JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on November 16, 2022, 03:12:51 AM

Title: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 16, 2022, 03:12:51 AM
Politico: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

Quote
Newly released internal correspondence from the National Archives and Records Administration reveals that, behind the scenes, there has been a fierce bureaucratic war over the documents in recent years, pitting the Archives against the CIA, FBI and other agencies that want to keep them secret.
Quote
The Archives correspondence shows that, while much of the still-classified information is only indirectly related to the assassination, some of it comes directly from the FBI’s “main investigative case files” about the president’s murder. That includes the all-important case files on Lee Harvey Oswald, Kennedy’s assassin, and Jack Ruby, the Dallas strip-club owner who murdered Oswald two days after Kennedy’s death.
Quote
The Archives paperwork shows that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have fought particularly hard to protect the identity of informants in organized-crime investigations — an argument that will intrigue conspiracy theorists who believe the Mafia was behind Kennedy’s death. Many assassination researchers argue that the assassination was blowback for the so-called war on organized crime waged by the president’s brother, then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
Quote
In fact, the correspondence shows the overwhelming majority of the documents that the FBI has withheld from the public in recent years somehow involved organized-crime investigations. Of the nearly 7,500 documents that the FBI kept classified at the time of the 2017 deadline, 6,000 were from “various files of members of organized crime or La Cosa Nostra.”

The DEA made a special plea to black out the names of six confidential informants identified in assassination-related files involving organized-crime investigations: “Given the well-documented propensity for violence by the Mafia, it is reasonable to expect the individuals, if alive, remain in significant danger of retaliation for their assistance,” the agency said in a 2018 letter to the Archives.
Quote
It also includes tape recordings of six interviews conducted in 1964 with Jacqueline Kennedy and former Attorney General Robert Kennedy by the journalist William Manchester, who was authorized by the Kennedy family to write a history of the assassination. Those tapes were turned over to the Archives by the Kennedy family in exchange for an agreement they would not be made public until 2067 — the 100th anniversary of the publication of Manchester’s bestselling book The Death of a President. The law also exempted the public release of what the Archives index describes as five “very personal letters” that Mrs. Kennedy wrote to President Johnson, including at least three she sent to him in the week after the assassination.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/15/jfk-assassination-files-conspiracy-fbi-00066780


There probably won't be a Smoking Gun hidden in the still classified documents but the fact that so many documents relate to organized crime is intriguing.

Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 16, 2022, 01:34:52 PM

The U. S. Government is (probably) keeping information related, or possibly related, to the President Kennedy assassination a secret is because governments always keep secrets.

The U. S. Government kept secrets that were possibly about the President Lincoln assassination a secret for over 75 years. This fact was used to argue that elements of the U. S. Government must have been involved in the assassination. Eventually the documents were released and nothing of great relevance was found.

All governments, not just the U. S., withhold secrets. Innocent people might be hurt of all secrets are revealed. Like if all information related to the Civil War were released, the names of Southerners who provided information to the Union Army would be known and those people endangered. One can carefully go through all the information, but this would be an enormous undertaking and if a mistake was made about what to release, someone could die. It is always far simpler to just hold on to all the information, at least for 75 or more years, to insure all who might be hurt will be beyond reach. Although not their children. Or grandchildren.

If one is going to use the standard of judgment, that:
    if a government is hold secrets related, or possibly related, to some crime, but refuses to release all the information
then:
    that government must be guilty of that crime.
one will always conclude that the government was guilty, or partly guilty, of the crime. Always.

If one has a standard of reasoning that always reaches the same conclusion, then one needs a different standard of reasoning.

 * * * * *

Let me give an example. One may conclude that Bigfoot must be real. Because the odds of all the thousands of witnesses lying, or being mistaken, are astronomical. On the surface, this seems like pretty good reasoning. But if I accept this reasoning, and I am consistent with my reasoning, I must also conclude the UFO's, witchcraft, witchcraft being found in the late middle ages, ghosts, etc., all must be real. And the judgments made to burn to death of thousands of suspected witches was, at least in some cases, justified.

So if a reported phenomenon, which may be caused by nothing more than the common beliefs of millions of people, and hence causes thousands to witness it, I must always conclude that the phenomenon is real, because so many people have witnessed it. Methods of reasoning that always lead to the same conclusion must be considered faulty.

Does anyone disagree with this?


If so, let's hear some arguments.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 16, 2022, 02:10:48 PM
There is nothing to be gained from the perspective of an intelligence agency from releasing information.  They are always overly secretive and reluctant to do so.  This gives the appearance of covering up to the more paranoid types.  I'm all for releasing every document so long as it does not endanger anyone who is still living or their families. 
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Marjan Rynkiewicz on November 16, 2022, 08:15:44 PM
Hickey's AR15 blew jfk's brain out at Z313 -- thats why.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 16, 2022, 09:29:12 PM
The U. S. Government is (probably) keeping information related, or possibly related, to the President Kennedy assassination a secret is because governments always keep secrets.

The U. S. Government kept secrets that were possibly about the President Lincoln assassination a secret for over 75 years. This fact was used to argue that elements of the U. S. Government must have been involved in the assassination. Eventually the documents were released and nothing of great relevance was found.

All governments, not just the U. S., withhold secrets. Innocent people might be hurt of all secrets are revealed. Like if all information related to the Civil War were released, the names of Southerners who provided information to the Union Army would be known and those people endangered. One can carefully go through all the information, but this would be an enormous undertaking and if a mistake was made about what to release, someone could die. It is always far simpler to just hold on to all the information, at least for 75 or more years, to insure all who might be hurt will be beyond reach. Although not their children. Or grandchildren.

If one is going to use the standard of judgment, that:
    if a government is hold secrets related, or possibly related, to some crime, but refuses to release all the information
then:
    that government must be guilty of that crime.
one will always conclude that the government was guilty, or partly guilty, of the crime. Always.

If one has a standard of reasoning that always reaches the same conclusion, then one needs a different standard of reasoning.

 * * * * *

Let me give an example. One may conclude that Bigfoot must be real. Because the odds of all the thousands of witnesses lying, or being mistaken, are astronomical. On the surface, this seems like pretty good reasoning. But if I accept this reasoning, and I am consistent with my reasoning, I must also conclude the UFO's, witchcraft, witchcraft being found in the late middle ages, ghosts, etc., all must be real. And the judgments made to burn to death of thousands of suspected witches was, at least in some cases, justified.

So if a reported phenomenon, which may be caused by nothing more than the common beliefs of millions of people, and hence causes thousands to witness it, I must always conclude that the phenomenon is real, because so many people have witnessed it. Methods of reasoning that always lead to the same conclusion must be considered faulty.

Does anyone disagree with this?


If so, let's hear some arguments.
If we could go back in time at the start of this controversy, say 1964 or '65, and tell the conspiracy believers that over the next half century there would be the release of millions of pages of government documents, multiple government investigations by several generations of Americans both Republican and Democrat, and multiple media investigations by major news organizations and then ask them if they would be satisfied with the results they would say "Yes, that would be sufficient."

