that being exposed. They even appear to have feared each other, despite their mutual culpability.
However, much of what is now called Watergate is just the exposed part of the iceberg that was business as usual for those who sought and/or exercised real power during the period beginning in the late 1940's. Those who belonged to the clique flourished; those who opposed it were vanquished, many times for all to see, yet the public had little knowledge of or say in it all. Such a system is best described as anarchy, plain and simple.
Nixon took eight years of abuse, both domestic and foreign, as Dwight D. Eisenhower's Vice-President. Eisenhower freely admitted that he held little esteem or respect for Nixon. He was virtually worthless to Eisenhower and was in fact, a lightning rod for both bad press and international feelings. Yet, Nixon still aspired to be President, and somehow got the nomination of his party. He then lost the closest election of the 20th Century (by less than 100,000 votes) to the personification of all the things Nixon, and the clique, hated...John Fitzgerald Kennedy, aristocratic Boston blue-blood, Harvard-educated liberal, born into money, war hero, handsome, with an eloquence in speech and manner. Kennedy's views were poles apart from those of the clique, and his election stalled their plans. His re-election would have further complicated matters, as would the passing of the "crown" to his brother, Robert, which surely loomed as a probability.
Many have tried to pinpoint the one crucial point where Kennedy wrested the 1960 election from Nixon. Was it the disclosure of the 1956 $200,000 loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother Donald? Was it Nixon's haggard appearance during the debate (those listening to the debate thought Nixon had won; those watching gave it to Kennedy hands down)? Or was it the efforts (legal or illegal) of the Chicago political machine of Richard Daley, which gave Kennedy, by a hair, the key state of Illinois and the Presidency? Which, or all, did not matter. The public could not be allowed to choose again and, once a clique approved man, (first Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963, then Nixon, finally, in 1968) did become President (amazingly after both John and Robert Kennedy were removed as obstacles by "...lone assassins..."), no one was going to be given the opportunity change the secret agenda. After the guilt of it all forced Johnson from office ("LBJ...LBJ... how many kids have you killed today?"), it became incumbent upon those behind-the-scenes directors of American politics to put and keep Nixon in the White House. Not because of any fondness for or belief in Nixon; more because of the lack of a viable, and paid for, alternative. This then was the backdrop of American Politics during the 1960's...backstage manipulation, preordained policies, unseen power struggles and a cast of characters whose motives and actions shed as dark a shadow on the country, its goals and its people, as any in our history. The American path and sense of values changed greatly during those times and whatever comes of this country afterward, good or bad, will always remain different than it otherwise would have been. Those of us who live in the United States will never know how great this nation could have become; or what those who were taken from us by the secret agendas of that period might have accomplished. On the other hand, future agendas will now at least be slowed because the public lost most of its naiveté as the stain of Watergate seeped into, and out of, the White House. That which had previously been unbelievable suddenly had credibility, and old myths now required proof.
Similar Goals
The first comparison that can easily be drawn is that the goals of both the Kennedy Assassination and Watergate were the same...to decide who would be President of the United States without the Constitutional input of the people. We have seen efforts of this type in hundreds of other nations, and have looked down our noses at those countries. Few realize that we too, have been subjected to it, not once but twice (at least).
Jack Kennedy's assassination removed one elected head of the government...Watergate was to insure the re-election of another (another irony...that Nixon's re-election committee would be called by an acronym: CREEP). Both are reflective of a person or group of people with absolutely no regard for the principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States, nor any consideration for the wants and needs of the people. Whether this was brought about by a misguided feeling that only he, or they, knew what was best for the country and its people, or simple greed and/or hunger for power, is totally irrelevant. No one has that right; that is the essence of democracy.
Intertwined Casts
There are a few names that have been linked to both misdeeds...Richard Nixon, E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Richard Helms.
Then, there are those who were asked to help either "clean up" the Watergate mess or try to find a way to hide or contain it, and were also involved in the Warren Commission's definition of "investigation"...Rankin, Jaworski, Ball, Jenner, McCloy, Shaffer, Ford, Rhyne, and Specter. Quite a cast. Obviously some are there sheerly by coincidence...but ALL?
Next we have the eerie coincidences...FBI Directors lying, hiding and/or destroying evidence...CIA operatives lurking here, there and everywhere...references by top government officials to "...massive, far reaching, even into foreign countries, investigations which showed NO ONE ELSE was involved..."
Deja vu...all over again.
Hunt, Sturgis and Martinez were convicted of the burglary and all have been pointed to, at length, in the operational plan to assassinate Kennedy. Only the stupidity in the planning of the Watergate caper made them vulnerable. Interestingly, no one has ever attempted to link any of these three to the planning of the assassination...they have linked them to the execution of the assassination. Also remember that only because some of the burglars had on their persons when arrested, items that referred to Hunt, was he implicated. None of those arrested ever gave him up (in The Haldeman Diaries, the inside look at the Nixon White House, part of the entry from January 8, 1973, just before the first Watergate trial started, says, " All the Cubans will sit mute and even if they're immunized later, they'll take the contempt charge rather than talk") and he never gave up anyone above him (of course, the hush money helped).
We also know that Hunt, Liddy and their compatriots were all involved in numerous other illegal activities at the behest of the Nixon White House. This is a clear indication that the break-in was not, as Nixon's men had hoped to picture it after the arrests, an isolated incident.
Nor were the other events all political in nature, as the public revelations about the existence, and nature, of the so-called "Huston Plan" clearly showed. The fact that Nixon actually approved the plan, which included illegal wiretaps, mail-openings and the lot, speaks volumes as to his character; and what ambitious underling doesn't try to reflect his boss?
Unfortunately for Nixon, he did not have the planning expertise, nor the financial backing that those who planned and executed the Kennedy Assassination had in 1963. Nor did he have J Edgar Hoover to help hide all of the revealing pieces (Hoover died May 1, 1972). Nixon instead got the DC Metropolitan Police Department, referred to as a "sieve" for holding in information and two crackerjack reporters from a well-established and respected newspaper: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It was the power of the press, spearheaded by these two and so conspicuously absent from the assassination investigation, which eventually doomed Nixon. As Nixon's Chief-of-Staff H R Haldeman stated, once the toothpaste was out of the tube, it was impossible to put it back. The Kennedy assassins never faced that kind of pressure, because press reactions were initially slowed, and eventually controlled. Until the 1972 tragedy, the press could afford to be, and was, totally docile and in agreement with the WCR findings. The assassins weren't caught red-handed...a "patsy" was created far in advance, sacrificed before he could prove his innocence and only then was the "evidence" of his "guilt" produced. The planning paid off. Once the Warren Commission issued its edict, any attempts to get at the truth, were first forced into battling the Report's conclusions and its defenders. Those defenders were and are powerful people, and the press, for reasons best known to them never pursued the assassination with the vigor that they pursued Watergate, even after that episode made it obvious that a conspiracy could have happened.
