Rethinking LBJ

[John Corbett]

You seem almost compelled to attempt kneejerk oneupsmanship on every thread. Your statement is simply wrong. I spent 20 of my 40 years as a lawyer working in offices that did little but criminal prosecution. The cui bono inquiry is often one of the initial stages in crime analysis and one of the most critical. Cui bono "is a foundational principle in crime analysis used to identify potential suspects and motives by determining who gains from a criminal act." Often, as in the Nancy Guthrie case, the evidence leads nowhere. Sometimes there is no meaningful evidence. Cui bono is a tool to identify those who had a motive, which the investigative process can then whittle down. For those not inclined to accept the LN verdict, cui bono would put LBJ and probably Carlos Marcello at the top of the list, even if neither actually had anything to do with the JFKA. As I said, with LBJ there is really no credible evidence, but this does not mean that a cui bono inquiry is illegitimate.

The investigation into the JFKA didn't start with looking at a motive. That was an afterthought. Had they started with who had a motive, they would have never gotten around to LHO. Instead they very quickly found forensic evidence to link him to the crime and his fleeing the TSBD and gunning down a cop a short time later made it even more clear that LHO was their man. D.A. Wade later that evening suggested a motive when he pointed out that Oswald had lived in the Soviet Union for a time, but that was not what the formal charges were based on. Had the case gone to trial, I doubt a possible motive would have even come up. Unless Oswald admitted to the crime and gave his reasons, they would have had no evidence of motive. Wade might have tried to slip it in during opening or closing arguments as he did in his presser and if he did, I'm going to take an educated guess that the defense would object. Oswald would have easily been convicted on the forensic evidence alone without the prosecution ever establishing what his motive was.

[John Corbett]

BINGO!!!

My responses are hardly kneejerk. I have been reading this same crapola for 35 years and it's almost always a regurgitation of stale old arguments that have been refuted time and time again. I have always believed in an evidence based approach to the JFKA and ALL conspiracy theories are based on unfounded speculation and I simply point that out as I have done off and on for the last 35 years. Aside from Royell Storing's musings about insignificant issues, there isn't much new in this discussion.

[Charles Collins]

Lance, I was amazed when I read “In History’s Shadow - An American Odyssey” by John Connally with Mickey Herskowitz at how fascinating a life Connally led, and the number of historical events that he was involved in. Anyway, if you haven’t already read it, I think you might enjoy reading it also.

[Lance Payette]

Lance, I was amazed when I read “In History’s Shadow - An American Odyssey” by John Connally with Mickey Herskowitz at how fascinating a life Connally led, and the number of historical events that he was involved in. Anyway, if you haven’t already read it, I think you might enjoy reading it also.

Thanks, Charles, I definitely will because I go through so many books that I'm always looking for something new. One of the surprises in Caro's books was the early age at which LBJ and Connally were closely associated.

[Lance Payette]

The investigation into the JFKA didn't start with looking at a motive. That was an afterthought. Had they started with who had a motive, they would have never gotten around to LHO. Instead they very quickly found forensic evidence to link him to the crime and his fleeing the TSBD and gunning down a cop a short time later made it even more clear that LHO was their man. D.A. Wade later that evening suggested a motive when he pointed out that Oswald had lived in the Soviet Union for a time, but that was not what the formal charges were based on. Had the case gone to trial, I doubt a possible motive would have even come up. Unless Oswald admitted to the crime and gave his reasons, they would have had no evidence of motive. Wade might have tried to slip it in during opening or closing arguments as he did in his presser and if he did, I'm going to take an educated guess that the defense would object. Oswald would have easily been convicted on the forensic evidence alone without the prosecution ever establishing what his motive was.

Again, this manages to completely miss the point. Yes, the Dealey Plaza evidence strongly indicated Oswald was the shooter, so Cui bono? was not a threshold question even though Oswald's life didn't suggest an obvious motive on his part. In many other cases, Cui bono? is a threshold question. With any event of the massive significance of a Presidential assassination, moreover, it's critical to determine whether it was an individual act or a conspiratorial one. When we start looking beyond Oswald, Cui bono? is the obvious questiion. Both the WC and HSCA recognized this. The WC paid little more than lip service to this angle because they were charged with not looking too deeply. The HSCA focused almost exclusively on organized crime due to Blakey's background and proclivities. CTers are continuing the quest, sometimes going off on wild tangents and sometimes not. I have no problem with serious inquiry focusing on those such as LBJ and the Mafia to whom the question Cui bono? most obviously points. If the inquiry ultimately leads nowhere - OK, fine. Unlike you seem to be, I am not irritated or offended that anyone is not willing to slam the lid on the LN narrative and claim "Case closed!" but instead wants to explore where Cui bono? might lead. My only point in this thread was that even though Cui bono? points strongly to LBJ, the work of the best LBJ historian suggests to me that this is a dead end. Obviously, even though Cui bono? points strongly to someone like LBJ, this in itself is meaningless unless there is actual evidence to support his involvement.