But here we are after all of this and it's not sufficient. How much more needs to be done? They want these files released. Okay, release them. Would that be enough? They wanted another investigation after the WC and got one. Did they accept it? They wanted the media to look independently into the assassination since "the government" was not a impartial investigator and got one. Many investigations in fact. Do they accept them? There are no falsifiable claims that they make, nothing that will lead to an answer they accept.

It won't be enough in large part because their reasoning is faulty. They each start or begin with their own conspiracy conclusion and THEN find evidence for that conclusion second. Instead of the other way around - evidence first, explanation second - the way we normally do with investigations. It's why if you listen/read to 15 different conspiracy hobbyists or "professionals" they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. They all differ to some degree. None even agree on who killed JFK. The CIA? The Pentagon? FBI? Anti-Castro Cubans? Texas oilmen? Who? They disagree.

So why are there so many different conspiracy explanations? It only happened one way, the evidence for a conspiracy (if one occurred) only shows one. It's because, again, they are not looking at the evidence first; they are looking for evidence that confirms their conclusion. And with each person having his or her own theory they all disagree.

So here they and we are. Telling people there is no white whale and they won't accept it.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 17, 2022, 12:58:57 PM
“Who” killed JFK isn’t as important as understanding “Why” he was killed.

As long as the government remains secretive about the Kennedy assassination and tries to gaslight us on their reasons for keeping secrets after almost 60 years, people have good reason to suspect that there was a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 17, 2022, 05:07:36 PM
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

Conclusion first, evidence second.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 17, 2022, 11:09:11 PM

“Who” killed JFK isn’t as important as understanding “Why” he was killed.

As long as the government remains secretive about the Kennedy assassination and tries to gaslight us on their reasons for keeping secrets after almost 60 years, people have good reason to suspect that there was a conspiracy.

Question 1:

The government was secretive about it's Civil War secrets, some of which, may, have been related to the Lincoln assassination. Is this a good reason to strongly suggest the U. S. government was involved in the Lincoln assassination?


Since governments always keep secrets, is a good idea to judge the probably truth on whether or not the government keeps secrets? The government might want to keep secrets about who helped the Union army in the 1860's. The government might want to keep secrets about who helped, or might be willing to help, the U. S. government in Cuba in the 1960's.

Question 2:

Since using this form a reasoning "Does the government keep secrets?" always results in the same verdict, Yep, the government is likely guilty, is this a good form of reasoning?


What is my reasoning?

The side that generally dodges questions is probably not the side that has the overall truth on it's side.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2022, 12:48:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 18, 2022, 02:24:12 AM
Question 1:

The government was secretive about it's Civil War secrets, some of which, may, have been related to the Lincoln assassination. Is this a good reason to strongly suggest the U. S. government was involved in the Lincoln assassination?


Since governments always keep secrets, is a good idea to judge the probably truth on whether or not the government keeps secrets? The government might want to keep secrets about who helped the Union army in the 1860's. The government might want to keep secrets about who helped, or might be willing to help, the U. S. government in Cuba in the 1960's.

Question 2:

Since using this form a reasoning "Does the government keep secrets?" always results in the same verdict, Yep, the government is likely guilty, is this a good form of reasoning?


What is my reasoning?

The side that generally dodges questions is probably not the side that has the overall truth on it's side.

All governments keep secrets. Most of the secrets aren’t related to national security.

After certain period of time, whether it be a few years or a few decades, government secrets SHOULD be made public. There’s no good excuse for not declassifying all files related to an event that happened almost 60 years ago.

I don’t believe the government is “guilty” of anything. However, I believe the government has something to hide. Otherwise, what’s the point in missing deadlines or fighting in court to keep certain decades old files a secret?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 18, 2022, 02:32:37 AM
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.

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.

Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 12:55:11 PM
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.



…they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts.


Are you claiming that the WC went into cover-up mode?   ???


Specifically what do you believe the WC should have done differently in order to, in your view, make it a “real investigation”?   :-\
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 18, 2022, 02:23:59 PM


…they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts.


Are you claiming that the WC went into cover-up mode?   ???


Specifically what do you believe the WC should have done differently in order to, in your view, make it a “real investigation”?   :-\

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?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 02:27:17 PM
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?


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.


I asked for specifics….   ::)
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 18, 2022, 02:38:48 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2022, 04:33:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2022, 05:08:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2022, 06:16:21 PM
Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

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

Quote
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”.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2022, 06:18:31 PM
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
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 18, 2022, 06:30:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 06:43:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2022, 06:49:41 PM

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?
Katzenbach didn't conduct the investigation. Or have anything to do with one. Either the FBI's or the WC or the ones afterwards.

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation. What is the evidence that this memo had any effect or role or influence in the subsequent investigations? And who believes that Hoover would follow the orders of Katzenbach? And the WC too?

This is taking a piece of information and weaving a conspiracy out of it. I am shocked, shocked that it's coming from a skeptic and not a conspiracy believer.



Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 07:21:09 PM
Katzenbach didn't conduct the investigation. Or have anything to do with one. Either the FBI's or the WC or the ones afterwards.

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation. What is the evidence that this memo had any effect or role or influence in the subsequent investigations? And who believes that Hoover would follow the orders of Katzenbach? And the WC too?

This is taking a piece of information and weaving a conspiracy out of it. I am shocked, shocked that it's coming from a skeptic and not a conspiracy believer.


He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation.

Willens has quite a bit to say about Katzenbach (there is a lot more in the book). He was present at the first few WC meetings (until Willens arrived). And yes, you are correct, Katzenbach let the WC do it’s thing as they saw fit.


From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens (pages 36 - 37):


By now a veteran of the department’s difficult relations with Hoover, Katzenbach thought the FBI’s leaking the story to favored reporters resulted from their resentment about the appointment of the Warren Commission. In later years, he said, “They very much wanted the report to be made public. They very much wanted to get all the credit for it. They very much wanted the center stage. When that was frustrated, I think they took steps of leaking the information. They have done that in many lesser contexts many, many times when I was in the department.” Katzenbach offered the commission any Justice Department assistance it wanted, but noted that the commission was now fully in charge of the investigation as directed by the president.36 I never thought that the Justice Department abdicated its responsibilities with respect to the investigation of the assassination, as some have suggested. The department certainly had enormous resources—its specialized investigative sections and attorneys, as well as the powers and capabilities of a federal grand jury and the granting of immunity—but I thought that Katzenbach had it right. Initiation of a public investigation by the Department of Justice in the days following the assassination would have destroyed the political accommodation that had been reached with the Texas authorities and congressional committees by the creation of the commission. Any such investigation before the FBI completed its work would have clashed with established department practice and with President Johnson’s decision to rely on a commission, rather than the customary federal agencies, to investigate the assassination.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2022, 07:41:48 PM

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation.

Willens has quite a bit to say about Katzenbach (there is a lot more in the book). He was present at the first few WC meetings (until Willens arrived). And yes, you are correct, Katzenbach let the WC do it’s thing as they saw fit.