In the Watergate debacle, all the cover-up attempts were undertaken ad hoc, and the culprits were tried, in a court of law and open to the public. The lack of advance planning caused grievous errors in judgment and action. This no doubt, was partially caused by overconfidence as a result of the effectiveness of the WCR and a feeling that they were all powerful. The totally asinine use of Hunt and his men, with their links back to the "keep it hidden at ALL costs" assassination, cost money that Nixon's men simply could not raise. And, this time around, the CIA had nothing to hide and no reason to act...Hunt worked at the White House now. He was Nixon's problem in 1972; he was Helms' and Allen Dulles' problem in 1963-64.
E Howard Hunt was the reason behind Nixon's downfall. It wasn't Watergate per se, it was Hunt's involvement. Nixon's ordering Haldeman to have the CIA warn the FBI off of the investigation of the break-in was the smoking gun of the scandal. After Nixon's long drawn out efforts failed to keep the tape of that conversation from Congressional and public scrutiny, he resigned. Is it reasonable to believe that Hunt's involvement in the break-in, still a very minor affair at the time of the fatal Nixon-Haldeman conversation, and the other illegal activities being directed by Nixon's staff would have elicited such an obviously illegal request direct from the President? And no one else had the audacity (or ammunition) to demand (and get) any hush money. Only because of those activities? It was those continual demands for money, and the difficulty in obtaining it, which finally so demoralized White House Counsel John W Dean III, that he "jumped ship".
The avenue of approach which Nixon suggested that Haldeman use on CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters seems cloaked in intrigue which points to Nixon's belief at least, that Hunt was a part of the assassination and CIA Director Richard Helms knew it. We have this excerpt from the transcripts of the tape of Nixon's June 23, 1972 conversation with Haldeman:
NIXON: Well, we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things...
HALDEMAN: That's what Ehrlichman says.
NIXON: Of course this Hunt,...that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab...there's a hell of a lot of things...this involves the Cubans, Hunt and a lot of hanky-panky...just say (unintelligible) very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, he knows too damn much...if it gets out that this is all involved, the Cuba thing, it would be a fiasco. It would make the CIA look bad, its going to make Hunt look bad, its likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing, which we think would be very unfortunate...both for the CIA and the country. (my emphasis)
This conversation took place just before Nixon told Haldeman to get the CIA to tell the FBI to back off investigating Watergate on the basis of "national security". It was the disclosure of that particular request, after Helms' failure to accede to it, which sealed the President's fate. I'll simply let you draw your own conclusions as to what Nixon was talking about...
No less of an inside figure than whistle-blower Dean has stated that there are still "...very big revelations..." in the Watergate episode which are yet to emerge. Twenty-five years after the fact, that is a truly fascinating statement, especially when one considers that the contents of Hunt's White House safe were seized by Dean within days of the break-in. In his book Blind Ambition , Dean refers to some of the items found there as "...politically explosive...". These items he later gave directly to L Patrick Gray, the acting Director of the FBI after Hoover's death, so he could say they were given "...to the FBI..." and yet depend on Gray to have the political savvy to keep them out of the investigation. They were considered so hot that Nixon's domestic advisor John Erhlichman suggested that Dean "...toss them into the Potomac River..." on his way to work one morning. Gray admitted that he did finally burn them (would Hoover have ever admitted that??). These files were missing from the inventory of Hunt's safe given to the Justice Department investigators and their whereabouts was questioned by Hunt during the discovery part of his trial. Care to speculate on their contents?
Next there is Nixon's faux pas during the news conference after the Huston Plan became public knowledge. While attempting to defend his use of illegal wiretaps by making general references to their use by previous administrations, he slipped up and suggested that Robert F Kennedy might have been able to save his brother from the assassin's bullet had he used more wiretaps.
What good would wiretaps have been if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman?
We also have the famous 18 minute gap and later a not-quite-so-famous 19 minute gap. What was so sensitive that Nixon felt the need to obliterate them and face the probable consequences? Other items, including his rough and sometimes vulgar language, admissions that eventually cost him the White House, and his top aides' prison sentences, were left in. The entireties of these actions certainly appear to be attempts to cover up something of far greater consequence than anything Watergate related.
Finally, there is contained in The Haldeman Diaries, the following paragraph from Friday, January 12, 1973:
The P got back on the Watergate thing today, making the point that I should talk to (John B) Connally about the Johnson bugging process to get his judgment on how to handle it...The problem in going at LBJ is how he'd react...A Star reporter was making an inquiry in the last week or so, and LBJ got very hot and called Deke (Cartha DeLoach-FBI #3 man, under Hoover), and said to him that if the Nixon people are going to play with this, that he would release (deleted material---national security), saying that our side was asking that certain things be done...(my emphasis)
Nixon, while hoping to pressure LBJ into using his influence to stop the Congressional investigations (LBJ did just that when he created the Warren Commission in 1963) into Watergate, obviously did not appear to wish to get into a mutual disclosure war with Johnson, since it seems that BOTH were vulnerable on some items. The reference to "national security", especially when taken in context, is quite intriguing. It never came to a head because, 10 days later, LBJ was dead.
Past Experience Required
Lets then look at the various cleaning crews brought in. It appears obvious that they were given the various jobs they acquired because of their success with the Warren Commission and their obvious understanding of what should and should not be publicly divulged.
Charles N Shaffer, a member previously of the Robert F Kennedy Justice Department, was an administrative aide to the Warren Commission, a position he was recommended for by Bobby Kennedy. He defended John Dean, and also made sure that Dean got his story out in the open, for public review. He also saw that Dean had federal marshals to protect him. Why the fear? Surely the President wouldn't have anything done to physically harm Dean and shut him up...would he? And why would Shaffer even consider such a possibility...Warren Commission experience?
White House Counsel Charles Colson suggested that Nixon get Warren Commission General Counsel J Lee Rankin to edit out the "...national security..." parts from the transcripts of the tapes. Obviously Colson was impressed with Rankin's previous results. Colson earlier had suggested Rankin for the Special Prosecutor's job, no doubt because of the superb job done by the investigation Rankin had led in 1964.
Leon Jaworski had represented the Attorney General of Texas at the Warren Commission and was given the assignment to check out the various suggested connections between Lee Harvey Oswald and the federal and state governments. Jaworski found nothing. Perhaps Nixon hoped Jaworski would be just as diligent as Special Prosecutor when he finally appointed him to succeed the fired (and Eastern Liberal) Archibald Cox. Unfortunately, Jaworski had too much of the press on him this time, and too many Kennedy Democrats on his staff, to hide anything. Besides, by the time of his appointment, after the "Saturday Night Massacre", the public was not going to be easily duped. When Nixon refused to cooperate or compromise, Jaworski had no options left but to go after the President.
John J McCloy, Warren Commission member and referred to as "...the ultimate establishment man..." was another Nixon choice for Special Prosecutor. This is really interesting because, although he was one, McCloy had made his fame and money as a banker, not as an attorney. He, no doubt, would have done at least as good a job as he did on the Commission.
