JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Steve M. Galbraith on January 04, 2021, 09:58:35 PM
-
This man shown below on the left with Earl Warren: Norman Redlich. Redlich wrote the first six chapters including the description of the shooting. He was also one of the key figures in the single bullet theory; he was one among several of the staffers who came up with the theory simultaneously. Without Redlich's tireless work - he would spend 18+ hours on the job - the report probably wouldn't haven been produced. Not in the form it was. He was essential to its creation and was in charge of a sort of "clearinghouse" for all of the information that the staffers of the commission compiled. It ran through his desk, he read it and signed off on it.
Redlich was a strong liberal/leftist and a fierce critic of Joe McCarthy. He represented several people called before the HUAC hearings as well as McCarthy's hearings and he denounced McCarthy for the demagogue that he was. Redlich was against the execution of the Rosenbergs (he was a life long opponent of the death penalty). He and Hoover disliked one another with the FBI actually having a thick file on Redlich that accused him of associating with "subversives". He was the Dean of the NYU law school and lifetime supporter of the rights of the accused. He had a very distinguished career.
When Gerald Ford was informed of Redlich's associations with leftwing groups he raised the question of whether the WC should remove him. Warren and the commission debated the question with Warren leading the defense of Redlich. The commission agreed to let Redlich stay.
Here is Redlich on the assassination: "I think there are simply a great many people who cannot accept what I believe to be the simple truth, that one rather insignificant person was able to assassinate the president of the United States." Yes, that's sadly what happened.
For these conspiracists to claim that he would join up with essentially a right wing coup and coverup what happened is preposterous. If one thinks the WC report was a lie then that's what you have to believe. It's unavoidable.
Here is the NY Times obituary on Redlich who died in 2011: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/education/11redlich.html
One of the sources for much of the above was Philip Shenon's book "A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination".
(https://blogs.law.nyu.edu/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2011Fac_redlich_250.jpg)
-
I’m not sure what the point is supposed to be. He was a “leftist”, therefore he must have been correct?
-
I’m not sure what the point is supposed to be. He was a “leftist”, therefore he must have been correct?
He posted a similar post in another thread and I replied by saying that Redlich didn't have to be part of ''the conspiracy'' to write his part of the WC report (the garbage in, garbage out principle) but Mr. Galbraith apparently didn't like that answer, so he is ignoring it and trying again.
I suppose he's trying to make a rather simplistic point of sorts.....
-
He posted a similar post in another thread and I replied by saying that Redlich didn't have to be part of ''the conspiracy'' to write his part of the WC report (the garbage in, garbage out principle) but Mr. Galbraith apparently didn't like that answer, so he is ignoring it and trying again.
I suppose he's trying to make a rather simplistic point of sorts.....
I suppose he's trying to make a rather simplistic point of sorts.....
That makes sense ...As the old axiom says..."Simple minds, embrace simple solutions"....
-
From the NY Times obituary on Redlich cited above: "[His son] Edward Redlich said his father’s self-effacing style was often tinged with a sense of humor. People would sometimes tell him how brave he was to defend people’s civil liberties in the 1950s, during the time of the blacklist, when a mere hint of Communist sympathy could cost people their jobs.
“Brave?” he would reply. “I was working in the family business.”
Redlich took on McCarthy and the hysteria of the Red Scare. This was not a man who was going to coverup an essentially fascist takeover of the US government. Maybe he was all wrong, maybe Oswald was innocent. But to claim that the Warren Commission Report was a deliberate lie, a fantasy made to fool the public is to claim that Redlich was the ringleader of this lie. He was at the very center of the investigation. If you believe the report was a lie then you have to believe - indeed you must, that he was the main liar behind it.
-
From patspeer.com:
Let's slip back in time to March, 1964. The Warren Commission's staff has been discussing whether or not they should pre-interview witnesses and avoid problematic questions and answers...in order to keep the record "clean." Some, including Norman Redlich, have argued the creation of a "deceptively clean" record would be a disservice to the public. But, after hearing from a few problematic witnesses on 3-10 (e.g. Arnold Rowland, James Worrell) Chief Justice Earl Warren had planted his foot, and said he wanted a "clean record" where the staff "did not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies," and that, accordingly, any counsel wanting to pre-interview witnesses off the record should feel free to do so.
Your move, Mr Galbraith! Thumb1:
-
Remarkably, it seems that Mr. Galbraith is trying to legitimize the entire WC by portraying Redlich as some sort of angel who would never go along with any shenanigans by the WC.
Never mind that it has already been explained to him that Redlich's part of the report was only as good as the information provided to him by Hoover's boys.
-
Remarkably, it seems that Mr. Galbraith is trying to legitimize the entire WC by portraying Redlich as some sort of angel who would never go along with any shenanigans by the WC.
Never mind that it has already been explained to him that Redlich's part of the report was only as good as the information provided to him by Hoover's boys.
Pretty much.
Redlich may have had the best of intentions but Hoover and Dulles made sure that the Commission members only saw what the FBI and CIA wanted them to see.
-
Redlich took on McCarthy and the hysteria of the Red Scare. This was not a man who was going to coverup an essentially fascist takeover of the US government. Maybe he was all wrong, maybe Oswald was innocent. But to claim that the Warren Commission Report was a deliberate lie, a fantasy made to fool the public is to claim that Redlich was the ringleader of this lie.
I’m sure he genuinely believed that Oswald did it. That doesn’t mean that the WC was a fair process or that their conclusions were proven or even correct. They had a foregone conclusion at the outset.
-
I’m sure he genuinely believed that Oswald did it. That doesn’t mean that the WC was a fair process or that their conclusions were proven or even correct. They had a foregone conclusion at the outset.
He was at the very center of the investigation. If you believe the report was a lie then you have to believe - indeed you must, that he was the main liar behind it.
"I’m sure he genuinely believed that Oswald did it. That doesn’t mean that the WC was a fair process or that their conclusions were proven or even correct. They had a foregone conclusion at the outset."
"I’m sure he genuinely believed that Oswald did it"
If you truly believe that....Then you must also believe that Redlich was naive and stupid. ( And I doubt that you believe that )
-
From the Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination and his discussion with Redlich on the "single bullet theory."
"In any event, in September of 2005, though I [i.e., Bugliosi] had earlier tried to locate Norman Redlich (not listed in the New York City phone directory), my secretary, Rosemary, found on the Internet that he was on the board of trustees of Vermont Law School, which in turn directed me to his New York City law office where he was, at the then age of eighty, "of counsel" to a corporate law firm. The modest and reserved Redlich, who had been executive editor of the Yale Law Journal in law school and served for years as dean of the New York University Law School, has never blown his own horn nor spoken out or tried to exploit his immense contribution to the Warren Commission and its report. Unlike Specter, who is a politician, and who with justification trumpeted his many achievements, when I asked Redlich if he wanted to make any general comment on the case for my book, he said, "Well, I've maintained quite a silence through the years. Whatever I know about the assassination is in the report and that's still the case. We worked very hard, and I'm still proud of what we accomplished."
Bugliosi continues: "I give the reader this prelude to the main reason why I called Redlich as an indication that this is someone of considerable substance and stature who is certainly not likely to distort the official record for his own self-aggrandizement. When I asked him if, indeed, Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." I sensed in his words that there may have been others. He said, "We discussed this issue at great length" and added that the later reconstruction tests in Dallas (where he said, "I went up to the sniper's nest window with Arlen and he and I looked through the telescopic sight and saw how the bodies of Kennedy and Connally were in alignment at frame 210") had "substantiated our conclusion."
When I asked him to comment on Specter leading people to believe that it was he who came up with the single-bullet theory, he responded, "I like Arlen and have always gotten along well with him and don't want to get into a dispute with him over this. I've never felt the urge or desire to take issue with Arlen taking the credit. He certainly played an important role." (Telephone interview of Norman Redlich by author on September 6, 2005)
Nothing "happened" to Redlich. He wasn't blackmailed, he didn't lie. Maybe he got it all wrong; maybe they all did. But these smears and defamations that he and the other lied about what happened are just that.
-
From the Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination and his discussion with Redlich on the "single bullet theory."
"In any event, in September of 2005, though I [i.e., Bugliosi] had earlier tried to locate Norman Redlich (not listed in the New York City phone directory), my secretary, Rosemary, found on the Internet that he was on the board of trustees of Vermont Law School, which in turn directed me to his New York City law office where he was, at the then age of eighty, "of counsel" to a corporate law firm. The modest and reserved Redlich, who had been executive editor of the Yale Law Journal in law school and served for years as dean of the New York University Law School, has never blown his own horn nor spoken out or tried to exploit his immense contribution to the Warren Commission and its report. Unlike Specter, who is a politician, and who with justification trumpeted his many achievements, when I asked Redlich if he wanted to make any general comment on the case for my book, he said, "Well, I've maintained quite a silence through the years. Whatever I know about the assassination is in the report and that's still the case. We worked very hard, and I'm still proud of what we accomplished."
Bugliosi continues: "I give the reader this prelude to the main reason why I called Redlich as an indication that this is someone of considerable substance and stature who is certainly not likely to distort the official record for his own self-aggrandizement. When I asked him if, indeed, Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." I sensed in his words that there may have been others. He said, "We discussed this issue at great length" and added that the later reconstruction tests in Dallas (where he said, "I went up to the sniper's nest window with Arlen and he and I looked through the telescopic sight and saw how the bodies of Kennedy and Connally were in alignment at frame 210") had "substantiated our conclusion."
When I asked him to comment on Specter leading people to believe that it was he who came up with the single-bullet theory, he responded, "I like Arlen and have always gotten along well with him and don't want to get into a dispute with him over this. I've never felt the urge or desire to take issue with Arlen taking the credit. He certainly played an important role." (Telephone interview of Norman Redlich by author on September 6, 2005)
Nothing "happened" to Redlich. He wasn't blackmailed, he didn't lie. Maybe he got it all wrong; maybe they all did. But these smears and defamations that he and the other lied about what happened are just that.
when I asked Redlich if he wanted to make any general comment on the case for my book, he said, "Well, I've maintained quite a silence through the years. Whatever I know about the assassination is in the report and that's still the case. We worked very hard, and I'm still proud of what we accomplished."
Whatever I know about the assassination is in the report
Which basically says it all. He was given the information and wrote it down......
I've never felt the urge or desire to take issue with Arlen taking the credit {for the SBT]. He certainly played an important role."
And there is the "don't rock the boat" qualifier.
If they weren't so pathetic, Galbraith's childish attempts to legitimize the WC report, without taking an notice of the counter claims, would actually be amusing. And the funniest thing of all is that he really believes he's on to something with his series of post.
Nothing "happened" to Redlich. He wasn't blackmailed, he didn't lie. Maybe he got it all wrong; maybe they all did. But these smears and defamations that he and the other lied about what happened are just that.
Could you please show us where anybody, except you, has ever claimed that something happened to Redlich or that he was blackmailed? In fact, could you show us where somebody, except you, has ever said that he lied about what happened?
I'll offer a safe bet; you won't respond to these questions. Instead you will ignore them, which basically and more than anything else demonstrates the actual weakness of your entire argument.
You and "Richard Smith" should get together. You'd be best buddies in la la la land.