From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens (pages 36 - 37):


By now a veteran of the department’s difficult relations with Hoover, Katzenbach thought the FBI’s leaking the story to favored reporters resulted from their resentment about the appointment of the Warren Commission. In later years, he said, “They very much wanted the report to be made public. They very much wanted to get all the credit for it. They very much wanted the center stage. When that was frustrated, I think they took steps of leaking the information. They have done that in many lesser contexts many, many times when I was in the department.” Katzenbach offered the commission any Justice Department assistance it wanted, but noted that the commission was now fully in charge of the investigation as directed by the president.36 I never thought that the Justice Department abdicated its responsibilities with respect to the investigation of the assassination, as some have suggested. The department certainly had enormous resources—its specialized investigative sections and attorneys, as well as the powers and capabilities of a federal grand jury and the granting of immunity—but I thought that Katzenbach had it right. Initiation of a public investigation by the Department of Justice in the days following the assassination would have destroyed the political accommodation that had been reached with the Texas authorities and congressional committees by the creation of the commission. Any such investigation before the FBI completed its work would have clashed with established department practice and with President Johnson’s decision to rely on a commission, rather than the customary federal agencies, to investigate the assassination.
That's an excellent summary: Katzenbach pushed early on for a special investigation that was independent of the Justice Department and Congress et al. Meaning it would be beyond his possible control. Hoover was leaking the FBI's report - Oswald as lone assassin - because he wanted to assure the public that the FBI, i.e., him, didn't miss a conspiracy. None of this has a thing to do with covering up what they knew. It was protecting their fannies and bureaucratic infighting et cetera. To a conspiracy mindset, of course, it's sinister behind the scenes machinations.

Philip Shenon says (in Cruel and Shocking Act) that Katzenbach approved/signed off as head of DOJ (Bobby Kennedy was still mourning) on the CIA's decision to confine Nosenko without allowing him due process rights or legal appeals. And that he (Katzenbach) was more involved in monitoring the investigations - both the FBI's and WC. But I'm not aware of anything indicating he directed/limited/controlled either investigation.

That Willens book really has some fascinating behind the scenes accounts.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 08:17:07 PM
That's an excellent summary: Katzenbach pushed early on for a special investigation that was independent of the Justice Department and Congress et al. Meaning it would be beyond his possible control. Hoover was leaking the FBI's report - Oswald as lone assassin - because he wanted to assure the public that the FBI, i.e., him, didn't miss a conspiracy. None of this has a thing to do with covering up what they knew. It was protecting their fannies and bureaucratic infighting et cetera. To a conspiracy mindset, of course, it's sinister behind the scenes machinations.

Philip Shenon says (in Cruel and Shocking Act) that Katzenbach approved/signed off as head of DOJ (Bobby Kennedy was still mourning) on the CIA's decision to confine Nosenko without allowing him due process rights or legal appeals. And that he (Katzenbach) was more involved in monitoring the investigations - both the FBI's and WC. But I'm not aware of anything indicating he directed/limited/controlled either investigation.

That Willens book really has some fascinating behind the scenes accounts.



That Willens book really has some fascinating behind the scenes accounts


Yes, it’s a good one. I think that most people who suspect the WC of covering up, etc. don’t really understand how it operated. The Willens book, and the two by David Belin, are good reading for those who want to learn more about it.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2022, 08:51:44 PM

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?

Every one of the “investigations” that Steve refers to (except arguably the HSCA) relies entirely on the same source material from the FBI and the same assumptions from the WC. There was nothing independent or investigatory about them.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 18, 2022, 08:53:34 PM
Katzenbach didn't conduct the investigation. Or have anything to do with one. Either the FBI's or the WC or the ones afterwards.

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation. What is the evidence that this memo had any effect or role or influence in the subsequent investigations? And who believes that Hoover would follow the orders of Katzenbach? And the WC too?

And once again, I didn’t cite any Katzenbach memo. You need to alter your script.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 18, 2022, 09:16:08 PM
Every one of the “investigations” that Steve refers to (except arguably the HSCA) relies entirely on the same source material from the FBI and the same assumptions from the WC. There was nothing independent or investigatory about them.


Ridiculous nonsense….   ::)
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 19, 2022, 02:44:16 AM
If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 19, 2022, 12:06:52 PM
If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.


What specifically would you do differently in order to make it, in your opinion, a “real investigation”?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 19, 2022, 02:51:54 PM

What specifically would you do differently in order to make it, in your opinion, a “real investigation”?

In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 19, 2022, 03:26:52 PM
In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up


Thank you for the reply. I am going to first present a few paragraphs from pages 23-25 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens. Then I will make some more specific replies to your list as I get time.


The chief justice wanted the commission to hear as many witnesses as possible. He wanted to concentrate initially on witnesses who saw or participated in the events on November 22. Relying on the recommendations of five of the teams (excluding presidential protection), I prepared a draft memo for Rankin proposing a group of key witnesses for the commission and another group to be deposed by our lawyers. As we revised this memo, we assumed the commission should hear witnesses on all phases of this investigation, not just a few central issues, and that this first group should reflect Warren’s preferences. Rankin initially listed forty-nine commission witnesses, and offered this rationale for their selection: “[M]ost of these witnesses will supply testimony pertaining to the actual events on the day of the assassination, the medical treatment of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, the identity of the assassin, the background of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the security precautions taken by the Dallas Police Department after Oswald’s arrest.” Rankin left for future consideration the few “political” witnesses, such as President Johnson and Governor Connolly, because the commission had not decided whether these individuals should appear before it.3

 As I recorded in my journal, I thought that “the adoption of this schedule is perhaps a more significant event in the internal operations of the Commission than is generally realized. It marks the commitment by the Commission to taking a considerable amount of testimony from witnesses with relevant information and to frame conclusions based on this testimony independent of the investigation conducted previously” by the FBI and other agencies. I hoped that this approach would “win for its final report a much greater degree of public support than would otherwise have been the case.”4

Although many changes were made over the next several months to the lists of witnesses, the total number and range of witnesses demonstrated the commission’s commitment to pursue an exhaustive investigation. The facts refute the contention of future critics that our inquiry was seriously defective: Appendix V to the report lists 552 witnesses whose testimony, deposition, or statement we took. Whatever flaws or deficiencies are identified in these evidentiary materials, there can be no serious doubt that the commission fully carried out its mandate to conduct a comprehensive and independent investigation.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 19, 2022, 04:51:24 PM
Yeah, they wanted to hear from as many witnesses as they could find and then ignore or discredit the ones that didn’t comport with the predetermined conclusion.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 19, 2022, 05:10:35 PM
Yeah, they wanted to hear from as many witnesses as they could find and then ignore or discredit the ones that didn’t comport with the predetermined conclusion.

Thanks for your “opinion”. I prefer the opinion of someone who was actually there and involved with the day to day activities of the WC.