Gerald R Ford, was Nixon's choice to replace Spiro T Agnew as Vice-President. He was also Nixon's choice for the Warren Commission and was the FBI's (read: J Edgar Hoover's) eyes and ears there. Ford spent virtually all of his time as VP defending Nixon, until told to desist by high-ranking members of the Republican Party. He also became (and still is) the most vocal supporter of the Warren Commission findings. Recently released documents have shown that Ford had no qualms about changing findings to fit the scenario of the Single Bullet Theory. It was his lightweight standing amongst his Congressional peers, willingness to do Nixon's bidding and obvious ties to the clique that were the reasons for his selection. Nixon hoped that the thought of President Ford alone would be enough to sway sufficient votes from impeachment. Ford, after becoming President, did manage to pardon Nixon from"...all crimes..." and did such a good job as President that Saigon fell and Ford was run out of Washington by a Georgia peanut farmer, who then went on to accomplish as little as any President in history. Perhaps that was because President Jimmy Carter was not a member of the clique.
Charles Rhyne, a longtime personal friend of Nixon, was chosen to represent RMN's personal secretary, Rose Mary Woods against possible charges of erasing evidence and obstructing justice in relation to the tape "gaps". Rhyne was an official observer of the Warren Commission investigation. He no doubt picked up some fine pointers on how to handle missing evidence and avoid obstruction charges during his tenure there. And isn't it amazing that so many people with Nixon ties were involved in the Warren Commission investigation. His party was not even in power. Former President Eisenhower was not asked to suggest anyone for the Commission...why was Nixon?
Albert Jenner, one of the Warren Commission counsels, headed that Commission's investigation into Oswald's background. They did such a thorough job that hundreds of hours of testimony and interviews were spent on totally irrelevant, second-handed gossip about Oswald pre-adolescent years, and many eyewitnesses (with unpalatable stories) from Dealey Plaza were ignored. Jenner actually had a deposition from Oswald's brother's second grade teacher entered into evidence. This was no doubt a highly important and truly pertinent document. It did however, help fill up the 26 volumes. Jenner was approved by Nixon to be the minority counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment hearings...yes, that's right, Nixon approved a member of the committee that would or would not recommend his impeachment. No doubt Jenner's zest for the truth, as displayed by the results of his Warren Commission efforts, had something to do with the appointment and approval.
Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball, served for a time as John Ehrlichman's attorney when he faced criminal charges in relation to the break-in of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg's doctor's office. Ball, well respected, was in charge of the Warren Commission Report's Identity of the Assassin. Maybe Ehrlichman thought he'd do better in a real court.
Finally we have Arlen Specter, Warren Commission counsel and the father of that illegitimate child known as the Single Bullet Theory. In December of 1973, he was offered the job of defending Nixon. After meeting with Nixon's new Chief of Staff, General Alexander Haig, and obviously knowing that the public was never going to accept another far-fetched explanation from him, Specter declined the offer. This was a wise choice since Nixon resigned rather than be impeached and Specter went on to become a US Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter's good fortune is representative of all those who were involved in the assassination investigation and agreed with the government's conclusion. It also appears that many of those who thought differently due to their own recollections, soon died under what have been called mysterious circumstances.
The Tape Gaps
Haldeman, in his book The Ends of Power states that both of the gaps were of conversations, not about Watergate, but about the Kennedy Assassination, which Nixon always referred to as "...that Bay of Pigs thing...". John Ehrlichman, in his "fictional" novel The Company tells an intriguing story about a President and a CIA Director trying to blackmail each other over a previous assassination plot that involved both. One of the gaps in the Nixon tapes was a conversation between Nixon and Haldeman, the other between Nixon and Ehrlichman. Enough said.
FBI experts determined that the erasures were deliberate, not accidental. They were also poorly done. Since only Nixon, Woods, Haldeman, aide Steve Bull and the Secret Service technicians had access to the tapes and only Nixon and Haldeman would have known which ones contained Kennedy discussions, the number of people who could have erased them is small. What would have been Haldeman's motive to just erase them? Also to consider is the fact that from the time Alexander Butterfield exposed the existence of the system, until virtually the very end, Nixon spent hundreds of hours alone with the tapes. He was also extremely uncoordinated.
What Does it All Mean?
There you have the connections. Some parts that still need to be investigated, should you have the time, are the criss-crossing relationships of those outside of the White House that may lead us to the "manipulators". Those who may need to be checked out are Robert F Bennett, son of the Republican Senator from Utah, (amazingly, Robert F Bennett followed in his father's footsteps and was also elected to the Senate from Utah in 1990 and currently still serves) who was Hunt's boss at The Mullen Company, a Washington based public-relations firm and CIA front, whose clients included another whose involvement needs to be examined, Howard Hughes. Nixon and Hughes' courses criss-cross enough times to make one dizzy. One of Hughes' main deputies was Robert Maheu, the ex-FBI man and key link in the CIA-Mafia plots to execute Cuban leader Fidel Castro. His name surfaced during the Rockerfeller Committee hearings in 1975 into CIA abuses. Maheu lost in an internal power struggle after Hughes was whisked away from Las Vegas to the Bahamas in the early '70's.
Maheu ran the Hughes assets in Las Vegas. Hughes and Maheu were also associated with Lawrence O'Brien, in 1972 Democratic National Chairman, and previous aide to both John and Robert Kennedy (O'Brien was in Dallas on 11/22/63, flew back on Air Force One, and helped move the casket from the plane to the ambulance at Andrews Air Force Base) whose offices were the bungled burglary attempts' target.
Maheu, in his book Next to Hughes, claims that he and O'Brien only became acquainted after O'Brien began working for Hughes. This took place immediately in the aftermath of Robert Kennedy's assassination. However, an internal memo from John Dean to H R Haldeman in 1972 states that Maheu and O'Brien were life-long friends, based on information obtained by Dean's #1 investigator and former NYPD detective Jack Caulfield. The memo in question was included in the HSCA files on the assassination but is incomplete, with at least one page missing. I brought this to the attention of the National Archives. However, a search at my request of both the Kennedy Assassinations Records and The Nixon Project failed to turn up the missing page(s). The National Archives spokesperson told me it appears that the missing pages were not included in the file when the HSCA turned it over to them.
What also needs to be checked out is why Hunt left the CIA; where did White House Special Counsel Charles Colson come up with his name for the White House and how did Hunt get his job as a writer with Mullen. We'd no doubt see many connections between Hunt and Maheu, given Hunt's former CIA position. Maheu has also been tied to New Orleans operative Guy Bannister, whose offices shared the same building with Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee, via Bannister's secretary, who claimed that Maheu visited Bannister numerous times during the summer of 1963. Speculating, is it possible that Hughes money was used to bankroll the assassination? His defense industries made billions from the Vietnam era (and continue to be a major US military contractor); his longtime connections to the CIA are well documented; his ties to the Texas oil empires of HL Hunt and Murchison are solid due to Hughes' father's patented oil-drill bit, on which the Hughes Tool Company, backbone of his empire, was based; he also, as another matter of coincidence, owned the Texas Theater where Lee Harvey Oswald sought refuge and was arrested. Maheu would have stood in an enviable position if Castro were ousted, since the Mafia would have moved their gambling operations back to Cuba, and Hunt, who despised Kennedy for his actions, or lack of them, during the Bay of Pigs invasion, would have been vindicated to his Cuban friends. If the O'Brien/Maheu connection is accurate, we have another established contact within the Kennedy Administration.
