Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[Richard Smith]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

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

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

But as we know, the conspiracists claim all of those investigations were coverups. All of them. Yes, hundreds of people, multiple generations of Americans, over a half a century covered up what happened. More conspiracies. It's the only answer they have.

And there were perfectly valid reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt that have nothing to do with preconceived bias.  Most importantly, the evidence confirms that Oswald was guilty!  It also avoids the risk of being pressured into WWIII if the public were falsely convinced by nutty CTers of the involvement of another country like Russia or Cuba in the assassination. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The assumption that everyone involved in a cover-up knows the truth is wrong. Often times people willfully lie to protect themselves or their organization without knowing all the facts or the truth.

Specifically in the Kennedy assassination, it appears that the investigators didn’t want to learn the truth despite the fact that many had doubts that Oswald acted alone. Including Lyndon Johnson who ordered the Warren Commission. Due to national security or other reasons, they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts. Even the CIA admitted to engaging in a cover-up in the Kennedy assassination.

So we know for a fact that several government agencies did in fact cover-up stuff. Their motives may not be related to hiding their guilt but under no other circumstances would we conclude that a cover-up doesn’t indicate that people are hiding potentially incriminating stuff.

I've heard this "LBJ ordered the WC to cover up matters" hundreds of times over the years and have been presented with no evidence. Who covered up what exactly? What did LBJ order them not to look into? Mexico City? And what did we learn now that we didn't know in 1964? There's no there there besides some crazy rumors about Oswald meeting with Cuban and/or Soviet agents. You say that it "appears" the investigators didn't want to learn the truth? What was that truth? Were they ordered by LBJ or not?

And these other investigations - the HSCA, the Church Committee, the news media? Should we dismiss them too? As Joe asked above, what would you accept? Do we have to prove a negative? And how do we do this? Aren't all of these investigations enough?

As to covering stuff up: Yes, but what did they cover up have to do with the assassination of JFK? They covered up illegal activity, incompetency but not criminal malfeasance indicating involvement.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes. It’s clear that the WC omitted from the record or didn’t seriously investigate leads that could point to the involvement of others in Kennedy’s assassination. Their objective was to prove that Oswald acted alone.

They also were kept in the dark about relevant stuff related to CIA collaboration with the Mob and important details about Oswald’s Mexico City trip.

Given everything we know today about the Warren Commission, how gullible do you have to be to still believe the Warren Report was a serious attempt to investigate all possible explanations for why and how JFK was killed?

And all of the key figures in the investigation - that is, the staffers who did almost all of the work - lived for decades after its release. Norman Redlich, the chief author of the report, died in 2011. Willens is still alive. None of them, not a one, has admitted or intimated what you claimed they did. Yes, Slawson thinks that Oswald may have been encouraged to shoot JFK by people he met in MC (this is the Shenon claim). But how is that indicating a conspiracy? Encouraged by who? How? It's a reach.

You really think the staffers like Redlich would do this? Continue to the 2000s with this supposed coverup? And again, covering what up?

What do we know now about Oswald and MC and the CIA/Mob collaboration that leads us away from the Oswald as lone assassin explanation? To put it differently, what did the WC fail to look into that we now know that would have lead them to a different conclusion?

Too many conspiracy believers appear to act like it's still 1963 or 1964 and everything we've learned since then can be dismissed.

[John Iacoletti]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

Why would I include something Katzenbach wrote in a quote from Hoover?

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

Affirming somebody else’s conclusion is not an “investigation”.

[John Iacoletti]

And there were perfectly valid reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt that have nothing to do with preconceived bias.  Most importantly, the evidence confirms that Oswald was guilty!

LOL

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that the conspirators had to convince one another in memos to frame Oswald.  And they thought of this only after the fact.  HA HA HA.  Contrarians of the world unite.

[Charles Collins]

Why would I include something Katzenbach wrote in a quote from Hoover?

Affirming somebody else’s conclusion is not an “investigation”.

Affirming somebody else’s conclusion is not an “investigation”.


Who are you accusing of doing that?


And, if you are accusing, specifically what would you have them do differently in order for you to believe they made an investigation?