JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Benjamin Cole on May 15, 2026, 10:08:02 AM
-
Is this true: In his biography of Earl Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved."
AI answer:
Yes, this is true. In his 1997 biography, Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren, historian Ed Cray documented that Warren made this exact comment to a friend.
The pressure Warren referred to—namely, ensuring the public was certain neither President Johnson nor the Soviet Union (Russians) were involved—was largely driven by Cold War fears. Commission members were deeply concerned that any credible link to a foreign power or a high-level domestic conspiracy could escalate the geopolitical tensions of the era into a potential nuclear conflict.
You can find further details about his biography and the history of the Warren Commission through the National Archives.
CHIEF JUSTICE: A Biography of Earl Warren. By Ed Cray .<i ...Jun 15, 2540 BE — CHIEF JUSTICE: A Biography of Earl Warren. By Ed Cray . Simon & Schuster: 604 pp., $30. .
-
But, of course! We know the "steer clear of the Russians" angle from many sources. The "steer clear of LBJ" angle is obvious because ... yes, wait for it ... Cui bono? practically screams LBJ was involved. Oddly, despite the "great pressure" the WR doesn't deal with the LBJ elephant in the room at all.
Cray was no lightweight by any means: https://obituaries.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/print/ed-cray?o=6011.
His biography of Warren, which I admittedly haven't read, won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award as the best law-related book of the year.
-
But, of course! We know the "steer clear of the Russians" angle from many sources. The "steer clear of LBJ" angle is obvious because ... yes, wait for it ... Cui bono? practically screams LBJ was involved. Oddly, despite the "great pressure" the WR doesn't deal with the LBJ elephant in the room at all.
Cray was no lightweight by any means: https://obituaries.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/print/ed-cray?o=6011.
His biography of Warren, which I admittedly haven't read, won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award as the best law-related book of the year.
What nonsense. Note Warren's wording. He said the pressure was on the to PROVE neither the Russians but LBJ were involved. Nobody thought they were but it was important to prove that to the satisfaction of the American people.
-
What nonsense. Note Warren's wording. He said the pressure was on the to PROVE neither the Russians but LBJ were involved. Nobody thought they were but it was important to prove that to the satisfaction of the American people.
Missed the target again! It was necessary to "prove" LBJ was not involved because the American people, having read enough of Agatha Christie to know about this Cui bono? stuff, were collectively saying "Hey, what about them there Russkies? What about that LBJ guy?" In fact, LBJ's concern was PREDICATED on fear that the public would be clamoring about them there Russkies (and Cubans) and demanding WW3. Substitute "pretty much everybody" for "nobody" in your second sentence and it's closer to the truth. Enquiring minds wonder why, if it was important to prove to the American people that LBJ was not involved, the WC rather pointedly avoided the issue? They could have dismissed it with a simple footnote: "Despite Cui bono? pointing rather decisively to our beloved current President, and despite the plethora of rumors suggesting he was involved, Commission staffer Sally Withers interviewed our beloved current President for more than 30 minutes and has satisfied the Commission that our beloved current President was simply too busy with the business of state to have found time to participate in an assassination. Our beloved current President is hereby exonerated and/or pardoned, as the case may be, and all Cui bono? speculation to the contrary is hereby dismissed as pernicious nonsense and/or claptrap."
-
Here is the full quote from the Cray book about the alleged conversation.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486903801/Key4luviw2ilpgt/Screenshot 2026-05-15 092216.jpg)
And this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486918569/Keys5l4ng0d8fhb/Screenshot 2026-05-15 093027.jpg)
Question: If the claim is that WC was ordered not to look into any Soviet involvement why did Warren say there was great pressure to show there was no Soviet involvement? Wouldn't he say we were told not to look for any? Here he is saying something different; they were pressured to show - not hide - any Soviet involvement.
Full book is here: https://archive.org/details/chiefjusticebiog0000cray/page/428/mode/2up
-
Missed the target again! It was necessary to "prove" LBJ was not involved because the American people, having read enough of Agatha Christie to know about this Cui bono? stuff, were collectively saying "Hey, what about them there Russkies? What about that LBJ guy?" In fact, LBJ's concern was PREDICATED on fear that the public would be clamoring about them there Russkies (and Cubans) and demanding WW3. Substitute "pretty much everybody" for "nobody" in your second sentence and it's closer to the truth
Fair point. The reality was LBJ was correct in anticipating public skepticism about the assassination. He was wrong in believing a thorough examination would quell public skepticism which continues to this day.
I have a hard time believing that most Americans would be demanding WWIII which would result in tens of millions of deaths on both sides. Maybe hundreds of millions. I think a harsh response would have been made but I doubt LBJ would have launched a nuclear attack. Maybe our response would have triggered a counter response by the USSR, and maybe things would have spiraled out of control into WWIII, but I don't think that would be what most Americans would want.
Just yesterday I was wondering what J.D. Vance's response would be if Trump were to be assassinated in China. I was thinking that watching the very impressive military parade in front of the two leaders. I would bet that none of the rifles they were carrying had live rounds in them and I would hope that precautions were taken to ensure that they didn't. Suppose they didn't and some rogue soldier decided to shoot Trump. There was one moment when a Chinese soldier was carrying a sword within yards of Trump and Xi. I would bet that if he were to suddenly attack Trump with the sword, no one could have stopped him.
Enquiring minds wonder why, if it was important to prove to the American people that LBJ was not involved, the WC rather pointedly avoided the issue? They could have dismissed it with a simple footnote: "Despite Cui bono? pointing rather decisively to our beloved current President, and despite the plethora of rumors suggesting he was involved, Commission staffer Sally Withers interviewed our beloved current President for more than 30 minutes and has satisfied the Commission that our beloved current President was simply too busy with the business of state to have found time to participate in an assassination. Our beloved current President is hereby exonerated and/or pardoned, as the case may be, and all Cui bono? speculation to the contrary is hereby dismissed as pernicious nonsense and/or claptrap."
The simple fact is the WC followed the evidence to a logical conclusion. Their explanation is the only one ever offered that is consistent with the entire body of evidence. People have been offering up nebulous alternate theories as to how the assassination went down, but no one has ever put together a comprehensive alternate explanation of the evidence. The evidence of Oswald's guilt is conclusive and to this day, no one has uncovered a single piece of credible evidence that anybody else was involved. After six decades of searching, I am amused by people who continue this never-ending snipe hunt.
-
Here is the full quote from the Cray book about the alleged conversation.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486903801/Key4luviw2ilpgt/Screenshot 2026-05-15 092216.jpg)
And this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486918569/Keys5l4ng0d8fhb/Screenshot 2026-05-15 093027.jpg)
Question: If the claim is that WC was ordered not to look into any Soviet involvement why did Warren say there was great pressure to show there was no Soviet involvement? Wouldn't he say we were told not to look for any? Here he is saying something different; they were pressured to show - not hide - any Soviet involvement.
Full book is here: https://archive.org/details/chiefjusticebiog0000cray/page/428/mode/2up
Thanks for that, Steve. Like the infamous Katzenbach "convince the public" memo, I think you can look at the language in various ways, Cui bono? pointed so obviously to the Soviets (in light of Oswald's background) that I think it would have been unrealistic to say "Don't look into it." I take what Warren was saying by "show" was "Look into it but make sure you conclude there was no Soviet involvement."
John’s posts got me sounding like I think LBJ was involved in the JFKA, whereas my first post hopefully makes clear that I think precisely the opposite was the case.
One of the truly fascinating things about the JFKA is that (1) the LN narrative says a mixed-up nobody had a brain fart and killed JFK for no clear reason, but (2) so many, many powerful individuals and groups hated JFK for diverse reasons and stood to benefit from his death that Cui bono? points all over the map and it’s almost impossible to believe none of them had any involvement. Ya gotta love it.
Speculation about LBJ began immediately, which is precisely why the WC was under “great pressure” to exonerate him. They did so only half-assedly, by concluding Oswald acted alone.
This all reminded me of a fascinating little book I wasn’t aware of until perhaps three years ago, when I stumbled upon a 2005 thread at the Ed Forum in which John Simkin mentioned it as having possibly solved the JFKA before the WR was even issued. See https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2846-thomas-buchanan-did-he-solve-the-jfk-case/#comment-18261. Simkin’s first post is well worth reading, especially for the curious way the book came about (involving the author being contacted by a concerned staffer at the WC, who put him in touch with Ted Kennedy, who put him in touch with Nicholas Katzenbach).
The book is Who Killed Kennedy? by Thomas G. Buchanan. It was published in Europe in May 1964 – first having been serialized in a French newspaper the previous month – and later published in a revised version in the U.S. Because I’m fussy, I tracked down the European original on Advanced Book Exchange.
Buchanan was no wacko. He was a respected journalist, novelist, and civil rights advocate who was blacklisted after joining the Communist Party. https://thomasgbuchanan.com/biography/ Indeed, CIA Director John McCone encouraged Earl Warren to take a close look at Who Killed Kennedy? and deal with the claims. Warren suggested having Buchanan testify, which McCone discouraged because it would obviously give Buchanan a wider forum for his claims.
Who Killed Kennedy? was, of necessity, highly speculative and demonstrably incorrect in some details. The basic thesis is that JFK was killed by ultra-rightwing Texas oil millionaires who were incensed by JFK’s plan to eliminate their fantastically profitable oil-depletion allowance. The book is Texas, Texas, Texas. What’s interesting is that Buchanan realizes his thesis logically implicates LBJ but pointedly doesn’t “go there,” at least by name. As I recall, he posits a mastermind called Mr. X who is pretty clearly LBJ.
Oh, yes, plenty of people were focusing on LBJ early on. That’s my only point. If you haven’t read it, Who Killed Kennedy? in its European version is fascinating as one of the earliest (pre-WR) conspiracy tomes and one that is still highly regarded. Here's the European version, readily available at Advanced Book Exchange. The U.S. edition is on Amazon, but it's quite different.
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/32109576963.jpg)
-
One of the oddest decisions by Warren, one that indicated that someone was directing him, was his order for the WC to not interview Sylvia Duran, the Cuban secretary who met Oswald in Mexico City when he sought a transit visa. According to the two WC staffers who were assigned the Mexico City question, David Slawson and William Coleman, they went to great lengths to arrange an interview. Slawson said that some figures in the CIA (Ray Rocca) actively helped them find Duran and to arrange a meeting. After lengthy negotiations with Duran's lawyer, they finally had something set up to present to Warren. But Warren was, according to Slawson, adamant about not allowing it. Note: Duran would testify to the HSCA.
From the Shenon book:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13487025341/Key1y5bu109kgsw/Screenshot 2026-05-15 102620.jpg)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13487025317/Keys8u3nyp4xdq5/Screenshot 2026-05-15 102653.jpg)
-
Earl Warren was correct in that the WCR stood on its own and has for almost 62 years. The fact that many people don't accept it is an indictment of them, not the WCR.
Warren was also correct in that they laid out all the evidence they had collected in the 26 volumes. Many of the eyewitness accounts were contradictory and the WC did what they could to resolve those conflicts. In so doing, they gave very logical reasons why they accepted one person's account and not another's. When they were unable to resolve the conflicts, they said so and gave their reasons why. That is why they could never say for certain which of Oswald's 3 shots was the miss which also prevented them from determining how long it took him to fire all three shots.
-
That’s why Oswald the AMERICAN citizen Marxist defector was the ideal guy to frame ( or just let him shoot because LBJ already had info the kook was like the other kook Thomas Arthur Vallee) and Oswald was employed in the TSBD.
This way the Marxist indoctrination of an American citizen could be blamed without directly accusing the USSR. Thus the Vietnam conventional arms war ( for profit) to stop the further spread of this insidious Marxist ideology from subverting all of Southeast Asia was to follow.
LBJ rewarded his good friend, Harold Byrd, owner of the TSBD, a contract to make A7 Corsair fighter aircraft for the Vietnam War. It’s probably just coincidence that Byrd removed a window from the 6th floor TSBD after the shooting and hung it on a wall in his house with other animal heads.
-
That’s why Oswald the AMERICAN citizen Marxist defector was the ideal guy to frame ( or just let him shoot because LBJ already had info the kook was like the other kook Thomas Arthur Vallee) and Oswald was employed in the TSBD.
If Oswald was a patsy, he was the most cooperative patsy ever. He did everything imaginable to make himself look guilty. He brought a long bag into the TSBD which had his palm and fingerprints at the bottom and contained fibers matching the blanket he kept his rifle in. He stayed out of sight when the shots were fired. He wore a shirt that matched the fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle. Then he fled the TSBD minutes after the shooting. He went to his rooming house to get his revolver and minutes later he murdered a cop. Then when he was about to be arrested, he tried to shoot one of the arresting officer. How gullible does one have to be to think he was framed?
This way the Marxist indoctrination of an American citizen could be blamed without directly accusing the USSR. Thus the Vietnam conventional arms war ( for profit) to stop the further spread of this insidious Marxist ideology from subverting all of Southeast Asia was to follow.
LBJ rewarded his good friend, Harold Byrd, owner of the TSBD, a contract to make A7 Corsair fighter aircraft for the Vietnam War. It’s probably just coincidence that Byrd removed a window from the 6th floor TSBD after the shooting and hung it on a wall in his house with other animal heads.
How does that indicate he was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK?
-
That’s why Oswald the AMERICAN citizen Marxist defector was the ideal guy to frame ( or just let him shoot because LBJ already had info the kook was like the other kook Thomas Arthur Vallee) and Oswald was employed in the TSBD.
This way the Marxist indoctrination of an American citizen could be blamed without directly accusing the USSR. Thus the Vietnam conventional arms war ( for profit) to stop the further spread of this insidious Marxist ideology from subverting all of Southeast Asia was to follow.
LBJ rewarded his good friend, Harold Byrd, owner of the TSBD, a contract to make A7 Corsair fighter aircraft for the Vietnam War. It’s probably just coincidence that Byrd removed a window from the 6th floor TSBD after the shooting and hung it on a wall in his house with other animal heads.
But they didn't say his "Marxist indoctrination" was the cause or motive for the assassination. They said they didn't know why he assassinated JFK. It could have been some mix of personal and political reasons including his commitment to Marxism.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13487683601/Keysleshj9jqbfa/Screenshot 2026-05-15 164802.jpg)
You think they blamed Oswald's Marxism for the assassination in order to justify the Vietnam War?
-
SMG:
Verily.
Earl Warren also met Jack Ruby in the hoosegow in Dallas, and Ruby begged to be taken to Washington, DC so he could speak his mind freely. Ruby hinted he feared retribution.
Even if Warren thought there was a 95% chance Jack Ruby had become paranoid, in a case like this, I think the onus was on Warren to bring Ruby to a perceived safe location, and ask Ruby to tell everything he knows.
My take is the WC had settled on the LN narrative early on (with assistance of the FBI), and was "building a case" in that direction. The WC and staffers may have been earnest in that assessment.
-
SMG:
Verily.
Earl Warren also met Jack Ruby in the hoosegow in Dallas, and Ruby begged to be taken to Washington, DC so he could speak his mind freely. Ruby hinted he feared retribution.
Even if Warren thought there was a 95% chance Jack Ruby had become paranoid, in a case like this, I think the onus was on Warren to bring Ruby to a perceived safe location, and ask Ruby to tell everything he knows.
My take is the WC had settled on the LN narrative early on (with assistance of the FBI), and was "building a case" in that direction. The WC and staffers may have been earnest in that assessment.
The WC settled on the LN narrative because they found no evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved in the crime. In 62 years, no one else has either.