Yet another Maheu/Kennedy contact was Carmine Bellino, the Kennedy family's attorney. It seems that Maheu and Bellino shared office space when Maheu set up his Robert Maheu and Associates in the 1950's. Another coincidence?
Then we also have the Nixon-Hunt connection from the NSA 54-12 Committee on intelligence operations, during the Eisenhower years. It was this committee who formulated the plans for the Bay of Pigs while Nixon was VP. The problems arouse when Nixon didn't beat Kennedy in 1960. What we end up with are main connectors who can lead us to virtually every other individual or group who have been linked to the Kennedy assassination...Mafia, Exiled Cubans, Big Money-Men, the CIA and other members of the Federal government. All had motives to murder the President, all are somehow also connected to the scandal known as Watergate...that's more than can be said about accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. We now know all this because of that lowly security guard and the appearance, finally, of the "free press".
Why Does the Cover-up Continue?
Why is the charade still going on? Why was it necessary to put so many documents under wraps until, at least, the year 2017? First, some of those involved are still alive and subject to prosecution since murder has no statute of limitations. They are few and far between now, but they still need to be protected. That's not the main reason though.
The main reason that has prevented a full and honest examination of all these events and will always prevent one is:
The political system in this country cannot afford the unequalled and irreversible loss of public faith which would undoubtedly occur with the verified and undeniable proof that, to further their own desires, two former Presidents, the revered and legendary Director of the FBI, members of the business community, organized crime and the Central Intelligence Agency, ALL conspired to assassinate the duly elected head of the United States, usurp the Constitution, frame and murder an innocent man, and use their positions and power to cover-up their actions.
These same people, through the help and participation, both wittingly or unwittingly, of many additional government officials, including several later Presidents, and the “free press”, have perpetuated an obstruction of justice and have, blatantly, lied to the American People for over thirty years!
The American people already have an ever-deepening distrust for both their political system and its candidates for office. Imagine the effect on the process if the real truth of the assassination ever became known. Who would ever again trust the word of any government official or politician about anything? Since 1964, each successive Congress and President, out of the fear of what might happen should the truth be known, has continued the charade. Since our system tends to make sure only a few incumbents are replaced annually, we will never, short of a cataclysm like the one author Tom Clancy uses in his book, Executive Orders, possess enough "new blood" to overcome those who have involved themselves in the continuing cover-up to protect their positions. And, each time those members of the "new blood" join those before them, they become players in this ongoing game.
Think about the repercussions for a moment...what other debatable government conduct or conclusions would be placed under a microscope? RFK, MLK and many of the "questionable" deaths associated with the JFK fiasco come to mind immediately. How about the World Trade Center bombing... Ruby Ridge...Waco...Oklahoma City...the list is virtually endless. Future cases would all have defense attorneys claiming "government misconduct" and those claims will fall on the ears of jurors who will remember all the lies about the JFK assassination and its "open and shut" case. Consequently, some guilty parties would invariably go free... The problem with supporting this ongoing cover-up is that, unless the truth IS known, there is no way to prevent its inevitable reoccurrence. If someone sees that someone else got away with a "coup", they feel more confident in trying the act themselves.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams
Other Plausible Theories
I've attempted to play my own Devil's Advocate on each phase of this work. I really wouldn't think that I'd done my goal justice if I didn't try to cover all possible theories before I closed.
Most of them; Oswald did it alone, in conjunction with others, like the Mafia, Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Russians, fell apart when I cleared LHO.
Others: the Mafia, the CIA, Castro, the Russians, the US Military, were also covered and discarded. We've also covered the various partial "combinations".
One other theory that has gotten some play, is that one of the Secret Service Agents in the follow-up car, after the first shots from an assassin, inadvertently fired his AR-15 and hit JFK in the back of the head. The agent who has been accused of this in the book is George Hickey, now retired. Trying to leave no stone unturned, I'll cover this possibility also.
The AR-15 is very close cousin of the military M-16. Both are produced by the same firearms firm (Colt) and fire the same ammunition. If you laid them side by side, most people could not tell them apart. The M-16 weapon was designed and developed for military use and began replacing the M-14 as the standard U.S. firearm in the 1960's. It was much lighter, had a much higher rate of fire, used a smaller round of ammunition and could be fitted with a grenade launcher underneath that added greater firepower to the standard infantry unit. The AR-15 is the civilian version of this weapon. It fires only in semi-automatic, not full automatic and did not come with a grenade launcher version. Police and federal agencies all over the country purchased thousands. Agent Hickey was carrying an AR-15. The weapon was seen by witnesses standing near the entrance to Stemmons Freeway when the follow-up car passed them while proceeding to Parkland Hospital behind the limousine containing the Presidential party. There is also at least one photograph showing the weapon visible on the way to Parkland. However, I have found neither witnesses nor testimony, which states that the gun was visible during the assassination sequence. Still photographs, taken from in front of the limousine after Kennedy has been hit in the throat, show the follow-up car. In it, no weapons are visible and most of the agents' attentions are focused to the rear. It would seem improbable, though possible, for Hickey, who was seated, to have overcome being startled and confused quickly enough to have produced the weapon, popped the safety, gotten it and himself up enough to have cleared his car's windshield and fired, accidentally, in the 2-3 seconds after this picture was taken. No one seemed to have reacted faster than Clint Hill, and no one else pulled a weapon until after his mad dash to the limousine. Since everyone in Dealey Plaza that day seemed to have been in a stupor during the shooting, it does not seem plausible to believe that Hickey could have reacted that fast.
If he had fired the shot that hit JFK in the head, the reaction on the Zapruder film, the placement of the debris and the Harper fragment, and the faked autopsy photos and X-rays would still have to be explained, for the direction of the shot would remain the same. And the same arguments that we used to clear Oswald would be in effect. If they don't work for Hickey, then they didn't work for Oswald and I didn't make my case earlier. Besides, is it reasonable to believe that the government would go through all that has happened, to cover that up all these years? The answer is of course, no. Only powerful politicians would be cut that much slack. That being so, what are they covering up?
My own feeling is that this story is like far too many about the assassination. It is one of those works that injures the search for the truth just to make money. The book, Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed Kennedy , written by Bonar Menninger, is based on the work of the late ballistics expert Howard Donahue, and because of that must be viewed with a certain degree of credibility. However, it, like all but the correct theory, does not stand up to the TOTAL EVIDENCE.
One more interesting sidelight: Agent Hickey has filed suit in federal court against the author and publisher of this book. That suit was recently settled out of court, with Hickey receiving a rumored 6-figure plus payoff from the publisher. Another similar suit in Maryland was recently dismissed because the statute of limitations for filing had expired.
Some Nagging Questions
As I ponder this today, entire there are many questions about this entire affair that continue to nag me. The most puzzling is why LHO would have picked that day to take his "curtain rods" to work with him? While I am firm in my belief that he was not involved in the physical effort to assassinate JFK, I also do not much believe in coincidences. Knowing what was in that bag would ease my feelings about the extent of his involvement. It seems at least possible that it could have contained a different weapon, perhaps the one actually found by the Dallas Sheriff's Department. Unfortunately, we may never know.