From pages 132-133 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


With respect to Warren’s interest in a “clean record,” I do not believe that any of our lawyers curtailed their interrogation of a witness in order to avoid any conflicts in testimony. None of us took Warren’s comment as a directive that our investigation—or interrogation of witnesses—should be conducted to avoid full and truthful testimony from all our witnesses that might create inconsistencies in the record. It would have been unprofessional to pursue such an objective and impossible to achieve it; and the record we produced and made public illustrates that we did not do so. It is certainly true, however, that Warren, like a presiding trial judge, urged several of our lawyers on occasion to move on to another area of examination when he thought that a particular subject had been sufficiently explored.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 19, 2022, 08:10:43 PM
In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up



I will respond to your individual comments in no particular order and usually in separate posts. Here is my first response to one of them:

I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.


This was a decision apparently made by the CIA. I don’t believe that it would be fair to blame the WC for this. Here is some of what Willens had to say about it. From pages 156-157 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


Moving to what I assumed would be a contentious subject, we discussed the failure of the CIA to comply fully with some of the commission’s recent inquiries regarding pre-assassination documents in the CIA files on Oswald. Helms, one of the most fluent and self-confident government officials I ever met, exhibited not the slightest embarrassment at our complaint about his agency’s failure to comply fully with our request. He smoothly explained that the agency had not provided materials that utilized confidential communication techniques and revealed confidential sources. I responded that the commission did not need to know these confidential aspects, but it certainly needed more than the summaries provided by the earlier CIA memorandum. After some discussion, we reached a compromise that required the CIA to provide the commission with a paraphrase of any message or other writing requested by the commission, the original version of which would reveal a confidential source or confidential communications technique, and the commission staff would be permitted to review the actual messages to ensure that the paraphrases were complete and accurate.57

Having met with CIA representatives on several occasions over the past two months, I was impressed with their competence and apparent willingness to cooperate with the commission. They were always polite, seemingly accommodating when we requested information, and respectful of the commission’s obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the assassination. I thought it might be “because they do not have any special axe to grind” in our investigation. As it turned out, I could not have been more wrong. The CIA had huge interests at stake in our efforts. As was revealed by congressional investigations in 1975–76, they were determined to keep extremely important information from the commission. We never knew that, among other things, the agency had been busying itself with various plots to assassinate Castro during 1960–63, including one plan scheduled to be implemented on November 22, 1963. Helms knew all about this as he looked at me across the table and promised full cooperation in providing any information that might be relevant to our work.58


Another investigation (of the CIA itself) uncovered the plots years later. Ironically, it was David Belin’s efforts that uncovered them. You can read all the details in Belin’s book “Final Disclocure”.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 19, 2022, 08:25:27 PM
Thanks for your “opinion”. I prefer the opinion of someone who was actually there and involved with the day to day activities of the WC.

Of course you do. It’s not at all remarkable that Willens thought they got it right.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 19, 2022, 10:49:42 PM
Of course you do. It’s not at all remarkable that Willens thought they got it right.

Exactly. What else is he expected to say about the investigation? His reputation and legacy is on the line.

I have more respect for those who argue that the lone-nut theory was correct even if the investigations were botched than for those who are still in denial about the Warren Commission and other investigations.

Warren Commission members, Hale Boggs and Richard Russell, were two of the Commission members who were critics of the Warren Report. Funny how Charles hasn't mentioned them.

On Hale Boggs and Richard Russell:

"Although they praised the Warren Commission report in the media, many government leaders had serious misgivings about its findings. Commission member Richard Russell reluctantly signed the Warren Report even though he could not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, and he later admitted to having “lingering dissatisfaction” with many of its conclusions. Congressman Hale Boggs had similar doubts about the report, in particular the “single bullet theory”—the argument that one shot had stuck both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally.

Lyndon Johnson remained in lock step with the Warren Commission’s findings for most of his career, but he privately disagreed with the single bullet theory and reportedly believed that the Cubans had engineered the assassination. Likewise, President Kennedy’s brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, publicly commended the Warren Report even though he suspected a conspiracy had taken place."


https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 20, 2022, 04:27:25 PM
If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.



…you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.



Yet the opposite of your claim can be seen in the work of the WC. Why anyone who actually looks into the details of the WC’s work would make a claim like yours is beyond comprehension of a sane mind. Here’s an example in a first response to one of your claims:


I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

A quote from pages 199-201 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

As a general matter, the lawyers taking the depositions were getting what they wanted from the witnesses—a greater degree of certainty about tentative conclusions, elaboration in areas that had not been fully developed by the agencies, and leads that prompted further depositions and new investigative requests. A memo from Hubert evaluating the results of the depositions that he and Griffin had taken in Dallas provided a good example. They wanted evidence regarding Dallas Police Department planning for Oswald’s security and the transfer from the jail, and possible complicity of any department official in his death. He and Griffin also searched for evidence about Ruby’s entry into the basement on that Sunday morning. This evidence might show that Ruby had lied on this subject and had conceived a plan to kill Oswald, which in turn would trigger further investigation as to who might have known of, or participated in, his plan.52

Based on the interviews of thirty-seven police officers, Hubert reported that the department’s security precautions when Oswald was in custody were seriously deficient. There were no plans for his transfer until the morning of November 24; and the plans announced on that date were not coordinated and were changed at least once. However, based on the evidence, Hubert believed that it was improbable that any individual or group within the Dallas Police Department engaged in a plot with Ruby to kill Oswald. Further, he and Griffin found no evidence of a conspiracy to cover up the deficient security arrangements and to blame this failure upon any one individual within the department.53

As to Ruby’s entrance into the basement, Hubert’s view at this point was more cautious. He thought that the alternative best supported by the evidence was that Ruby entered by the Main Street ramp as he claimed, although two other entrances were available to him. However, three newsmen believed they saw Ruby around the jail earlier on the morning of November 24, and Hubert and Griffin planned to take their depositions.54 At the same time, the Hubert/Griffin team pursued Ruby’s possible Cuban associations. They had found evidence that Ruby had a connection with Robert Ray McKeown of Houston, who had been convicted of selling arms to Fidel Castro. They learned of a visit by Ruby to Havana with Lewis J. McWillie for about ten days in September 1959. They found some conflict in the reports as to whether Ruby made two trips, or only one, to Cuba in 1959. The team also decided to investigate seven or eight different rumors linking Ruby to Cuba to determine if Ruby had associated with underworld figures interested in overthrowing Castro and if those associations were connected to his murder of Oswald.55

 They followed up with investigative requests to the FBI two days later, including a request to the FBI to investigate thirty-eight people identified as associates of Earl Ruby, Jack’s brother, based on an Internal Revenue Service analysis of his telephone calls during the course of an IRS tax investigation. In early April, Hubert and Griffin planned to take an additional thirty-two depositions, most of them in Dallas, including people believed to have information regarding Ruby’s presence at the Dallas police headquarters on November 24 and others with knowledge of his personal history and relationships.56
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 20, 2022, 06:02:20 PM
And then they just declared that the cop watching the ramp was “mistaken” when he said nobody came down because it conflicted with their desired result.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 20, 2022, 06:28:09 PM
And then they just declared that the cop watching the ramp was “mistaken” when he said nobody came down because it conflicted with their desired result.

They did that sort of thing with almost every witness whose testimony didn’t fit into their narrative.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 21, 2022, 05:07:52 AM
They did that sort of thing with almost every witness whose testimony didn’t fit into their narrative.

Exactly. It hardly matters how “thorough” you intend to be if you’re just going to cherry-pick what you like anyway.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 21, 2022, 02:12:11 PM
In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up

Have you or will you ever kneel at Oswald's grave?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 21, 2022, 04:14:56 PM
In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up


I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.



My second response to your claim is from pages 252-254 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

On May 14, I reviewed a memo from the Hubert/Griffin team regarding additional investigation in the Ruby area. I disagreed with many of their suggestions, which resulted in a very spirited discussion with Griffin in the morning and Hubert in the afternoon. I didn’t lack respect for Hubert or Griffin. I admired them both for their tenacity in pursuing the investigation relating to Ruby. They were determined to examine every contact Ruby made before the Oswald murder to see if we could detect any signs of conspiracy. They were in complete command of the facts in their area, gave no ground in debate, and almost always succeeded in getting what they wanted. But Griffin and Hubert didn’t believe they had adequate help in achieving our shared goal of a complete and thoughtful investigation. It was my job to solve the problem.79

 When I read their memo, I was initially troubled by three aspects. First, I had hoped that by now we would be near the end of the Ruby investigation. Back in February and March, Charlie Shaffer (my Justice Department colleague) and I had reviewed certain investigative requests made by the Hubert/Griffin team and had advised Rankin that they seemed excessively broad in scope. I did not recall, however, to what extent (if any) these earlier requests had been modified before being sent to the FBI. I would have appreciated some warning from them in April that they would be seeking Rankin’s approval of further investigation. When I raised this concern, Hubert and Griffin stated that their earlier memoranda had outlined the scope of the necessary investigation and that their new memo simply reaffirmed their early judgment.80

My second problem was their definition of the assignment. They wanted to answer three questions: Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Was Ruby associated with the assassin of President Kennedy? Did Ruby have any confederates in the murder of Oswald? But in their memo, Hubert and Griffin said that “although the evidence gathered so far does not clearly show a conspiratorial link between Ruby and Oswald, or between Ruby and others, the evidence also does not clearly exclude the possibilities [emphasis added] that (a) Ruby was indirectly linked through others to Oswald; (b) Ruby killed Oswald, because of fear; or (c) Ruby killed Oswald at the suggestion of others.” I had no objections to the questions posed, but their view that the evidence in the commission’s possession had to “clearly exclude” any and all possibilities struck me then and now as unreasonable and unachievable. I said so. Ironically, the next time I saw something like this “clearly exclude” standard was in the final report of the House Select Committee in 1979, which used the equally unacceptable phrase “evidence does not preclude,” in its misguided denunciation of our work.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 21, 2022, 05:09:13 PM

I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.



My second response to your claim is from pages 252-254 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

On May 14, I reviewed a memo from the Hubert/Griffin team regarding additional investigation in the Ruby area. I disagreed with many of their suggestions, which resulted in a very spirited discussion with Griffin in the morning and Hubert in the afternoon. I didn’t lack respect for Hubert or Griffin. I admired them both for their tenacity in pursuing the investigation relating to Ruby. They were determined to examine every contact Ruby made before the Oswald murder to see if we could detect any signs of conspiracy. They were in complete command of the facts in their area, gave no ground in debate, and almost always succeeded in getting what they wanted. But Griffin and Hubert didn’t believe they had adequate help in achieving our shared goal of a complete and thoughtful investigation. It was my job to solve the problem.79

 When I read their memo, I was initially troubled by three aspects. First, I had hoped that by now we would be near the end of the Ruby investigation. Back in February and March, Charlie Shaffer (my Justice Department colleague) and I had reviewed certain investigative requests made by the Hubert/Griffin team and had advised Rankin that they seemed excessively broad in scope. I did not recall, however, to what extent (if any) these earlier requests had been modified before being sent to the FBI. I would have appreciated some warning from them in April that they would be seeking Rankin’s approval of further investigation. When I raised this concern, Hubert and Griffin stated that their earlier memoranda had outlined the scope of the necessary investigation and that their new memo simply reaffirmed their early judgment.80

My second problem was their definition of the assignment. They wanted to answer three questions: Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Was Ruby associated with the assassin of President Kennedy? Did Ruby have any confederates in the murder of Oswald? But in their memo, Hubert and Griffin said that “although the evidence gathered so far does not clearly show a conspiratorial link between Ruby and Oswald, or between Ruby and others, the evidence also does not clearly exclude the possibilities [emphasis added] that (a) Ruby was indirectly linked through others to Oswald; (b) Ruby killed Oswald, because of fear; or (c) Ruby killed Oswald at the suggestion of others.” I had no objections to the questions posed, but their view that the evidence in the commission’s possession had to “clearly exclude” any and all possibilities struck me then and now as unreasonable and unachievable. I said so. Ironically, the next time I saw something like this “clearly exclude” standard was in the final report of the House Select Committee in 1979, which used the equally unacceptable phrase “evidence does not preclude,” in its misguided denunciation of our work.

The HSCA did a far better job on investigating Jack Ruby and organized crime than did the Warren Commission.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 21, 2022, 05:42:26 PM
The HSCA did a far better job on investigating Jack Ruby and organized crime than did the Warren Commission.

Hmmm. You have no problem with the HSCA's Chief Counsel Blakey having a huge Mob bias.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 21, 2022, 06:17:46 PM
The HSCA did a far better job on investigating Jack Ruby and organized crime than did the Warren Commission.


Hmmm. You have no problem with the HSCA's Chief Counsel Blakey having a huge Mob bias.


Sadly they were only:

(https://i.vgy.me/n8VMmh.png)


Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 21, 2022, 06:38:07 PM
Hmmm. You have no problem with the HSCA's Chief Counsel Blakey having a huge Mob bias.

Everyone is biased. Do you think Allen Dulles was unbiased? You don't think he had a conflict of interest?

Why was Dulles allowed to be part of the Warren Commission?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 21, 2022, 07:01:15 PM
Everyone is biased. Do you think Allen Dulles was unbiased? You don't think he had a conflict of interest?

Why was Dulles allowed to be part of the Warren Commission?


Why was Dulles allowed to be part of the Warren Commission?


From page 32 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

“Johnson had asked Robert Kennedy to suggest possible commission members from the private sector. Kennedy proposed Allen W. Dulles, the former CIA director, and John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank. President Johnson agreed.”
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 21, 2022, 07:23:13 PM

Why was Dulles allowed to be part of the Warren Commission?


From page 32 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

“Johnson had asked Robert Kennedy to suggest possible commission members from the private sector. Kennedy proposed Allen W. Dulles, the former CIA director, and John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank. President Johnson agreed.”

I don't see how that debunks the facts that Allen Dulles was biased and had a conflict of interest.

Of course RFK had his own motive for participating in the cover-up. He didn't want information about the CIA's anti-Castro plots to surface during the investigations. Some of the plots RFK himself oversaw.

Dulles clearly tried to divert speculation away from the CIA, an organization that he had a relationship with even after Kennedy fired him. 
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 21, 2022, 07:42:08 PM
I don't see how that debunks the facts that Allen Dulles was biased and had a conflict of interest.

Of course RFK had his own motive for participating in the cover-up. He didn't want information about the CIA's anti-Castro plots to surface during the investigations. Some of the plots RFK himself oversaw.

Dulles clearly tried to divert speculation away from the CIA, an organization that he had a relationship with even after Kennedy fired him.


I answered your question. Debunking your opinions wasn’t intended.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 22, 2022, 03:33:33 PM
Ironically, the next time I saw something like this “clearly exclude” standard was in the final report of the House Select Committee in 1979, which used the equally unacceptable phrase “evidence does not preclude,” in its misguided denunciation of our work.

The WC used the “does not preclude” argument several times, for example with the fiber evidence, the rifle in the backyard photos, and the Tippit bullets.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 04:02:04 PM
In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up


  I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.


My third response to this comment:

From pages 295-297 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


Ruby’s testimony before the commission and a possible polygraph examination did not affect Griffin’s assessment of his investigative mission. For Griffin, many details still required follow-up. Both Rankin and Redlich participated with me in the discussion about the need for further investigation in the Ruby area. I wanted to be certain they understood the extent of the investigative effort to date, the strongly expressed conviction of Hubert and Griffin that much additional effort was needed, and that the investigation involving Ruby’s background, associations, and actions over the weekend of November 22 to 24 required more time and effort than we had anticipated earlier. I confess that, as a matter of bureaucratic self-interest, I did not want to be the sole decision maker on what needed to done in the Ruby area as contrasted with what might be done.

 Griffin now had the assistance of Murray Laulicht, a recent graduate from the Columbia University School of Law who was recommended to me by a Justice Department friend. Rankin hired him with the initial thought that Laulicht would serve as his law clerk. But, in light of Hubert and Griffin’s complaints about a lack of manpower, we decided to assign Laulicht to work exclusively with them. His work was excellent. He brought fresh eyes to problems that Hubert and Griffin had been working on for months. Griffin particularly welcomed his arrival because Hubert would have limited future availability for our work.75

 Hubert told Rankin that he could not remain with the commission “on a permanent-duty status” after June 3, though he was prepared to return to Washington on weekends or to go to Dallas if necessary. In a handwritten note to the commission staff on June 5, Hubert advised all of us of his need to return to New Orleans and said: “I cannot leave however without saying to all of you that I have never been associated with a group of people as able and dedicated as this group.” Later in June, Rankin took advantage of Hubert’s offer, and asked him to obtain the testimony of twenty-two additional witnesses in Dallas.76

 I asked Griffin on June 1 to give me every investigative request he believed was necessary to complete his investigation. He and Hubert agreed to do so with the qualification that additional requests might be required due to future developments in Ruby’s criminal case. Their investigative requests to the FBI—more than 30 in number—began arriving on June 1 and kept flowing through the full month. Some were very small—like Griffin’s desire to follow up on the deposition of Hyman Rubenstein (Ruby’s brother) about an allegation that Ruby years ago had attempted to hit a person with a chair who made a derogatory remark about President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Some were more involved—such as a request for a review of the arrest records and summaries of FBI reports about any alleged criminal or subversive activities of ten acquaintances of Ruby and an exploration of a 1959 FBI report describing Ruby as a “known Dallas criminal.”77

 In their entirety, these requests reflected a prodigious effort by Griffin to supervise an investigative effort that met his professional standards and to be prepared to draft portions of the commission’s report with a high level of confidence in the facts. No lawyer on the staff worked more diligently or thoughtfully than Griffin.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 04:31:37 PM
The WC used the “does not preclude” argument several times, for example with the fiber evidence, the rifle in the backyard photos, and the Tippit bullets.


It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.


I don’t know the context of the statement by the HSCA that Willens is objecting to. But here is the next paragraph from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:


Either because they agreed with me on the merits, or to placate me, Hubert and Griffin produced a second version of the May 14 memo, in which the offending sentence was modified to read that “evidence should be secured, if possible, to affirmatively exclude [the same three possibilities].” Either version of the investigative goal, of course, would support an aggressive investigation of leads bearing on these questions. But the second formulation suggested that, at some point, the investigation of these (or similar) questions would permit reasoned judgments as to whether such conspiratorial relationships existed even if they had not been “clearly excluded.” The question of “what is enough” is raised regularly in the practice of law, and it was becoming of paramount importance to the commission as our staff moved from the investigative stage to drafting the report.81


It is the underlined words “reasoned judgements” that you seem to have a problem understanding. When the WC used the “does not preclude” arguments were they calling for a conclusion or simply suggesting reasoned judgements? Same question for the context in which the HSCA used the term.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 22, 2022, 05:09:20 PM
It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.

I didn’t make the previous statement.

Quote
It is the underlined words “reasoned judgements” that you seem to have a problem understanding.

I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 05:15:11 PM
I didn’t make the previous statement.

I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.


I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.


You quite obviously don’t grasp the concept….   ::)


Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 05:23:55 PM

It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.



The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination.

Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 05:42:40 PM
The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination.

Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.


The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination


Nothing could be further from the truth.


Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.


You haven’t provided any of those “facts”. Opinions are opinions and most people don’t know the details of the assassination or the investigations.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 22, 2022, 05:55:57 PM

The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination


Nothing could be further from the truth.


Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.


You haven’t provided any of those “facts”. Opinions are opinions and most people don’t know the details of the assassination or the investigations.
If someone wants to say they were misled or not given complete information - about the Castro plots and/or Mob role (David Slawson complains about this; Shenon's book promotes this idea too) - then fine. But to argue they deliberately didn't make a "good faith" effort to look into the assassination is for me not supported by the evidence. One thing to say they were used; it's another to say they were enablers or participants in a coverup.

Who exactly didn't do this? Why?
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 06:34:05 PM

The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination


Nothing could be further from the truth.


Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.


You haven’t provided any of those “facts”. Opinions are opinions and most people don’t know the details of the assassination or the investigations.

We know enough to conclude that the Warren Commission was a "shoddy investigation" as Attorney General Robert Kennedy called it.


"Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a close friend of the Kennedy family, would disclose years later that he was told by Robert Kennedy in December 1963, a month after the president’s murder, that the former attorney general worried that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was “part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters.” Schlesinger said that in 1966, two years after the Warren Commission report, Kennedy was still so suspicious about a conspiracy that he wondered aloud “how long he could continue to avoid comment on the report—it is evident that he believes it is was poor job.”

Newly disclosed documents from the commission, made public on the 50th anniversary of its final report, suggest that the panel missed a chance to get Robert Kennedy to acknowledge publicly what he would later confess to his closest family and friends: that he believed the commission had overlooked evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy."


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/was-bobby-kennedy-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist-111729/
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 22, 2022, 06:43:05 PM
We know enough to conclude that the Warren Commission was a "shoddy investigation" as Attorney General Robert Kennedy called it.


"Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a close friend of the Kennedy family, would disclose years later that he was told by Robert Kennedy in December 1963, a month after the president’s murder, that the former attorney general worried that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was “part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters.” Schlesinger said that in 1966, two years after the Warren Commission report, Kennedy was still so suspicious about a conspiracy that he wondered aloud “how long he could continue to avoid comment on the report—it is evident that he believes it is was poor job.”

Newly disclosed documents from the commission, made public on the 50th anniversary of its final report, suggest that the panel missed a chance to get Robert Kennedy to acknowledge publicly what he would later confess to his closest family and friends: that he believed the commission had overlooked evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy."


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/was-bobby-kennedy-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist-111729/

What difference does it make what RFK believed unless it was based upon some evidence that the rest of us are unaware of?  That's even assuming this is an accurate characterization of his viewpoint for which there is cause to doubt.  It's pretty damning of RFK's reputation to suggest that he kept silent about unknown conspirators getting away with murdering his brother.  He was certainly in a position to raise awareness of his position if that is what he thought happened. 
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 06:49:10 PM
What difference does it make what RFK believed unless it was based upon some evidence that the rest of us are unaware of?  That's even assuming this is an accurate characterization of his viewpoint for which there is cause to doubt. It's pretty damning of RFK's reputation to suggest that he kept silent about unknown conspirators getting away with murdering his brother.  He was certainly in a position to raise awareness of his position if that is what he thought happened.

If RFK publicly criticized the Warren Report, it would've pretty much ended his political career.

It made no sense for him to do that unless he had a smoking gun or hard evidence of a conspiracy.

My broader point is that its telling that so many people who were close to the Warren Commission or knowledgeable of the intimate details were also not convinced that they were right that Oswald acted alone. That includes Lyndon Johnson, Hale Boggs, Richard Russell, RFK, John Connally, and possibly Gerald Ford (if some quotes attributed to him are true).
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 08:41:16 PM
If RFK publicly criticized the Warren Report, it would've pretty much ended his political career.

It made no sense for him to do that unless he had a smoking gun or hard evidence of a conspiracy.

My broader point is that its telling that so many people who were close to the Warren Commission or knowledgeable of the intimate details were also not convinced that they were right that Oswald acted alone. That includes Lyndon Johnson, Hale Boggs, Richard Russell, RFK, John Connally, and possibly Gerald Ford (if some quotes attributed to him are true).



It’s telling….  ???


It’s telling….  ???



The sky is falling….  ???


The sky is falling….  ???



Suspicions are not evidence, never were, and never will be…  :-\
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 08:52:50 PM


Suspicions are not evidence, never were, and never will be…  :-\

The JFK case is not "closed". Maybe it never will be due to the confirmed evidence of coverups.

Even the freaking CIA admits that they did a coverup yet some of you are still defending the government's investigations. It's mind-boggling how anyone can be confident that we know what happened despite all the evidence that efforts were made to obscure the truth...
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 09:09:27 PM
We know enough to conclude that the Warren Commission was a "shoddy investigation" as Attorney General Robert Kennedy called it.


"Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a close friend of the Kennedy family, would disclose years later that he was told by Robert Kennedy in December 1963, a month after the president’s murder, that the former attorney general worried that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was “part of a larger plot, whether organized by Castro or by gangsters.” Schlesinger said that in 1966, two years after the Warren Commission report, Kennedy was still so suspicious about a conspiracy that he wondered aloud “how long he could continue to avoid comment on the report—it is evident that he believes it is was poor job.”

Newly disclosed documents from the commission, made public on the 50th anniversary of its final report, suggest that the panel missed a chance to get Robert Kennedy to acknowledge publicly what he would later confess to his closest family and friends: that he believed the commission had overlooked evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy."


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/was-bobby-kennedy-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist-111729/



FYI, RFK was not that close to the WC investigation or the FBI investigation. Here’s another quote from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


The attorney general told us that he was “willing to do anything necessary for the country and thought that he making a statement about the non-existence of a conspiracy would be desirable.” Although he did not say so, I got the clear impression that he would prefer not being a witness before the commission and hoped that the exchange of letters would be an acceptable alternative. He commented that the draft letter prepared for his signature was inaccurate in that he had never received any reports from the FBI regarding the assassination. He said that his only sources of information about the assassination were Warren, Katzenbach, and me. Based on these reports, he was “perfectly willing to make a broad and definite statement regarding his confidence in the commission and the adequacy of the investigation.” The meeting ended with the understanding that the exchange of letters was the preferred course of action and I was asked to prepare them for signature.12

I was pleased to hear Robert Kennedy express confidence in the commission’s work. We certainly hoped that he would publicly approve our final conclusions. But—as he said on so many occasions—nothing was going to bring his brother back to life. He had very little interest in the scope of the commission’s investigation (except any possible Teamsters aspect). Because the FBI reports on the investigation to the Justice Department were routinely addressed to the attorney general, I was initially surprised that Kennedy had decided that all such reports should go directly to Katzenbach and Miller. But I recognized soon after November 22 that Kennedy did not wish to be personally involved in the government’s response to the assassination, leaving that role to Katzenbach.


Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2022, 09:10:20 PM


It’s telling….  ???


It’s telling….  ???



The sky is falling….  ???


The sky is falling….  ???



Suspicions are not evidence, never were, and never will be…  :-\

Suspicions are not evidence, never were, and never will be…

Tell that to Richard Smith
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 22, 2022, 09:22:21 PM
The JFK case is not "closed". Maybe it never will be due to the confirmed evidence of coverups.

Even the freaking CIA admits that they did a coverup yet some of you are still defending the government's investigations. It's mind-boggling how anyone can be confident that we know what happened despite all the evidence that efforts were made to obscure the truth...


Even the freaking CIA admits…

The CIA didn’t disclose their secret efforts to assassinate Castro. This would have been of interest to the WC (if the CIA had disclosed the plots). And the WC investigation would most likely have been different accordingly. However, there still isn’t any evidence that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or that the WC would have found some (if the plots against Castro had been disclosed to them).
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2022, 10:06:23 PM

Even the freaking CIA admits…

The CIA didn’t disclose their secret efforts to assassinate Castro. This would have been of interest to the WC (if the CIA had disclosed the plots). And the WC investigation would most likely have been different accordingly. However, there still isn’t any evidence that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or that the WC would have found some (if the plots against Castro had been disclosed to them).

There’s plenty of evidence that suggests that others were involved but no smoking gun or conclusive proof.

Speculating about a conspiracy is not the same as proving that there was a conspiracy.

We may never be able to answer the questions of whether there was or wasn’t a conspiracy.

The case is not closed.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Charles Collins on November 23, 2022, 12:06:48 AM
There’s plenty of evidence that suggests that others were involved but no smoking gun or conclusive proof.

Speculating about a conspiracy is not the same as proving that there was a conspiracy.

We may never be able to answer the questions of whether there was or wasn’t a conspiracy.

The case is not closed.



There are quite a few intriguing circumstances which create the opportunity for speculation about conspiracies. And for many years I just “knew” that there HAD to be a conspiracy. Learning more details, with an open mind, has changed my mind. And the more I continue to learn, the more convinced I am. That said, I am open to any new evidence of a conspiracy. I believe that most others are also.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 12:58:33 PM
You quite obviously don’t grasp the concept….   ::)

Defined as not accepting Willens’ hypocrisy and special pleading.

“Does not preclude” is prosecuting lawyer weasel words. It means nothing.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 01:03:48 PM
Suspicions are not evidence, never were, and never will be…  :-\

Followers of the “Oswald did it” faith should emblazon that on their walls and refer to it often.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2022, 01:06:20 PM
Jefferson Morley on what the CIA is hiding:

Quote
Yes, There Is a JFK Smoking Gun

A small group of CIA officers was keenly interested in Oswald in the fall of 1963. They were running a psychological warfare operation, authorized in June 1963, that followed Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City later that year. One of the officers supporting this operation was George Joannides, a career CIA officer whose records I sued for in 2003.

(This 2009 New York Times story on my lawsuit is pretty good.)

The evidence of the undisclosed Oswald operation is found in one partially declassified document from 1963 and 43 additional documents found in Joannides’ personnel file that have been “denied in full,” meaning no portions of them have been made public.

According to a CIA document filed in my Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, these sensitive records concern Joannides’ intelligence methods, his cover (meaning his false identity), and his travel in 1963-64, when he served as the chief of psychological warfare branch of the Agency’s Miami station, and in 1978, when he served as liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassination.

(The CIA’s policy of not revealing the names of living agents and informants does not apply here; Joannides died in 1990.)

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/yes-there-is-a-jfk-smoking-gun
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 01:10:05 PM
It's mind-boggling how anyone can be confident that we know what happened despite all the evidence that efforts were made to obscure the truth...

 Thumb1:

And for anyone to argue that the WC didn’t have an agenda is downright delusional.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 23, 2022, 03:05:44 PM
If RFK publicly criticized the Warren Report, it would've pretty much ended his political career.

It made no sense for him to do that unless he had a smoking gun or hard evidence of a conspiracy.

My broader point is that its telling that so many people who were close to the Warren Commission or knowledgeable of the intimate details were also not convinced that they were right that Oswald acted alone. That includes Lyndon Johnson, Hale Boggs, Richard Russell, RFK, John Connally, and possibly Gerald Ford (if some quotes attributed to him are true).

So he had no "smoking gun" or "evidence" of a conspiracy but entertained a hypothetical possibility that it happened.  In which case, his opinion is no more relevant than those that frequent this forum.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 03:30:09 PM
So he had no "smoking gun" or "evidence" of a conspiracy but entertained a hypothetical possibility that it happened.  In which case, his opinion is no more relevant than those that frequent this forum.

Says the guy who entertains the hypothetical possibility that Oswald travelled down 4 flights of stairs in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by any of the 12 people along the way, and calls it a “fact”.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2022, 04:45:03 PM
So he had no "smoking gun" or "evidence" of a conspiracy but entertained a hypothetical possibility that it happened.  In which case, his opinion is no more relevant than those that frequent this forum.

No matter how you try to wish it away, it's relevant that political leaders who had access to or direct knowledge of some of the secrets that are still classified today, speculated that others were involved.

Far more relevant than the less informed speculation of people on this forum.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 23, 2022, 10:29:26 PM
No matter how you try to wish it away, it's relevant that political leaders who had access to or direct knowledge of some of the secrets that are still classified today, speculated that others were involved.

Far more relevant than the less informed speculation of people on this forum.

So now you are saying RFK has access to evidence that the rest of us do not?  And he decided not to voice his concerns regarding who was responsible for the death of his own brother?   That's a false premise and doesn't add up.  RFK may have entertained his own suspicions, but he probably knew less about the evidence in this case than most of us.  I'm sure he wasn't measuring the size of Oswald's nostrils etc.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2022, 11:38:26 PM
So now you are saying RFK has access to evidence that the rest of us do not? And he decided not to voice his concerns regarding who was responsible for the death of his own brother?   That's a false premise and doesn't add up.  RFK may have entertained his own suspicions, but he probably knew less about the evidence in this case than most of us.  I'm sure he wasn't measuring the size of Oswald's nostrils etc.

I'm confident that RFK knew things about covert operations and other issues related to the assassination that are still classified. Remember, many of the still classified files are FBI files and as attorney general, Kennedy would've had access to the FBI's secrets. And there are things that the Kennedy family still wants to be kept secret. I'm sure he also spoke to Kennedy's personal physician, George Burkley, who privately told people that there was a conspiracy.

Beyond that, maybe he knew some things about the CIA-Castro stuff and CIA-mafia stuff that has yet to be declassified.

Either way, it's absurd to think that ordinary people like us know more inside information about what was going on in 1963 than people who were in power back then and knew the context of the things we're still learning about...
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Richard Smith on November 24, 2022, 02:38:53 PM
I'm confident that RFK knew things about covert operations and other issues related to the assassination that are still classified. Remember, many of the still classified files are FBI files and as attorney general, Kennedy would've had access to the FBI's secrets. And there are things that the Kennedy family still wants to be kept secret. I'm sure he also spoke to Kennedy's personal physician, George Burkley, who privately told people that there was a conspiracy.

Beyond that, maybe he knew some things about the CIA-Castro stuff and CIA-mafia stuff that has yet to be declassified.

Either way, it's absurd to think that ordinary people like us know more inside information about what was going on in 1963 than people who were in power back then and knew the context of the things we're still learning about...

I think it's fair to say that many folks here know more details about the JFK assassination than RFK.  We have had 60 years to review the evidence.   More than a few folks are compulsive on the topic to the point of being unbalanced.  Those folks have not provided a single iota of credible evidence to suggest that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination.  RFK may have harbored suspicions, but his suspicions are no more valid than anyone else absent evidence.
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: Jon Banks on November 24, 2022, 03:05:59 PM
I think it's fair to say that many folks here know more details about the JFK assassination than RFK.  We have had 60 years to review the evidence.   More than a few folks are compulsive on the topic to the point of being unbalanced.  Those folks have not provided a single iota of credible evidence to suggest that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination.  RFK may have harbored suspicions, but his suspicions are no more valid than anyone else absent evidence.

I'm sure that RFK knew of some things related to his brother's murder that are still classified.

And it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that others were involved in JFK's assassination based on the available evidence.

People who conclude that LHO acted alone cannot do so without omitting or ignoring facts that counter that assumption...
Title: Re: Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 24, 2022, 07:42:48 PM
Those folks have not provided a single iota of credible evidence to suggest that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination.

Says the guy who has not provided a single iota of credible evidence to suggest that Oswald was involved in the assassination.