Another of my prime questions revolves around Earl Warren. When he finally visited Dallas in 1964 and interviewed Jack Ruby, his conduct was, to say the least, odd. It appeared that he was trying very hard to keep Ruby from saying anything that was in conflict with the "lone nut" scenario. That falls in line with the conduct of almost everyone else on the Commission. Yet, Warren was so blatant about his attempts, including telling Ruby that it was time for lunch and that he could stop talking at any time, that it sticks out like a sore thumb, almost like a poor attorney's attempt at keeping a witness from self-incrimination. An example of the interview:
RUBY: Don't give up yet, Mr. Chief Justice. You can get more out of me.....
WARREN: I understand you completely. I understand what you are saying. If you don't think it is wise to talk, that's okay
RUBY: No, I want to talk, I just can't do it here.
Eleven times Ruby asked to be taken to Washington to give full, truthful testimony. Warren denied each of his requests. His reasons for doing so when asked about it later?
Three fold:
1) He was not traveling with any law enforcement officers and therefore could not provide security for the move
2) He thought Ruby had nothing of value to testify about and was only looking for an excuse to get out of his Dallas cell for a while
3) Warren was unwilling to spend the money for an airline ticket.
Let's examine the validity of those reasons:
1) To the best of my knowledge, the United States Marshal's Service stations a great number of U.S. Marshals in Texas, whose main duties are the transporting of prisoners. If Warren had wanted to take Ruby to Washington, I'm sure any number of Marshals could have been made available under the guidelines of Executive Order 11130.
2) Even if Warren had believed that Ruby was conning him, it was his duty, as an officer of both the court and the government to find out for sure, unless he either didn't want to or was told not to. At the time of the interview, Ruby was facing execution for LHO's murder, pending appeal. Is it plausible to believe that he just wanted to visit Washington before his sentence was carried out? And, why did they accept Ruby's statement that he was not at Parkland Hospital, despite Seth Kantor's testimony, and then not believe him here ? Do you notice the pattern ?
3) The cost of a first class round trip ticket from Dallas to Washington in 1963 was $150.00. Even if accompanied by 4 Marshals, the expense was less than $1000.00. The WC spent far more of their unlimited budget studying Oswald's pre-adolescence!
Which testimony was more relevant to the proceedings?
The question about Mr. Warren's duplicity in the assassination cover-up conspiracy will always remain unanswered, but I feel we can logically assume that, based on this episode alone, he was either quite stupid or he knew far more about the truth than he ever let on. Either way, if the truth was the real goal of President Johnson, Earl Warren was not the right choice for a chairman.
Final Debates
My goal when I started to write this was to not so much review every piece of evidence and each discrepancy, but to evaluate the physical evidence and the testimony about it, which were the backbone for the conclusions of both major government studies about the assassination. If the physical evidence failed to hold up to scrutiny, then I felt that it proved that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, someone else did and somehow LHO had been set up as the fall guy. That also meant to me that there must have been a conspiracy behind the assassination. I could see no other reason to frame LHO. I'll take a minute and examine that line of reasoning.
I cannot believe that the federal government and the DPD conspired to frame LHO, just because he was convenient. They simply could not have done it. He wasn't picked at random after the shootings, the set-up started long before November 22, 1963. In fact, it is possible that LHO had been used by members of the US military to sabotage the final summit meeting between Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
It was the downing of the U-2 spy plane of Francis Gary Powers, which happened just before the summit and just after LHO's "defection" that led to the continued "icing" of the Cold War, rather than an attempt at the easing of tensions that Eisenhower had hoped for. Prior to LHO's presence in the USSR, U-2's had flown over Soviet territory for years with complete impunity. Many people, including Powers himself, were of the opinion that LHO had sufficient knowledge to assist the Russians in bringing the plane down. If he did assist them AND was a member of the US intelligence community, it would tend to point towards a much earlier attempt at usurping the President of the United States for the wants of a few highly placed individuals. Unfortunately, researching this possibility is beyond the scope, and intentions, of this work.
Is it possible, based on what we've reviewed, to feel that the WC and HSCA investigations came up with the wrong conclusions about LHO's guilt because they just didn't look for anyone else..? I don't see how. For some reason, they were able to secure lots of physical evidence to point to him. Physical evidence has to both come from somewhere and get to somewhere. It can't be mistaken, like the observations of a witness and it can't lie without help. If Oswald didn't do it and someone else did, how did the real assassin plant all the evidence, without involving anyone else?
It has also been suggested that LHO committed the murder under orders from the Mafia. I find no reason to support this theory either. First, why would the Mob use someone as inadequate and unqualified as LHO? They had the money to hire a pro. Other evidence supports the fact that they did do just that.
This scenario also fails to measure up when you again consider that LHO did not stalk JFK. Where did the Mafia get Secret Service credentials? How did the Mob manage all that? Why was that not explored by the HSCA? And again, the evidence does not point to the fatal shot coming from the TSBD.
No, this one doesn't hold water either.
More realistically, is it probable that LHO took some part in the events of November 22nd? I'd say no, but it is a real possibility. Based on all the evidence, it does not appear likely that Oswald was just the only conspirator caught. The foundation of the case against him was too pat and set up well in advance. Either his incredible stupidity in leaving behind so many clues that were easily traced to him was to blame or somebody set him up. If he was the co-conspirator to be sacrificed by the others, he was incredibly stupid in his actions after the event and remarkably tight-lipped about what he knew, despite his circumstances. If he was a part of the plot and was just set up to take the fall, I feel that he would have started jabbering away with who and what he knew as soon as he was caught. It’s possible that he did. The DPD did not keep a record of the initial interviews, so he may have but, since he made no claims with the TV cameras in front of him, it doesn't seem logical that he knew who was involved. Why then was he murdered to silence him? While he may not have known whom, he did possess enough information to point the investigation in the right direction. The conspirators could not afford for that to happen; witness LBJ's quick Executive Order #11130, used to stop all investigations except the one he wanted. Besides, LHO's survival would have been cause for a trial, which would have included competent evidence and witness examination by someone actually representing LHO's interests.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Humes
were cross-examined; if the autopsy photographs and X-rays were produced; or if
the Dealey witnesses were all called to testify; or if Tomlinson had been
called to explain how, and where he found CE 399; or if
the rifle experts were cross-examined about CE 139? (If you are interested in
what a competent attorney could have done to the case, I most highly recommend
Dr. Walt Brown's fictionalized work, The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald.)
If he were actively involved, he would have used a much better weapon. The same should be true even if he was a "lone nut". Why risk your life and use such a poor quality tool for the job? He'd only get one opportunity, why take a chance with so cheap a weapon? I feel he took absolutely no part in the events of that day, but without knowing what was in the package he took to work that day, I cannot be certain.
The speed with which the evidence pointing to LHO surfaced and the depth of the cover-up, precludes the probability that the scheme was undertaken ad-hoc. There was planning and action involved, long before November 22nd, to make LHO look like the killer. The list of curious and incorrect Oswald sightings, all laying the foundation of someone, possibly a communist, preparing an assassination; the changing of the luncheon site; the failure of the Secret Service to use normal protection protocols over the entire route; all these incidents show the planning to set-up the patsy and ambush the President. The many highly visible "sightings" when he was documented to be elsewhere including, especially, the ones that had him practicing with a rifle or looking for a place with a great view of Dallas, and, according to the CIA, in Mexico City trying to arrange a visit to Cuba, all helped set the stage for the "lone gunman" scenario. The fact that J. Edgar Hoover was announcing that LHO was the killer within minutes of his arrest, while the DPD was still trying to figure out who he was--Oswald or Hidell--also points convincingly towards knowledge before the fact.
Almost all of those FBI/DPD/Secret Service who took some part in the fiasco, did so, I believe, with no knowledge of, or intent to assist in the crimes that occurred. There simply could not have been that many people who actually knew what was going on; the cover-up would have fallen apart early. The only things the cover-up conspiracy really needed to control were:
1) the disclosure of any evidence uncovered that did not point to LHO;
2) the autopsy findings;
3) LHO's trial;
4) the planting/switching of evidence to point to LHO and;
5) the public and inter-investigation perception that anything "odd" was being done in the best interests of national security, that very convenient and effective mask for improper behavior.
Making LHO appear to be a communist agent and getting that publicly known, almost immediately, was a stroke of genius on the part of the conspirators and showed a great deal of pre-assassination work. By doing so they allowed the mask of national security to be used to both cover their actions and justify many strange requests to the unwitting non-conspirators such as the DPD, Secret Service, and the Bethesda crew. Without the "commie" angle, many of those who performed essential tasks for the conspirators would have been far more quizzical of the reasoning behind the need to circumvent normal procedures. Because of that angle, the obstruction could proceed without the need for actual conspirators to handle most of the areas.
The numerous previously documented DPD/FBI errors in securing evidence, the "remarkable" piece of police work in finding the accused, and the unprecedented initial interrogation of LHO, lasting over 6 hours, and undertaken without either a tape recorder or a stenographer, all show the cover-up beginning to take shape, directed from above. Lower levels were handled by those who thought they were just doing their jobs. As career government employees, they would have never even considered the fact that they were being used to perpetuate a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Americans were far more naive towards their government in 1963.
The most critical lever used was the veil of national security. It is the most easily abused cloak available to departments within the Executive Branch. It can cover-up anything, at any time, for any period of time yet, it goes through no examination to see if its use is, or was, warranted. It's the classic "Catch-22" power. You don't even need to justify it, you just use it and anything you want is hidden, possibly forever, from any type of scrutiny. It is currently used as justification for all the files still unseen remaining that way until at least the year 2017, unless declassified by the ARRB.
Why? What could possibly be in there that would possibly endanger our nation's security today, much less 20 years from now? All I can think of is the TRUTH.
Are my theories correct? I'd like to think so. I've tried very hard to be objective, review all the evidence and attempt to put together the most likely scenario. Even if some of the items I've challenged and the conclusions I've drawn from them are in error, or you feel I've missed or not covered something important, the final conclusion should still be valid, since it is based on all the evidence.
Maybe Oswald did fire at Kennedy. Maybe Hoover knew nothing about it all. Maybe everybody was so upset, they made a mess of the investigation and that's what they didn't want us to know. Maybe LBJ was just trying to calm the nation and find out what really happened. Maybe the autopsy doctors just screwed up. Maybe, like in the board game Clue, there is a secret passageway from the sixth floor to the lunchroom. Maybe Jackie found out about JFK and Judith Exner and had him shot. Maybe little green guys from Mars did it because we wouldn't give them back their spaceship, found in New Mexico. Each is possible but, is ANY probable? Where does the sum of the evidence point? That's the meaning of total evidence. Does it all fit? Each piece of credible evidence needs to be accounted for in any theory about the assassination. We cannot just arbitrarily ignore whatever doesn't fit our conclusion, for convenience. We must somehow account for it; that's what the Warren Commission didn't do.
THE WARREN COMMISSION
As you review the testimony and evidence in the 26 volumes, you cannot help but wonder where rational men could have come up with the key conclusions that are stated in the WCR. There is simply nothing to support how the rifle got into the depository. There is nothing to support the SBT. And, there is nothing to support only a single gunman. Somehow, virtually none of that got into the Warren Commission Report...that is why reviewing the 26 volumes is so important.
Why did they go wrong?
Well, first let us remember that hindsight is usually 20-20. They didn't know what we know today. They would not have suspected that major people within the government might have been involved. They were told, or at least it was strongly hinted at, that if Oswald was not a lone nut assassin, it might lead to Russia or Cuba. They would have had a healthy fear of what that meant, since the world was only one year past the near nuclear exchange of the Cuban Missile Crisis...it still would have been on their minds and that was used to contain the investigation and confine it to its ultimate conclusion.
They therefore did what they were told to do...they maintained a "good" government investigation. They went down one path and one path only, just like the District of Columbia U.S. Attorneys who originally prosecuted the Watergate burglars, nine years later. Neither those guys nor the WC people looked left or right on their own. Neither was supposed to. Only the public pressure, brought about by the news coverage, caused the Watergate investigators to look at "other problems". There was no such pressure on the Warren Commission. Not only did it not have a legal precedent to exist, its real purpose was not to investigate, it was to "rubber stamp" the initial conclusion, convincing the public, just as Hoover had suggested. That's exactly what they did, and it’s taken the public over 30 years to finally start to see the real truth.
There are some interesting illustrations in sections of the WC Hearings testimony and exhibits that are prime examples of this single-mindedness:
These are just a few examples of the literally thousands upon thousands of pages of documents and testimony in the 26 volumes, that are about as germane to the proceedings in question as a first grader's opinion of quantum physics. Even important witnesses were made to give long sections of testimony about absolutely irrelevant issues, so that the meat of what they had to say was obscured.
It seemed that the Commission felt that quantity was more important than quality. This sheer volume, when coupled with the disorganized nature of both the testimony itself, with several key witnesses having related sections of their testimony appear in different volumes, and the absolute lack of an index showing the nature of any of the testimony, made it rather simple to "hide" the more ominous parts of the evidence that they had to acknowledge. In fact, there is plenty of testimony that never even made it into the 26 volumes, but we'll have to wait for the ARRB to declassify it before we can see why it needed to be classified "Top Secret".
Don't Tell Me And I Won't Know
The WC also showed the incredible ability to not ask the really meaningful and important questions when and to whom they needed to be asked. Some examples are:
The person asking the questions simply ignored that statement and continued with the original line of questions!!
The HSCA
The House Select Committee on Assassinations was basically designed as nothing more that window dressing to take the heat off of Congress. It was not intended to re-evaluate the Warren Commission investigation; it was meant to re-affirm it.
However, in trying to do that, it stumbled onto things that were supposed to stay hidden and they couldn't keep those findings totally out of the public's scrutiny, especially after the WC shortcomings. When Congress realized that the dominoes were beginning to fall, they cut the HSCA funding, eliminated its original chairman and its chief investigator, curbed the investigation, and gave the public just enough to placate themselves, while leaving so much still in question.
Despite the fact that they criticized both the WC's handling of the "possibility" of a conspiracy and the efforts of the FBI and CIA, the HSCA investigations also failed to follow-up on credible leads, did not require full disclosure from the branches of the government that it requested information from, including the already criticized FBI and CIA, and worst of all, would not examine the autopsy information under the "possibility" that it had been forged or altered, despite all the "problems" including all the recently released depositions from witnesses at Bethesda.
Interestingly enough, since these depositions have been released, everyone associated with taking them claim that they were unaware that they hadn't been including in the HSCA findings...one would wonder where these people have been over the last 20 years.
What Happened at the Autopsy?
When the body was quickly and illegally removed from Dallas County, the background for the continuing controversy was created, but not until Oswald's murder set the stage did the importance of that autopsy become evident to everyone else. ONLY at a military hospital could the conspirators maintain the required control of this part of the investigation. Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck were chosen because they had a pedigree, a rank and they also had been taught to follow orders. Humes was told that one man, firing from above and behind was responsible for the wounds. He began his procedure with that in mind and no reason to doubt it. Finck, the forensic pathologist, only appeared after the examination had begun, so he did not see what the body looked like on arrival. Would he have seen something? As the procedure began, Humes began noting things that were inconsistent with the one assassin scenario. He also noticed some odd "wounds" on the body. The brain arrived separately and was so sliced up that Humes had difficulty describing it, yet there was too much of it for the brain to have literally "exploded" on impact. He also could find no outlet for the back wound and no bullet. He was then told that a bullet had been recovered at Parkland and he assumed that this was the one from the back wound. He did not recognize that there was also a bullet wound in the front of the throat, because he did not look for one there. He had already been told, one gunman firing from above and behind only. Why look for a front wound? What really concerned him was the appearance of surgery to the head, the late arriving brain and the lack of sufficient fragments to justify the damage to the brain. He made his remarks, overheard by the FBI's two agents in attendance, and was then ordered (he was after all, only a Commander) to proceed as quickly and inefficiently as possible. He was not allowed to follow standard procedures. He knows that this is all very strange, but he still suspected nothing untoward. Why should he? He had been given his orders. Still, he was troubled.
The next day, hoping to allay his uneasiness, he telephoned the doctors at Parkland. That action only worsened his dilemma. Not only did they deny any head surgery, they also described wounds different from what he had seen and an "entrance" wound in the throat that he did not even look for. Dr. Humes now had serious reservations about what actually happened to JFK, and a frightening problem in regards to what he saw and had been ordered not to do.
On Sunday, he was informed of LHO's death and again ordered, for purposes of national security, to put together an autopsy report that was consistent with the one gunman scenario. As an officer in the U.S. Navy, he would have understood what national security was all about. However, because he was still feeling queasy, he did as he was ordered, burned the original draft and rewrote the autopsy report, but he included some statements which could be seen as clues to the truth, IF someone wished to look at them and ask the right kinds of questions...unfortunately, no one ever did. Did Humes possess the moxie to say that his superiors told him to misrepresent what he saw? No. Could he prove that he was told to lie? No...the body and the brain are gone, there is no evidence to refute his own "findings", and there were no written orders. He was stuck out on a limb with his story, while I believe he and at least Boswell, knew the truth. For the rest on his life, he tried to sidestep all questions about that night. Still, he helped perpetrate a fraud on the American people and, while I try not to judge without being there, I do not feel that Humes is an undeservedly maligned figure in this episode. He followed his orders, but that defense didn't work at Nuremberg and shouldn't be valid now. He knew the difference between right and wrong.
Could They Have Been Right?
Based on that and everything else that we've covered, is it reasonable to believe that the events happened as the Warren Commission and HSCA claimed? I do not see how. I asked you to look at how much of the alleged evidence we would impeach. It did amount to virtually every item tied to Oswald. The reasons for each impeachment are not all just legal or technical. Most are logical reasons, based on common sense and/or time honored mathematical and physical laws. How could we do that if he were guilty? Surely some major part of the case would have been completely above reproach and more of the theories would be in accordance with known, tested and valid scientific and mathematical rules. If all this evidence makes no sense, where did it come from, how did it get where it was "found", who put it there and why?
It all fit together very much like a David Copperfield show: illusion, nothing more, yet convincing on the surface. This illusion was simple to perpetrate on us, due to the lack of a public trial. We still should have been able to get through this illusion and on to the truth much earlier...unfortunately, the Fourth Estate has not been doing a good job guarding our First Amendment rights.
The Constitution established those rights to protect the American people against just what it appears happened...
The "Rollover" of the Media
Why didn't the press jump all over these inconsistencies and put pressure on those who were duping the "investigation"? I do not know, but as stated previously, their conduct has also been odd, bordering on conspiratorial. This particular chapter of the event is, to me, the most frightening and potentially dangerous section of the entire saga. Without the press, we can maintain only very limited control on our elected officials. I do not know why, but the "free press" failed the people this time.
What I do know is that much of the early information published was strictly geared to both condemn LHO and bolster the "lone gunman" scenario, no matter how many times it too, had to be subsequently "revised".
Some examples:
1) The New York Times, Life magazine, Newsweek, and the Detroit Free Press, all had, and printed, copies of the photo of LHO holding a rifle and some alleged Communist propaganda that "convicted" him in eyes of many Americans, early on.
Yet, according to Mark Lane's testimony before the WC and the pictures he had admitted into evidence there, NONE of these pictures agreed with each other! Rather odd since there were, supposedly, only two such pictures recovered by the DPD!! (WCH 2 pgs 32-35; CE 334, CE 335, CE 336, CE 337)
An interesting additional sidelight to this is that one-time DPD policeman Roscoe White, who, according to his wife and son, was involved in the assassination, had his house burglarized in 1975.
When the White burglary suspects were caught, among the possessions found was a previously unknown picture of LHO similar to the backyard ones already seen. Where did it come from and how did White get it?
2) On December 6, 1963, Life magazine published an article that stated that the front "throat" wound, at that time still presented as an entrance wound, was actually caused by LHO firing from behind. They attributed the frontal entrance to the fact that JFK had turned around to wave at someone behind him. This error is difficult to explain when you remember that Life had already gained custody of the Zapruder film, which shows no such sequence of events.
Surely, before printing the story, someone at Life would have looked at the film and known what had really happened. So then, why print such an obvious lie? The truth would have made a far more compelling and intriguing story. Was Life responding to a government request?
3) The New York Times published an article, on November 26, 1963, that said:
"The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President's car was coming toward him (my emphasis), swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees, and fired at least twice more."
This was the initial theory about the throat wound. As has been shown, it was soon changed to the President "turned around" and then to an "exit" wound, all to fit the changes in what the public knew, yet always in keeping with a single gunman! A further revision was necessary when the WC was forced, several months later, to account for the wound to James Tague, and "invent" the SBT. At that point, the throat wound finally completed its journey, from front entrance caused by a shooter on the knoll (Dallas witnesses, Nov 22), to being caused by a shot from LHO while the limousine was still on Houston Street (New York Times, Nov 26), to being caused by JFK turning around (Life, Dec 6), to just a front exit of a shot through the "neck" (Supplemental Autopsy Report), to, finally, the exit wound of a bullet that went on to cause all the wounds in JBC and appear, virtually pristine, on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital (Warren Commission Report, September 1964)! Each revision was carefully conveyed by the obliging press, each time still pointing to LHO as the "lone assassin".
The attitude of the media has changed very little over the last 30+ years, despite Watergate, Iran-Contra and Whitewater. They continue in this vein, even today. Why ? What exactly is their stake in this? Are they still capable of being what they are supposed to be, the watchdogs of democracy, even after this performance? Can we trust them today, especially if we do not know why they have acted this way?
Herein lies the largest part of the current problem:
If the mainstream media does not pursue the truth in this case, researchers like all those both before and after me, will never be able to present their findings to sufficient numbers of the populace to place enough pressure on our government to at least admit that the findings of the WC/HSCA are wrong.
But, because a great number of news journalists had their careers "made" by their contributions to the media circus surrounding the assassination, and these journalists now hold powerful positions within their organizations, its highly unlikely that the media will turn during my lifetime.
Who is Believable?
Can you honestly believe in these continual sequences of questionable physical evidence; illegal, unprecedented, bordering on sinister police and government conduct; obvious cases of ignoring valuable, credible testimony; the ability to defy known physical laws, almost at will; odd, even bizarre coincidences, theories and press actions and reports?
Even today, we cannot trust what we see or hear about this case, because it continues to be slanted, heavily, in the direction that the author wants it to go. While some of the reasoning for this is undoubtedly to "sell" their case for financial reward, sometimes the reasoning is less obvious and possibly, more malevolent.
Documentary Reprises
There have been several documentaries that have reviewed the many aspects of both the assassination and the plethora of conspiracy backed questions of the physical evidence. Not surprisingly, each takes the approach that all sides of the issue will be reviewed and that it will be done in an honest method. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. If the documentary supports the government conclusions, the angle used to examine the conspiracy evidence is that it cannot be proven to be true. But, in the same documentaries, they will accept the validity of the WCR "theories" at face value, not once acknowledging that they also, have never been proven. Why?
Case in point: the 1988 NOVA production "Who Shot President Kennedy?". While the program appears to look at both sides, it never acknowledges that the WCR conclusions were never proven, it fails to point out that certain "tests", such as the head snap test, the neutron activation analysis on the fragments from 1978, and the angles of trajectory are all flawed to varying degrees. It shows the Dallas doctors drawing pictures and showing on their own skulls where they saw the major head wound, in the back of the head....then, after viewing the autopsy photographs, which we do not see, they state that the pictures conformed to what they saw in Dallas! Those who had stated that they saw parts of the cerebellum, a section of the brain located at the rear of the brain, protruding from the wound, now say that they were mistaken. Trained medical personnel, including the neurosurgeon who pronounced JFK dead, now saying they had not observed what they had previously stated...are all the doctors associated with this case that incompetent, or do we see the results of years of pressure, confusion, fear and/or coercion? Would any one of them have the courage to say that the wounds were altered, even today?
The program also passes by, without comment, too many of the question marks including the X-ray/photograph/autopsy discrepancies, and it makes no effort to explain, in the "lone nut" conclusion scenario, either of the two fragments, how Tague was wounded, or how the parts from JFK's brain and skull got to the left-rear of the limousine, if that shot came from the rear. These are not trivial parts of the controversy, they are valid, legitimate and unfortunately, unanswered questions.
The documentary does acknowledge that the autopsy doctors refused to be interviewed, and that the Secret Service refused to comment on the possibility that the President's body had been removed from the casket prior to the autopsy. It also interviews Tomlinson, who again states that the "magic bullet" was not found on JBC's stretcher, and it shows Dr. Shaw stating that the leg wound Connally suffered was caused by a "fragment".
Yet, its stated conclusions are that the conspiracy theory cannot be proven!
On the other hand, the documentaries that suggest a conspiracy, never ask any of those whom they interview why, if they did so, did they make contradictory statements depending on who was interviewing them. They also do not interview the scientists who make statements and observations that support the non-conspiracy conclusions or bring those with conflicting views together with them.
What can we draw from these documentaries? Basically, that there is some evidence that can go either way, depending on how the light shines on it, and that many times that "light" is very artificial in its creation. Both sides are guilty in this area, and the public is being properly and honestly served by neither.
But, overwhelmingly, it appears that only by ignoring or hiding certain parts, can the "lone nut" scenario be supported, while the total evidence can be used in supporting a conspiracy conclusion.
The Future
What does the future hold in store for the research community? Will some new information or scientific technique finally straighten out this affair, once and for all? Will those documents still being declassified and made available to the public under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 contain irrefutable evidence? Will some process be developed to show the actual bullet paths in the Zapruder film?
Simply put... NO. Just like a good attorney never asks a question that he doesn't already know the answer to, the files that will be released will have long since been "edited for content". Watergate and the Nixon tapes have taught our political leaders the necessity for that. It will remain a giant jigsaw puzzle, with pieces that seem to change colors.
Any new scientific findings will be refuted by other government paid scientists, holding opposite views. Because the people, as a whole, will not have sufficient knowledge or expertise to determine who is correct, the government's supporters can say virtually anything. Remember, they've been highly successful in refuting Newton's Laws from the beginning.
Any controversial testimony and documents unearthed will be vague and disputed. The impasse will thus continue well into the next century.
When President George Bush signed PL 102-526 on October 26, 1992, and established the JFK Assassination Records Act as law, many researchers felt that they would gain access to the information needed to prove their conclusions. However, the law contains many loopholes through which the government may continue to hide any unpalatable evidence. Why anyone would have believed that the outcome would be different, after all this, astounds me.
We will have to make due with what we have. We cannot count on anything new. The key remains to keep up the pressure, let them know that we know, and never, ever give up our right, indeed our obligation, to demand the truth in this matter.
The government is not going to voluntarily come forth and admit to us that they have been lying for over 30 years. The press is not going to suddenly reverse its 30-year trend of supporting the "lone nut" conclusion. Getting the opposing views out will continue to require much effort.
With the emergence of personal computers and the information highway, the use of the World Wide Web has, and will continue to increase awareness and stimulate discussion, though not to the degree necessary to force the government to act. We find that this medium too, has those who believe in a conspiracy and those who continue to back the government conclusions. No doubts that many of those who still expound WC conclusions have ulterior motives for doing so. The same is true for many conspiracy supporters. The information put out is always suspect, regardless of where it is coming from. We must continue to form our own conclusions and opinions.
That is our birthright as American citizens. It remains one of the main factors that separate this country from all the rest, the ability to openly disagree. As long as we retain and exercise that right, our defined form of sovereignty still has a chance to survive. We must continue to fight.
Only the will and desire of the American people is strong enough to overcome the power of those who will continue to keep the truth from us.
As actor Kevin Costner, portraying the late Jim Garrison in Stone's JFK says:
"....an American patriot must always be willing to defend his country against it's own government..."
The United States of America was originally formed by patriots overthrowing a government that did not respect its citizens nor live by its own laws. While I, in no way, support the need for such drastic actions in this case, our dissent in this matter, regardless of what our elected officials or the press state, is a matter of morality. That morality must be preserved, if our ideals, rights, and yes, our freedom is to continue. It is the cornerstone of justice.
Ernest Hemmingway wrote:
"...what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after..."
You'd do well to search your own feelings.
Go to:
