Salon: "the Warren Commission... was stacked with RFK’s political enemies"

[villager]

<snip>

As soon as he had heard the devastating news from Dallas on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy immediately suspected that his brother had been the victim of a plot. RFK believed that the shadowy assassination operation against Fidel Castro – a dark alliance between the CIA and the Mafia – had somehow been turned against President Kennedy. When Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby stunned the nation by shooting Oswald on national TV while he was being escorted through the basement of the Dallas Police Department, Bobby and his Justice Department investigators quickly turned their attention to Ruby. Within hours, RFK’s men found that Ruby had numerous connections to organized crime.

According to Shenon, the Warren Commission lawyers who were assigned to investigate Ruby – Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert — came to the same disturbing conclusion. Equally unnerving, the commission lawyers also suspected that the Dallas police sergeant who was in charge of Oswald’s security had allowed Ruby to slip into police headquarters and gun down the alleged assassin. But Griffin and Hubert were shut down before they could complete their Ruby investigation. And Griffin was reprimanded for daring to confront the Dallas police sergeant with his suspicions. Warren even publicly apologized to the cop when he was called to testify before the commission in Washington.

The post-assassination Washington revealed in these two books brings to mind ancient Rome. The capital’s chambers and private clubs were filled with dark whispers. The most powerful elements of government maneuvered to make sure their deepest secrets would not be revealed. Royal blood had been spilled and the new regime was determined that the public must never know why.

In the end, Shenon and Willens do little to further enlighten the public about the who, what or why of the Kennedy assassination. A growing historical consensus now sees JFK as presiding over a bitterly divided government, with Kennedy and his peace-minded inner circle on one side and a war-hungry Cold War establishment on the other. Even humdrum Kennedy historian Robert Dallek has now signed on to this view, with a new book that argues JFK’s biggest enemies were not Communist leaders but his own generals and espionage chiefs. This is a sobering conclusion, of course, because it provides a possible explanation for the bloody regime change in Dallas.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/the_jfk_assassination_we_still_dont_know_what_happened/

[BlueStreak]

1. Mostly a book review but resets the perspective in important ways

This isn't about a magic bullet. This is about a huge power struggle of global proportions. This article gives a good sense of the intensity of pressure that many of the participants were under, not the least Justice Warren, to whitewash the whole thing.

Two other articles that are required reading to anybody who wants more than the third-graders view of the world promoted by the Warren bullies. These are both from the past week. Not everybody with important information is dead. The truth can be brought out. We must demand the truth.

http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/24/his-brother-keeper-robert-kennedy-saw-conspiracy-jfk-assassination/TmZ0nfKsB34p69LWUBgsEJ/story.html

[villager]

2. Exactly. The Lone Nut Theorists are desperate not to talk about the political atmosphere

...that pervaded DC at the time.

Nor the assassination pattern that followed, after Dallas....

[BlueStreak]

3. They are the equivalent of holocaust deniers

The Warren Commission successfully muddied the waters, allowing the security state to keep this an unsolved case while most of the principals died and took important secrets with them.

But in the end, what we have are two very calculated murders (JFK and RFK) and plenty of motives.

One of the favorite arguments of the Warren apologists is "you can't keep a secret like that". That is baloney, of course. There are endless examples where the CIA, KGB and other similar outfits maintained complete confidentiality of their activities for decades. After all, we still don't know who whacked Jimmy Hoffa. It is the RULE, not the exception that people operating in the dark places (inside and outside the government) don't talk because, well, bad things happen to people who talk too much.

[villager]

6. "Dr. James Humes, the Navy pathologist....burned his original autopsy report in the fireplace

...in his family room. Humes’ superior officer was so concerned that the pathologist himself might be eliminated by the plotters who killed JFK that he ordered Humes to be escorted home that night."

Also from the linked article.

So yes, indeed.

[DanTex]

8. Holocaust deniers! Wow!

I guess you've finally given up on the strategy of misrepresenting/ignoring the forensic evidence, and decided that slanderous and hyperbolic personal attacks are more useful to the CT argument than a rational discussion of the actual facts of the case.

[sabrina 1]

20. The forensic evidence is a distraction. Whether Oswald fired shots or did not is NOT the question

a majority of people have or ever did have. You can accept him as the assassin or not, and still ask, 'why'. If Robert Kennedy believed what he believed, he had very good reasons. And since for decades we did not know his views, perhaps out of fear for other members of the family they decided to keep their views to themselves, I find his opinions on this far more important than the views of the Deniers who seem to have a vested interest in making it all go away.

[DanTex]

24. No it's not. It's the way to determine what is true and what is false.

For example, some people think there was a second gunman at the grassy knoll who shot JFK in the head. Very few CTers are rational/honest enough to accept that the forensic evidence conclusively disproves this.

Maybe you are one of the few CTers that accept the forensic evidence, and the inevitable conclusion that Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK. In that case, congratulations. But if you look around, you will find that most CTers are not so rational.

As far as a conspiracy theory involving Oswald as the only shooter, the best we can say about that is that there is zero evidence of it, and there is strong evidence against involvement of the usual suspects (CIA, KGB, Castro, anti-Castro, Mafia). Claiming that Oswald as a CIA agent, which is outlandish speculation completely at odds with the evidence, is not quite as absurd as claiming that there was a second gunman.

[brush]

97. Try this link . . .

then see if you still "believe" the single, lone gunman theory.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOpje8kixcV-skbCZOOiNIw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&live_view=500&flow=list

[BlueStreak]

130. Two birds with one stone

The implication of that research seems to be (if I understand it correctly) that the CIA was driving this. They certainly wanted to get rid of Kennedy. But the engagement of Oswald smells like an attempt to make the assassination look like it was done by Castro. That bit of the plan fell apart because Dulles, Hoover Johnson or whoever was running the Warren Commission decided the only way to make that whole stinking pile of shit work was to go with that ridiculous lone gunman theory.

But it looks like the CIA wanted to turn this into a much bigger incident. We know the history on that that the CIA was previously out of control putting assets on the ground in Cuba without JFK's blessing or knowledge. This also correlates very closely with Hunt's confession about "the big event" actually being planned for Miami. Evidently the circumstances weren't right for Miami and they did Dallas as the fall-back plan.

That leaves one of the really big questions unanswered -- as it has been for 50 years. If we assume that Oswald was actually in the depository and was one of the gunmen -- in other words, Oswald was on the team -- WHY was he on the team? Was he an agent for the CIA all along, when he was in Russia and Cuba. Or did the CIA recruit him late in the game to switch sides? Or was he not even there -- just used as a fall guy, and then murdered before he could talk?

Much has been said about the sloppiness of this operation, and therefore it couldn't have been a CIA deal. But I would point out that this would have been a rogue operation -- not something involving most of the chain of command. And these guys were really a rag-tag outfit, making a lot of seat-of-the-pants decisions. And their great plans disintegrated quickly. It was really chaotic right after the shooting.

[backwoodsbob]

80. lone gun (oswald did it) believers are like holocaust deniers now?

unbelievable

[The Midway Rebel]

91. Really? The equivalent of holocaust deniers?

Have you read the comments down thread suggesting the science behind the assassination is a distraction?

People like you disgust me. Really.

[Blue_In_AK]

94. While I don't believe Oswald acted alone,

I think saying that lone gunman believers are equivalent to Holocaust deniers is a little over-the-top. I think this is an area where arguments can be made on both sides.

[BlueStreak]

101. And THAT is exactly where the denier similarity lies.

I personally don't know a single person who insists that they know exactly what happened, EXCEPT for these Warren-ites. They are blindly bought into that little bubble with unswerving certitude.

There is no way any reasonable person can look at the totality of that situation, including the various struggles for power, the animosity among the principals, the multiplicity of motives, the fragility of the Warren technical theories, and the eventual murder of RFK, and not have some substantial doubt about it being the lone nut theory.

The Holocaust deniers exhibit that same certitude in the face of the obvious. That was the only connection I was asserting.

[Jackpine Radical]

126. "You can't keep a secret like that…" Absolutely right, of course.

The problem is that you don't have to; all you need to do is discredit & marginalize the whistleblowers.

From Mark Lane & Jim Garrison to Scott Ritter, Chelsea Manning & Edward Snowden, the counterattack is always the same. Anyone who dares question the Official Line is a loony, a pervert, or a traitor.

[BlueStreak]

128. discredit & marginalize for sure. But also intimidate and threated.

It isn't like the government came up with this all on their own. Governments have been doing this for thousands of years -- as long as there have been governments.

[The Midway Rebel]

131. Yes, discredit the whistle blowers. Maybe equate them with holocaust deniers on a public fourm.

Oh wait.

[BlueStreak]

133. How does some of your own medicine taste?

[The Midway Rebel]

134. I wouldn't know.

You would have to show me where I said you, or any other CTer, denied the holocaust. But you can't. Just like you can't prove any of your CT woo.

[RC]

5. Nor the Fact that there are no real conspiracy theories about the attempted Reagan shooting.

Just the JFK assassination. And has been since the beginning. You know, just like the government's version of 9/11, won't be put to bed either.

[BlueStreak]

40. Hinkley lived to face examination

Had the perpetrators, whoever they might have been, not killed Oswald, and allowed him to be examined in a way that engendered public trust, then the outcome may well have been similar to that of Reagan's.

If we found that Hinkley had heavy CIA, Russian, and Cuban connections, and was snuffed by a guy who had heavy mob connections, I'm guessing there would be a lot of questions about the Reagan shooting.

And of course, there were plenty of first-hand witnesses and video showing what Hinkley did.

But you are right, other than those things, the two situations are identical.

[DanTex]

7. On the contrary. Everyone agrees about the poisonous political atmosphere.

Where conspiracy nuts and rational people differ is whether a poisonous political atmosphere alone is proof of conspiracy, or whether we should actually look at the facts of the case, the forensic evidence, ballistics, witnesses, etc.

[villager]

10. In your view then, the rightwing generals just got "lucky?"

As would many other on the right, in the subsequent two political "lone nut" assassinations?

[DanTex]

11. So your view is the fact that JFK had enemies proves that it was a conspiracy?

I guess that means that every leader who was ever shot was killed by conspiracy.

Is there any room for actual evidence (you know, things like fingerprints and witnesses and ballistics matches) in your worldview?

[villager]

15. Of course, many leaders *were* killed as a result of a conspiracy...

...in order to change the politics of a country.

There's lots of "actual evidence" you LNTs blithely dismiss, as well. Kind of "magic bullet" thinking, writ large, really: We'll ignore all the troubling connections and contradictions of those involved in the assassination and its "investigation," and make an ask-no-questions view of things just fit.

The whole approach seems somewhat derelict, in a functioning democracy.

Of course, not accidentally, this one has ceased to function.

[DanTex]

16. And many were not. Which means we have to *look at the hard evidence*.

In this case, there is zero hard evidence of a conspiracy, while there are mountains of evidence (fingerprints, ballistics, witnesses, autopsy, the laws of physics, etc.) that Oswald and Oswald alone shot Kennedy. "Troubling connections" are not evidence.

The fact that you deride the "magic bullet" theory is testament to either your staggering ignorance or your insistence on believing in wild conspiracies far beyond the point where they are conclusively disproven. In fact, part of the reason that it is so clear that conspiracy nuts are in fact nothing more than nuts is their clinging to provably false ideas. It would be one thing if they would say "OK, we get that the forensic evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald was a lone assassin, but there is still a conspiracy because of X". But they don't. They talk about "magic bullets" and the grassy knoll and "back and to the left" and all sorts of such nonsense.

The lone gunman theory of the JFK assassination is backed by evidence, and stands up to scrutiny. The conspiracy theories are neither. It's really not very complicated.

[villager]

18. Motive and means were there, of course

And our unquestioned faith in the conclusions of Allen Dulles doesn't mean that a still tortured reading of the first of the three major political assassinations of that decade was the "coincidental" work of a lone nut.

The anger with which you LNTs try to browbeat everyone else -- the rage and upset you have for anyone daring to question "official versions" of anything -- is also telling about the personality types that rush to embrace such feel-good ask-no-questions scenarios.

which also leads to the fact you've sidestepped another aspect of motive and coincidence theory: Do you believe that all three major political assassinations just "happened" to be the work of wildly successful "lone nuts?"

And they all just "happened" to benefit the same group of political actors?

[DanTex]

21. Motive and means are always present for any world leader. That prove nothing.

Allen Dulles has nothing to do with it. The bullets that killed JFK were ballistically matched to Oswald's gun. What does that have to do with Dulles? Three employees in the TSBD were watching JFK one floor down, and they heard three rifle shots, along with the sound of a rifle reloading right above them. What does that have to do with Dulles? JFK had two entrance wounds in the back, none in the front, as confirmed not just by the autopsy, but by fifteen other pathologists who reviewed the evidence in multiple subsequent investigations. What does that have to do with Dulles?

And so on.

Accusing me of anger and rage doesn't help your case. What would help your case would be a shred of evidence of a conspiracy, or any reason to doubt the mountain of evidence that points to Oswald alone. The reason you resort to ad hominem is because you can't come up with any of that. No CTer has, despite decades of trying.

Yes, I believe that JFK, RFK, and MLK were shot by lone nuts. Why? Because that is what the evidence shows. I also believe that Ronald Reagan was shot by a lone nut. I believe that the world trade center was taken down by planes, not by explosives. I believe the government when it tells me that Obama was born in Hawaii. I believe that Sandy Hook shootings were actually the work of a deranged lone gunman, rather than some false flag operation by gun control activists.

Again, if there were evidence for a JFK conspiracy, I would happily accept it. I would actually prefer that. My favorite movie genre is espionage thriller, so if it were up to me, JFK would have been shot by a team of Jason Bourne superspies. But that's not what happened.

[villager]

23. So you don't think our domestic right-wing is actually capable of such things?

We part ways at that initial assumption, and go from there, I suppose.

[DanTex]

25. The fact that they're capable doesn't mean that they did it.

Again, if there were persuasive evidence that the right-wing (or left-wing) did any of this, then I would be inclined to believe it. But there isn't any.

The difference between you and I here is that my beliefs are governed by the evidence, while your are derived exclusively from suspicions.

[villager]

29. Well, that and all of Oswald's mob and CIA connections

Really, though, can you just discuss things without the tendentious smug superiority?

[DanTex]

33. Jack Ruby was the one with mob "connections", not Oswald.

The CIA had a file on Oswald. That's not a "connection". Oswald defected to the USSR and then came back -- it would be shocking if the CIA didn't have a file on him. But there is zero evidence that Oswald was working for the CIA in any capacity.

Jack Ruby's knew some people in organized crime -- probably no more or less than one would expect from a seedy strip club owner. He was definitely not a "mob hit man," as CTers like to claim. The contacts he was making with mob figures in the weeks before the assassination had nothing to do with a conspiracy, it had to do with negotiations with the strippers' union which (shockingly) was connected to the mob.

[villager]

35. Oswald's uncle was a bookie for the New Orleans mob.

n/t

[DanTex]

36. LOL. Well, that settles it. Definitely a mob hit!

[villager]

37. Glad you're getting a good laugh out of it all, DanTex!

You just keep ignoring all the troubling aspects of all this, and keep on chuckling away!

[Uncle Joe]

76. The mob hated JFK because of RFK's work against them, why would they want the

man responsible for killing JFK murdered in turn?

[sabrina 1]

22. No, we have to look way behind the distraction of the 'ballistics, the forensic evidence etc which

has been used as such for decades.

So what if we all accept that Oswald was the actual killer?? What does that tell us? Zero. It tells us nothing. And how convenient that he was killed before his role could be determined, ending the need for a trial. THAT is certainly something that makes Robert Kennedy's views even more relevant.

I am really glad to see that people are digging up more and more evidence of a conspiracy since this is what a majority of the people believed from the beginning anyhow.

I haven't seen too many people on the 'lone shooter and just forget about' side that I consider credible. But on the other side of this, there are some extremely credible people.

No wonder a majority of the people do not believe the Deniers, they are simply not, for the most part, very credible.

[DanTex]

27. "people are digging up more and more evidence of a conspiracy"

The fact that the total amount of evidence of conspiracy that they've found is zero, even after 50 years of digging, is a very strong reason to believe that there isn't any.

The ballistics and forensic evidence are not distractions. We wouldn't have to talk about ballistics if not for conspiracy theorists who continue to this day to claim that JFK was shot from the front by a gunman in the grassy knoll. The only people to blame for that are the CTers, who refuse to accept the forensic evidence, to the severe detriment of their credibility.

[sabrina 1]

56. No, it is far from 'zero' unless you don't want to see it. Fortunately a majority of people DO see

it and I think one day, maybe in the not-too-distant future, this crime will be solved. Old cases are solved regularly and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

I don't care whether Oswald actually did it or not, he was made more or less irrelevant as soon as he was silenced.

And we all know that insane conspiracy theories have been put forward with the sole intention of distracting from the main question, but it really hasn't worked as the numbers of people who do not believe the extremely flawed, and that's putting it mildly, WC 'findings' only increases with the passage of time.

The Deniers may as will accept that they have failed to end the interest in solving this case. They are wasting their time and everyone else's at this point.

[DanTex]

58. This made me LOL: "I think one day, maybe in the not-too-distant future, this crime will be solved"

Good luck with that. I'm looking forward to 2017 when the rest of the documents are declassified, and I get to watch the CTers scramble for excuses when they prove nothing at all. But, like the 2012 doomsdayers, I'm sure they'll find some excuse to keep on believing. Once people go down the road of delusion, it's not likely that evidence will bring them back.

[GoneFishin]

49. I don't find them credible. A common MO is to just make LNT statements with an

air of conviction mixed with insinuations that anyone who disagrees is uninformed and ignorant.

The thing is, I don't claim to know exactly what happened. But I know what they are peddling is definitely NOT what happened.

I love when they make claims like "ALL the evidence proves the LNT" or "there is NO proof that the LNT is not true".

This sort of overreach smells of someone with an agenda of shutting down exploration of the matter, with no interest in getting to the truth.

[MicaelS]

60. A very simple question.

What would it take to prove to you, beyond any doubt, that LHO murdered JFK all by himself with no one else involved?

[sabrina 1]

65. First he would have lived to have a trial. If he had not been so conveniently silenced, if it was

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

possible to believe that in one of the most important crimes committed against this nation, the Dallas police were so effing careless, despite having been asked by Reporters if they were worried about Oswald's safety, as to allow a man they KNEW to be prone to violent behavior, to get so close to the country's most important suspect, I for one don't buy it.

And that's just one of the reasons why so many people do not believe the official story.

A new investigation with all documents released and ALL living witnesses allowed to testify, which they were not in the WC, might help, but it would have to be an independent investigation with no connection to the government, and of course it is a bit late as so many of the witnesses are already dead.

I'm not sure it is possible to remove the doubts so many people have at this point. But old crimes have been solved so I haven't given up hope that this one will be also.

[MicaelS]

73. Since the possiblity of a trial is non-existent..

Your first point is a waste of time. Not ever going to happen. So if people aren't going to accept the official story because of Ruby killing LHO, then we might as well stop right there. You can't resurrect dead men.

But, let's say so you get ALL the records open, a new independent investigation, and all witnesses testify. And you find out that the CIA, FBI, USSS, and Dallas PD basically botched protecting the President. No conspiracy, simple human failures across the board, and everyone engaging in massive CYA to avoid looking like a bunch of incompetents. Would that satisfy you? Could you accept massive human error as the cause of JFK's murder?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. So concentrating on what actually happened in Dealey Plaza is a distraction?

I think you've got that backwards. To solve the crime, we need to focus on the crime.

I've said many times that by killing Kennedy, Oswald moved a very large rock and lots of creepy crawly things went scurrying. And chasing down who and what is a worthwhile endeavor. But we have the perp for the Kennedy assassination, and we have no reason to think he did it at the behest of any of the creepy crawly things his act exposed.

[sabrina 1]

66. There was a murder committed in a town not far from where I lived several years ago. They got the

killer almost immediately and for a while, everyone was satisfied that the crime had been solved. But then, to make a long story short, it turned out that the killer was a hitman who had been hired by an attorney and another accomplice to remove someone who was standing in their way of getting a large sum of money.

The shooter was still guilty. And was sentenced as he deserved. Too bad for the real perps who hired him that there was no Ruby to silence him before he could talk.

I guess the police were baffled about his motive. He didn't really have one, until they were able to establish that he did.

What was Oswald's motive?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Are you saying Oswald was the only person shooting that day?

Let me get you on the record about that first, if you don't mind.

[sabrina 1]

110. I don't have a problem accepting that. I don't know for sure but it doesn't alter much about the

questions people have whether he was or not.

[MicaelS]

74. Oswald's motive?

He was desperate, pathetic, nobody who wanted to be somebody important. He wanted power, and glory. And what would be the best way to be somebody important than by Assassinating the most powerful man in the Free World? He would go down in history as something only 3 other men had done. He would be a focus of high level attention for as long as he lived. He would be interviewed almost every day. Have books, TV shows, and movies made about him. Unfortunately he didn't bargain on someone having his exact mindset, and doing to him what he did to JFK.

I truly wish he had lived, because I bet at some point he would have confessed, because he would not have been able to keep from bragging, and all this bullshit would have ended a long, long time ago.

[sabrina 1]

111. There are untold numbers of delusional people who want to be somebody important. Who want power and

glory. How many of them have been motivated enough to succeed in killing President of the US? But such people make very good tools for others. You certainly wouldn't hire a sane, normal individual to do a job like that.

Besides, this is all speculation, you have no more knowledge of what motivated Oswald than anyone else. Those who knew him say he liked the President, and they knew him better than anyone else who is offering all this speculation.



He denied killing the president. And yes, if he had lived, it's more than likely that he would have talked. You said it yourself. And there would have been trial, a very public trial, with witnesses and allegations probably prompting more investigations.

All in all the killing of Oswald made sure that there would be no talking and no public trial.

[MicaelS]

114. So he denied killing the President, so what?

What percentage of people who commit murder flat out admit it without a trial?

And yes, I'm speculating, just like all those who speculate endlessly about who "really did it".

[sabrina 1]

115. I was just told that his motive was to get attention, for the 'power and glory' of being the one to

have killed the President. Now you're saying it is understandable that he denied it??? Why would he deny it if he did it to GET ATTENTION?

I keep asking what his motive was. The response is always the same. 'He did for attention'. Because they can't come up with any other motive.

NOW you are saying he didn't do it for attention?? So why did he do it?

Does it make any sense at all that someone would kill a president to get attention, and then DENY HE DID IT?

No, it makes zero sense. Those who believe they know everything simply have nothing other than speculation which they contradict when it suits them. These speculations as to his motives are nothing but Conspiracy Theories, there is not a shred of evidence to support them.

[Mc Mike]

123. You're 100% right. Thanks. nt.

[nyquil_man]

139. He did get attention.

Reporters and photographers from all over the world gathered at the Dallas police department just to see him. Every time he was walked down a hallway, they snapped his picture and shouted questions at him. They begged the authorities to let them have a closer look at him. Thus the midnight 'press conference.'

Lee Harvey Oswald became, on that weekend, one of the most famous (infamous might be better suited) people in the world. Who knows what sort of publicity he would have received if he'd made it out of that basement on Sunday morning and lived to stand trial?

Even in death, how many books, magazine articles, television documentaries, and films have been devoted to him? And here we are, 50 years after his death, still talking about him. If he wanted to be considered important, as Marina has said, he certainly got his wish.

Oswald could have lived out the remainder of his life in the quiet desperation of dead end jobs, estrangement from his wife, and distance from his children. Without the intervening event of the assassination, that might well have been the case.

Is that evidence that he killed JFK all by himself? Of course not. But I find it pretty hard to argue that he didn't get attention.

[sabrina 1]

141. He apparently wasn't happy with WHY he got attention, since he addamently denied it and claimed

he was a patsy.

[nyquil_man]

142. "What? No reporters?"

That's what Oswald said when he arrived back in the States after his stay in the USSR.

Prior to his arrival, he prepared two sets of responses to possible questions about his stay in the USSR. One was the truth. The other was a lie. Because his brother Robert managed to keep reporters away, Oswald never had to decide which version he would offer.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138104

Q. Why did you go to the USSR?

a1. I went as a mark of disgust and protest against American political policies in foreign countries, my personal sign of discontent and horror at the misguided line of reasoning of the U.S. Government.
a2. I went as a citizen of the U.S. (as a tourist) residing in a foreign country, which I have a perfect right to do. I went there to see the land, the people and how their system works.

Q. Did you make statements against the US there?

a1. Yes.
a2. No.

Q. Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the USSR?

a1. I did in that. I took an oath of allegiance to the USSR.
a2. Under U.S. law a person may lose the protection of the U.S., by voting or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state or taking an oath of allegiance to that state. I did none of these.

Q. Are you a communist?

a1. Yes basically, although I hate the USSR and socialist system, I still think Marxism can work under different circumstances.
a2. No of course not, I have never even known a communist, outside of the ones in the USSR, but you can't help that.

He also lied in his New Orleans radio interview with Stuckey, stating that, "At no time, as I say, did I renounce my citizenship or attempt to renounce my citizenship, and at no time was I out of contact with the American embassy."

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/stuck3.htm

Whether or not he was happy with why he got attention, he didn't seem to have any compunction about lying.

[backwoodsbob]

119. and how pray tell

did the investigators discover a hitman? Was it new evidence?

[The Midway Rebel]

121. I hope the investigators weren't distracted by the forensic evidence.

[mattclearing]

120. That Globe story was excellent.

Thanks for sharing it.

[FarCenter]

4. Mafia, Castro, Diem, Birchers -- so many to choose from

While the Kennedy administration attempted to assassinate Castro, it succeeded in assassinating Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother on November 2, 1963.

The mafia were smarting from Bobby's crackdown.

The John Birch society and other right wing groups hated him.

He had visited Ireland in summer '63, which no doubt made some in Britain unhappy.

He was opposed to the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

[Thirties Child]

13. The Mafia felt betrayed by Joe Kennedy

I was 28 at the time, remember hearing/reading over the years that the mob felt betrayed by Joe Kennedy. They helped deliver Illinois for JFK - he wouldn't have won without Illinois - and then RFK went after them.

[Art_from_Ark]

112. Kennedy would have won without Illinois

The final electoral vote count was 303 to 219. Even if Kennedy had not received Illinois' 27 electoral votes, he would still have won 276 to 246.

[KurtNYC]

9. A former agent says the Secret Service was also stacked with enemies

Former agent Bolden adds his experiences to the record.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Warren commission:''Jack Ruby had no criminal connections"

However the House found:
The Committee studiously avoided the following important propositions:


From as early as 1946–47, Ruby was involved in major narcotics dealings; and yet he was protected from arrest, most probably because he was also a US government informant.
Ruby was, as reported, involved in payoffs to the Dallas police, for whom he was unquestionably a narcotics informant.


Ruby was on good, but probably illicit, terms with judges and other high members of the Dallas political establishment.


According to his lawyer, Ruby was an informant for the Kefauver Committee; and in exchange for this service, the Kefauver Committee agreed to ignore contemporary organized crime and police corruption in Dallas, specifically with respect to the 1946 takeover by organized crime of the national racing wire service.


The wire–service operation was a key organizing force for criminal activity in that era, including narcotics. Profits from the resulting system of protected crime (in which Ruby was somehow implicated) were invested in legitimate businesses (such as international hotels and defense industries like General Dynamics) which formed part of the expansive postwar US military–industrial establishment.


To sum up, the Warren Commission … suppressed Ruby’s links to organized crime and the political establishment.

[former9thward]

32. Ruby had organized crime connections long before 46-47.

If you go to the front page of the Chicago Tribune for Dec. 9, 1939 you will see a headline about the murder of union reformer, Leon Cooke. Ruby's picture is right below the headline because police suspected him of the killing. Cooke had gone to the union office to complain about a contract he considered to be a sellout. The union was the Scrap iron and Junk Handlers union. Cooke and Ruby got into a argument and Cooke was shot dead. Like most mob killings in Chicago no charges were ever filed.

After Cooke was out of the way Ruby helped Paul Dorfman, the gambling boss of the North side, to gain control of the union. The mob wanted control of that union so they could extort businesses where they picked up garbage.

Ruby worked for the mob in Chicago until after WW II. Then they sent him to Dallas to expand their influence in the rapidly growing Texas cities.

It is too bad the Chicago Tribune does not have issues online. But you can go to your local library and through the inter-library loan program get the paper for that period.

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. Thanks.... just pointing out how bad the warren commission was

and its amazing how many witness died in "rush to judgement'' soon after it aired.

[BlueStreak]

132. If you were investigating, what would be the biggest questions?

#1 If Oswald did in fact fire shots from the depository, why was he, what was his motive, and what was his background? What took him to Russia and how did he get back here without any hassle? Did he have any prior connection with the CIA?

#2 The final shot that killed Kennedy looks to all the world as if it entered from the front. Every respected medical text on gunshots to the head says that the entry wound is almost always small and the exit wound is almost always much larger. The attending physicians saw the small entry wound because Kennedy was on his back. On that basis, and given that he was still alive and gasping for breath, they rushed to perform a tracheotomy and to infuse plasma through a leg artery. They abruptly called this off once they saw the much larger wound on the back of his head. Any trained professional would assume it is highly likely entry wound was in the forehead. That implies at least one other shooter of course.

#3 Who was Ruby and who put him up to killing Oswald? We know he wasn't a fan of JFK, so that explanation doesn't fly. A person doesn't do something like that without a very good reason. Did somebody have a way to pressure him? He had mob connections. Did he owe them something big?

There are more questions, but it seems to me these are the 3 obvious ones that jump right out. If you were in charge of finding the truth, these are the questions that you would want to have answers for from the very beginning. Instead these are the big three that the Warren Commission buried and stonewalled. The Warren Commission did exactly the opposite of what a reasonable person would do it they were actually looking for the truth.

[Martin Eden]

14. Some Questions regarding Oswald and the Conspiracy

Did Oswald take his rifle to his job at the School Book Depository that day, and did he fire at JFK from the 6th floor window?

I think the evidence is quite clear that he did. However, that alone does not preclude a conspiracy or another shooter.

If there was a conspiracy, then the other conspirators either had to have discovered Oswald's plans or put him up to it somehow. It would be too much of a coincidence for other shooters to fire at the same time as Oswald, without being aware of his role. Therefore (in my mind at least) a conspiracy most likely requires Oswald being contacted and enlisted into the assassination.

I have another question, which should be entirely answerable:
When was it first decided that JFK would go to Dallas, and when was Oswald hired to work at the School Book Depository? If he was hired before the trip was known that's another coincidence, though perhaps not as hard to swallow as a conspircacy with shots fired almost simultaneously from two different sources unknown to each other.

I recently saw a documentary based on the book Mortal Error, in which a ballistics expert determined the bullet that blew off a section of JFK's skull was an explosive round rather than the full metal jacket ammo Oswald was using that ostensibly passed through JKF & Connelly without leaving large exit wounds. The forensic evidence showed the entrance wound at the back of JFK's skull was smaller in diameter than the bullets used by Oswald, and came from an angle much lower than the 6th floor window.

The conclusion of Mortal Error was that a Secret Service agent in the following car accidentally discharged the AK47 he was seen to grab and bring up immediately after the first shot. This would explain the nose-witness accounts of many who smelled gun powder that could not have been detected from Oswald's position.

This theory explains away the coincidences I cited above, and does not involve a conspiracy -- except the cover-up of the accident by the other SS agents in the car who would have known what happened, and by the Warren Commission.

I do not have a firm belief that this is what happened, or that there was a conspiracy to kill the president, or that Oswald acted alone.

I'm asking questions and trying to apply logic in an effort to make sense of what happened.

[former9thward]

26. The police gave Oswald a paraffin test and he passed.

That is a test to determine if you have fired a gun recently. Firing a rifle you would have it on your cheeks and hands. The test indicated he had not fired any weapons recently. There is a clear association of that rifle and Oswald. But since the rifle was in poor condition (The FBI had to fix the sight in order to get it to work) and since Oswald passed the test then it is not so clear he ever fired the weapon.

You will hear from WC enthusiasts that the paraffin test is "unreliable." Yet thousands of people have been convicted on the basis of failing the test. But with Oswald it is "unreliable."

Was he part of the conspiracy? Most likely and Oswald himself said "I'm a patsy."

He was hired at the book depository long before Kennedy's trip was planned.

[DanTex]

30. The WC had someone test-fire Oswald's rifle three times in rapid succession.

Then they did a paraffin test on the person who fired it. The test came up negative, same as for Oswald. So much for that theory...

Oswald was hired at the TSBD long before his route through Dallas was even decided upon, much less released to the public. He found out about the job from a neighbor of a friend, neither of whom has anyone ever found the slightest reason to believe were connected to the assassination.

[former9thward]

38. Oh I know the paraffin test is always unreliable for Oswald.

Everyone else, not so much. And yes Oswald was the luckiest assassin in world history. Every other assassin has to go somewhere to kill their target. Not Oswald, his victim came to him! At his workplace no less! How lucky for him! You want to kill the president and he comes to you--you don't even have to take a minute off of work! I guess that is why he was down in the lunchroom immediately after the shots were fired eating his leisurely lunch... I guess he was celebrating what a break he got.

[DanTex]

41. Actually, it's unreliable for everyone.

Did you even read my post? The WC ran the same paraffin test with the same gun that Oswald shot, and got the same negative result. Do you really not understand that? Are you really so determined to ignore the evidence that you are able to switch off reading comprehension just like that?

I guess that is why he was down in the lunchroom immediately after the shots were fired eating his leisurely lunch

I have no idea how you came to believe that he was eating a leisurely lunch. Are you just making this stuff up as you go?

On edit, here's testimony about the paraffin test from the WC. Not that it's going to matter to you...

CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):

EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

[former9thward]

46. The paraffin test is a reliable test used in criminal courts in this country.

Thousands have been convicted because of it. So you are wrong. Oswald was seen in the lunchroom moments after the shots were fired getting stuff from vending machines.

[DanTex]

48. OK, so you're going to ignore the WC reproduction of the paraffin test. That figures.

As far as Oswald being seen "moments after" the shots were fired, that is a lie, and I'm curious where you heard that. He was seen approximately 90 seconds after the shooting on the second floor of the TSBD by a Dallas police officer. Like the paraffin test, the WC also conducted tests to see how long it would take to walk down to the second floor, and also how long it would take for the police officer to walk into the TSBD from where he was standing.

They found that Oswald easily had enough time to walk down to where he was spotted before the police officer got there. Which is not surprising, since walking down four flights of stairs does not take 90 seconds.

Lemme guess, you're going to ignore this piece of evidence also.

[former9thward]

50. It was not just four flights of stairs ...

But I bet you knew that. Just trying to confuse people who don't know the facts. The rifle was found stashed under some boxes in the opposite corner of the 6th floor from the window. How long did that take? The police 'tests' had them and Oswald arriving at the lunchroom at almost the same time. I'll have to use that in court some time, "Your honor the WC says the paraffin test is unreliable." It will give him a good chuckle.

[DanTex]

52. The police tests did not have them arriving at about the same time.

They had the police officer arriving there with a comfortable lead. Also, the recreations (obviously) included the time it took to stash the rifle. Like I said, I have no idea where you are getting your misinformation, although based on your "paraffin" debacle, I have a pretty good idea why you believe it all.
While I'm sure the conspiracy books say it was impossible for Oswald to get there in time, the WC actually did the test, reproducing the steps of both, and finding that Oswald had the shorter path. The rest is useless speculation.

Again, the WC fired the exact same rifle as Oswald, and there was no paraffin on the shooters chin. How you can still not understand this is a testament to the self-delusional ability of true conspiracy nuts.

Here's a tip, to you and the rest of the CTers. It's probably a good idea to at least read the WC report, even if you disagree with it. If you had done that, you won't get caught misrepresenting what it says twice in the same thread.

[former9thward]

57. "The recreations included the time to stash the rifle"

How did they know what time that was? How did they know Oswald didn't go to several different places looking to stash it? Total speculation. Did the police officers doing the 'test' just kill a president knowing all the repercussions of that? Did they figure that in the time?

You embarrass your self about the paraffin. Well I doubt you can be embarrassed. Most followers of the WC religion are beyond that. The paraffin test is used everyday by the police and accepted by courts.

[DanTex]

59. LOL. They know he didn't meander around the 6th floor looking for a place to stash the

rifle precisely because he was seen on the second floor 90 seconds later. In case you are wondering, the timing also rules out the possibility that he stayed on the sixth floor to finish reading War and Peace before fleeing the building...

Re: paraffin: Can you find a single example of someone who was found not guilty of murder with a rifle due to the fact that a paraffin test found gunpowder traces on his hands but not his face? Even one? Can you explain why the FBI expert testified under oath to the WC that no traces on the face were not an unexpected result? I guess people are supposed to trust some conspiracy nut on the internet about the tests, rather than the testimony of an expert and the result of an experiment with the same exact gun that Oswald fired. Good luck with that!

[former9thward]

70. "some conspiracy nut on the internet"

You are the one who considers anyone who questions the WC religion to be a nut. A real true believer. This after studying the crime for all of two weeks as you stated in another thread.

Of course you circular logic is at work. You take as a given Oswald fired the shots. Then you time from there. Ignoring that Oswald was in the lunchroom the whole time.

Why did the WC not allow anyone to represent Oswald's interests? Why did the WC refuse Ruby's request to testify before the WC? I guess when your agenda is to convict a dead man you don't want any inconvenient truths to come out.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. "Oswald was in the lunchroom the whole time." That's not what Oswald said.

Most of the time he said he was on the first floor eating his lunch and went up to get a Coke from the second floor lunchroom when the policeman saw him. Even though no one ever saw him drinking anything but Dr. Pepper and that machine was on the first floor. And the only person he tried to use as an alibi denied he'd eaten lunch with Oswald that day.

Then there was the interrogation where he placed himself on the sixth floor during the assassination.

But he never, ever claimed to be in the lunchroom the entire time. Where did you get that from?

[former9thward]

93. I have worked in a number of places.

And I and none of my co-workers have ever paid attention to what brand of soft drink someone was drinking. But here, conveniently as with other pieces of 'evidence', we have some very attentive witnesses who know that Oswald just drank Dr. Pepper. Interesting the attention to detail these people have.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Not even a moment's acknowledgement of being wrong about where Oswald was

Before you're off to the races with the next "mysterious" fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. "The rifle was found stashed under some boxes in the opposite corner of the 6th floor..."

"The rifle was found stashed under some boxes in the opposite corner of the 6th floor from the window."

If you'd ever been to the sixth floor, you'd know that's the same corner as the staircase. So Oswald wiped the rifle off as he crossed the room toward the staircase, stashed the rifle, and headed downstairs.

[former9thward]

67. Wow, you were there. Well that settles it.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Yes, I have been on the sixth floor. The rifle's hiding place was on the way to the staircase.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

[former9thward]

71. You have given your memorized your verses from the WC Bible well.

Proud of you.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Facts are facts, former9thward. The hiding place for the rifle is along the path to the staircase.

Trying to make this a conversation about me or the Warren Commission won't ever change that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

102. No, it isn't.

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run by the FBI. In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their firing and idle hands. 93 In a second experiment, paraffin tests were per formed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons tested positive on either or both hands. 94 In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative. 95

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#paraffin

[former9thward]

105. You don't know what you are talking about.

The test is introduced as evidence into courtrooms every day in this country. And people are convicted. The WC was not a court so they could declare the test "unreliable" when Oswald passed it. If Oswald had flunked it they would have praised the test as 100% accurate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. Clearly, you don't.

The paraffin test, or dermal nitrate test, is no longer admissible as evidence. The consensus of scientific opinion is that it is unreliable in providing evidence as to whether a suspect has fired a weapon. See here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=av1RSleUnFcC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22dermal+nitrate+test%22+unreliable&source=bl&ots=VPABfq2rv7&sig=dO0nIu2CI6STKOF561P5LsAbzvo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=paWWUr-dKMKj0QXeqIGQDA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22dermal%20nitrate%20test%22%20unreliable&f=false

See also here, where it's called "obsolete and unreliable": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2lMnhQEC_YkC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22dermal+nitrate+test%22+unreliable&source=bl&ots=FpzP2T-Nvq&sig=Ag6ii6r69XmOZ0_yoiX0vkaPBHI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=paWWUr-dKMKj0QXeqIGQDA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22dermal%20nitrate%20test%22%20unreliable&f=false

See also HERE:

In the early 1960s, the paraffin test was discredited because of the high number of "false positives" uncovered in testing. Today, though still used by some police departments for interrogative purposes, paraffin tests are considered obsolete.

http://articles.philly.com/1986-05-06/news/26048015_1_gunshot-residue-saunders-murder-trial

And here: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/347835/pnp-paraffin-test-%C2%91junk-science%C2%92-says-subic-rape-witness

And here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/19449NCJRS.pdf

And here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RIGXmHwL5zYC&pg=PT120&lpg=PT120&dq=%22dermal+nitrate+test%22&source=bl&ots=8b0Ap52ssG&sig=vmpPr5Usu-k_p4IHC21n6_mjsTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pqaWUtLiFM2N0wXX7YDgBw&ved=0CKMBEOgBMBI#v=onepage&q=%22dermal%20nitrate%20test%22&f=false

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. "Peace-minded inner circle".

That was why the Kennedy brothers were so determined to assassinate Castro I suppose.

And Johnson appointed both of the men RFK recommended to the Warren Commission (Allen Dulles and John McCloy).

This article also manages to avoid Shenon's conclusion: Oswald did it. And probably did it after hearing of the US assassination plot against Castro while in Mexico City (but probably not while acting as an agent for anyone). See here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_spectator/2013/11/philip_shenon_s_a_cruel_and_shocking_act_stunning_reporting_in_new_book.single.html

[villager]

19. "... revelations that.. Robert Kennedy, never believed the Warren Report...

... and was determined to find the truth on his own."

But, "coincidentally" -- again -- that didn't happen.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Assertion unsupported by evidence.

RFK said several times in public that he accepted the Warren Report and that there would be no new investigation if he were elected.

[villager]

34. RFK Jr: Dad believed Warren Commission "shoddy"

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn't solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship."

Kennedy and his sister, Rory, spoke about their family Friday night while being interviewed in front of an audience by Charlie Rose at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas. The event comes as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president's death.

<snip>

He said his father thought the Warren Commission, which concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the president, was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship." He said that he, too, questioned the report.

"The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman," he said, but he didn't say what he believed may have happened.

Rose asked if he believed his father, the U.S. attorney general at the time of his brother's death, felt "some sense of guilt because he thought there might have been a link between his very aggressive efforts against organized crime."

Kennedy replied: "I think that's true. He talked about that. He publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-dad-believed-warren-commission-shoddy/

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. RFK Jr is an ex-smackhead and crank.

Who wrote a notorious article claiming vaccines cause autism that was retracted with an apology by Rolling Stone. What he has to say about anything is not very credible.

[villager]

54. Yes, we should only believe the woefully mis-named "Spider Jerusalem,"

...who names himself after a fictive crusading journalist while coming onto chat sites to debunk anything but "the official story."

Sorry, pal -- taking Bobby's son's word on this way, way over yours.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. "Debunk anything but the official story"...pfft.

Not really. I'm debunking the lack of evidence. There's no evidence whatever of any kind of conspiracy. There's quite a lot of evidence that says Oswald did it. If anyone can provide any evidence that Oswald was acting as part of some conspiracy, I would be open to the possibility; so far, in fifty years, no-one has done that.

[Uncle Joe]

79. No evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

In 1964, the Warren Commission provided a detailed biography of Ruby's life and activities to help ascertain whether he was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.[10] The Commission indicated that there was not a "significant link between Ruby and organized crime"[11] and said he acted independently in killing Oswald.[12] Fifteen years later, the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook a similar investigation of Ruby and said that he "had a significant number of associations and direct and indirect contacts with underworld figures" and "the Dallas criminal element" but that he was not a "member" of organized crime.[13]

(snip)

In 1963, Sam and Joe Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. Jack knew the Campisis and had been seen with them on many occasions. The Campisis were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President.[17]

(snip)

Howard P. Willens — the third highest official in the Department of Justice[22] and assistant counsel to J. Lee Rankin — helped organize the Warren Commission. Willens also outlined the Commission's investigative priorities[23] and terminated an investigation of Ruby's Cuban related activities.[24] An FBI report states that Willens's father had been Tony Accardo's next door neighbor going back to 1958.[25] In 1946, Tony Accardo allegedly asked Jack Ruby to go to Texas with Mafia associates Pat Manno and Romie Nappi to make sure that Dallas County Sheriff Steve Gutherie would acquiesce to the Mafia’s expansion into Dallas.[26]

(snip)

Another motive was put forth by Frank Sheeran, allegedly a hitman for the Mafia, in a conversation he had with the then-former Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. During the conversation, Hoffa claimed that Ruby was assigned[by whom?] the task of coordinating police officers who were loyal to Ruby to murder Oswald while he was in their custody. As Ruby evidently mismanaged the operation, he was given a choice[by whom?] to either finish the job himself or forfeit his life.[64]

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. And?

Correlation is not causation; Ruby may have had "associations", but there's no evidence that he himself was involved in organised crime, and still less evidence that he was acting on behalf of anyone. The timing is too coincidental. Oswald was scheduled to be moved at 10am. Ruby was in the Western Union office at 11.17 wiring money to one of his employees, walked across and into the police garage, shot Oswald at 11.21, left his dog in the car. Ruby had no way of knowing Oswald hadn't been moved and wouldn't have been there if not for the trip to the Western Union office. And wouldn't have left his favourite beloved dog in the car.

This is all wild speculation that adds up to nothing because the dots don't connect.

[Uncle Joe]

83. Did you read the last paragraph and my post #81?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

Another motive was put forth by Frank Sheeran, allegedly a hitman for the Mafia, in a conversation he had with the then-former Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. During the conversation, Hoffa claimed that Ruby was assigned the task of coordinating police officers who were loyal to Ruby to murder Oswald while he was in their custody. As Ruby evidently mismanaged the operation, he was given a choice to either finish the job himself or forfeit his life.

Post #81

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_harvey_oswald

Ruby later said he had been distraught over Kennedy's death and that his motive for killing Oswald was "...saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfiture of coming back to trial." Others have hypothesized that Ruby was part of a conspiracy. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979, said: "The most plausible explanation for the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby was that Ruby had stalked him on behalf of organized crime, trying to reach him on at least three occasions in the forty-eight hours before he silenced him forever."

That's not "correlation" that is causation.

If the Mafia hadn't been pushing Ruby to kill Oswald, he wouldn't have done it.

[Uncle Joe]

81. And then there is this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_harvey_oswald

Ruby later said he had been distraught over Kennedy's death and that his motive for killing Oswald was "...saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfiture of coming back to trial."[235] Others have hypothesized that Ruby was part of a conspiracy. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979, said: "The most plausible explanation for the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby was that Ruby had stalked him on behalf of organized crime, trying to reach him on at least three occasions in the forty-eight hours before he silenced him forever."[236]

We have already established that security was reduced during Oswald's transport.

The overriding question is why would the Mafia want JFK's killer killed in turn?

They hated JFK because of RFK's aggressive work against them, so if anyone should've been happy that Kennedy was killed it would be the Mafia.

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. And then there's this, which calls that quote into question:

We took very seriously the possibility that organized crime had a hand in the President’s death. I personally did not believe it at the time. I thought we could prove that they didn’t. The FBI had an illegal electronic surveillance on the major figures of organized crime in the major areas in this country — in New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo and elsewhere. We did a survey of that illegal electronic surveillance: Eight months before the assassination and six months after. We were looking for some indication in these men’s conversations that would connect them to the assassination – to either Lee Harvey Oswald, or to Jack Ruby. We found no evidence in it to connect them to Oswald or Ruby.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/

[Uncle Joe]

86. It doesn't take a great deal of common sense to know that if you're the Mafia intent on killing

the President, you're not going to talk about it on the telephone.

From your own link.

The question is whether you can get an answer with an ultimate sense of confidence. Everybody wants to know what really happened. Will we ever really know? And I think the answer is we will know with varying degrees of confidence.

Oswald killed the President. We know that beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that Ruby killed Oswald. We know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now the question is: Did either have help or did neither have help? And it’s there that we begin having less of a degree of confidence in our judgments. And if you want to posit conspiracy, you must show associations. And in his simple surroundings, such as David Ferrie, are people in both organized crime and with anti-Castro Cubans.

(snip)

But then, you find David Ferrie, who is an investigator for Carlos Marcello, being a boyhood friend to Lee Harvey Oswald and with him that summer, and with Carlos Marcello at that very point in time. You have an immediate connection between a man who had the motive, opportunity and means to kill Kennedy and the man who killed Kennedy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

90. Correlation is not causation.

Oswald got the job at the TSBD six weeks before Kennedy's trip to Dallas. There's no way he could have known chance would bring Kennedy right past his window. There's no evidence that he had any contact with anyone in the days immediately before the assassination (which is when any planning would have had to have taken place; Kennedy's motorcade route wasn't finalised until 18 November).

[Uncle Joe]

95. Apparently Oswald didn't want to quit or get fired from that job unlike the other two

Dallas area jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_harvey_oswald

In July 1962, Oswald was hired by Dallas' Leslie Welding Company; he disliked the work and quit after three months. In October, he was hired by the graphic-arts firm of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall as a photoprint trainee. A fellow employee at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall testified that Oswald's rudeness at his new job was such that fights threatened to break out, and that he once saw Oswald reading a Russian language publication.[76] [n 6] Oswald was fired during the first week of April 1963.[77] Some have suggested that Oswald might have used equipment at the firm to forge identification documents.[78][79]

(snip)

On October 2, 1963, Oswald left Mexico City by bus and arrived in Dallas the next day. Ruth Paine said that her neighbor told her, on October 14, that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository, where her neighbor's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked. Mrs. Paine informed Oswald who was interviewed at the Depository and was hired there on October 16.[151] Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly, said that Oswald "did a good day's work" and was an above average employee.[152][153] During the week, Oswald stayed in a Dallas rooming house (under the name "O.H. Lee&quot ,[154] but he spent his weekends with Marina at the Paine home in Irving. Oswald did not drive, but commuted to and from Dallas on Mondays and Fridays with his co-worker Wesley Frazier. On October 20, the Oswalds' second daughter Audrey was born.

Oswald's work attitude apparently improved after his trips to New Orleans and Mexico.

He didn't need to have contact days before the Kennedy Assassination if he knew what route they would take weeks ahead of time.

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. He couldn't possibly have known the route ahead of time.

The route was not finalised until 18 November. The route was the result of the selection of the Dallas Trade Mart as the location of Kennedy's luncheon event in Dallas. That selection was made by Kennedy aide Ken O'Donnell. This is all a documented matter of record.

He wouldn't have known the route until it was published in the newspaper. On the 19th. Oswald was in the habit of reading the previous day's paper which another employee left in the lunchroom. Reasonable inference, he saw the motorcade route in the paper, leading to his change of routine and requesting a ride out to Irving with Wesley Frazier. Once in Irving what does he do? Begs Marina to come live with him in Dallas. Tells her he'll get a washing machine. That things will be different. She says "no". He leaves his wedding ring and almost every penny he had in a teacup on her nightstand.

[Uncle Joe]

98. Who planned the route? n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

99. The Secret Service. After the selection of the Trade Mart.

That route being the way you got to the Trade Mart from Love Field.

This is all covered here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm

[Uncle Joe]

103. The trip to Dallas had been planned for a long time but they added a day to it in Sept. That

extra day would be the day Kennedy was killed.

From your link.

President Kennedy's visit to Texas in November 1963 had been under consideration for almost a year before it occurred. He had made only a few brief visits to the State since the 1960 Presidential campaign and in 1962 he began to consider a formal visit. . . . The basic decision on the November trip to Texas was made at a meeting of President Kennedy, Vice President Johnson, and Governor Connally on June 5, 1963, at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, Tex. The President had spoken earlier that day at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., and had stopped in El Paso to discuss the proposed visit and other matters with the Vice President and the Governor. The three agreed that the President would come to Texas in late November 1963. The original plan called for the President to spend only 1 day in the State, making whirlwind visits to Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston. In September, the White House decided to permit further visits by the President and extended the trip to run from the afternoon of November 21 through the evening of Friday, November 22. When Governor Connally called at the White House on October 4 to discuss the details of the visit, it was agreed that the planning of events in Texas would be left largely to the Governor. At the White House, Kenneth O'Donnell, special assistant to the President, acted as coordinator for the trip.

Also in September.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_harvey_oswald

Marina's friend, Ruth Paine, transported Marina and her child by car from New Orleans to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, near Dallas, on September 23, 1963.[103][142] Oswald stayed in New Orleans at least two more days to collect a $33 unemployment check. It is uncertain when he left New Orleans; he is next known to have boarded a bus in Houston on September 26—bound for the Mexican border, rather than Dallas—and to have told other bus passengers that he planned to travel to Cuba via Mexico.[143][144] He arrived in Mexico City on September 27, where he applied for a transit visa at the Cuban Embassy,[145] claiming he wanted to visit Cuba on his way to the Soviet Union. The Cuban embassy officials insisted Oswald would need Soviet approval, but he was unable to get prompt co-operation from the Soviet embassy.

(snip)

On October 2, 1963, Oswald left Mexico City by bus and arrived in Dallas the next day. Ruth Paine said that her neighbor told her, on October 14, that there was a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository, where her neighbor's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked. Mrs. Paine informed Oswald who was interviewed at the Depository and was hired there on October 16.[151] Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly, said that Oswald "did a good day's work" and was an above average employee.[152][153] During the week, Oswald stayed in a Dallas rooming house (under the name "O.H. Lee&quot ,[154] but he spent his weekends with Marina at the Paine home in Irving. Oswald did not drive, but commuted to and from Dallas on Mondays and Fridays with his co-worker Wesley Frazier. On October 20, the Oswalds' second daughter Audrey was born.

Ruth Paine transported Oswald's wife and child from New Orleans to Dallas in September while Oswald remained in New Orleans for at least two more days and possibly going to Mexico.

This would be the same Ruth Paine that told him about the job at the Texas School Depository.

[Spider Jerusalem]

104. And?

None of this happens to make it any more likely that Oswald got the job at the TSBD so he could kill Kennedy (since he got that job BEFORE THE TRIP WAS PLANNED) or that he could have been aware of it before seeing it in the paper (he couldn't).

[sabrina 1]

113. Of course he wasn't aware. But others were. Just one more historical coincidence, an amazing

coincidence. Of all the places for him to get a job, he gets one right on the route that was decided as the route the President was going to take. After being persuaded to spend an extra day in Dallas.

According to your assessment it doesn't seem Oswald did much planning for such a momentous 'mission'. He got a job in a building, then found out the president, who no one who knew Oswald ever heard him speak hatefully about, was going to pass on his route just days later.

Funny, he was just an average shot according to his military records. To try to explain this away I have heard the Deniers claim he became a good marksman practicing to kill the president. So you would think he would have planned how and when he was going to do it. But you are saying he didn't even know the president would be passing the building in which he just got a new job. So what, he just decided to do this on a whim, to someone he had not expressed any hatred for at all? It just popped into his head to kill the POTUS because he would passing his job? That makes no sense.

All these different stories are not connecting. Which is probably because there is not a shred of evidence to support them and all this speculation.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. ...

distances of between sixty and 85 yards, at a slow-moving target that was in the direct forward line of fire on the third shot? Not hard, not some sort of amazing feat of marksmanship. And Kennedy wasn't "persuaded to spend an extra day in Dallas", he just arrived in Dallas that morning. And the trip had been planned over a week before, the motorcade route, just four days before.

Oswald didn't do much planning, no, there's not really evidence that he had a plan. The evidence says he was acting on spontaneous impulse. He was in Irving the night before begging Marina to come live with him in Dallas. If she'd said yes then Kennedy would probably still be alive.

There's more than enough evidence to support Oswald shooting Kennedy; I listed all of it. You apparently didn't read any of it.

[colsohlibgal]

28. Oswald The Patsy

Oswald was CIA and there is some thought that he may have been there to try to stop the hit.

So much is out there in documents dug out and affidavits from people a lot closer to all this than people like Posner.

Oswald "defects" to Russia then after a time comes back, with a Russian bride, and no bells go off, it's just ho-hum, nothing to see here? In this cold war paranoid spy versus spy time? The truth is Oswald was in a CIA fake defector program.

There is so, so much to see here if people just dig.

[WillyT]

39. HUGE K & R !!!

[FarCenter]

43. If the shots were from the rear, how did JFK's brain material get on the trunk?

SCOTT PELLEY: Walk me through it -- your foot hits the pavement and what happens?

CLINT HILL: Well, I jumped off to my left. There was a motorcycle officer immediately to my left. So I had to get between the motorcycle and the-- and the follow-up car to get to the president's car. The two cars were separated by about five to seven feet. … And so I ran as fast as I could. … Later they told me there was a second shot while I was running. I hadn't heard it. And then just as I approached the president's car, there was a third shot. It hit the president in the head.

SCOTT PELLEY: What did you see?

CLINT HILL: Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound … Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her. … I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face-- his head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. I turned and gave a thumbs-down to the follow-up car crew. Wanted to make sure they knew. And then I screamed at the driver to get us to a hospital.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. Because the shockwave of the bullet passing through his brain exploded his head.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

[GeorgeGist]

122. And the car was moving forward ...

It's all quite apparent in the Zapruder film.

[2banon]

44. Several years ago, there was supposed to be a film released based on

a former Company Man's "tell all" story, "never before revealed" that was intended to dispel
all notions of conspiracy once and for all. It was actually posted on DU. I wonder if anyone here recalls this hit job? I haven't heard about it since, and wondered if it actually was released.

In any event, it seems to me so beyond pathetic to attempt to deny Kennedy's assassination was indeed a Conspiracy, just as Lincoln's assassination was clearly a conspiracy. It isn't as if it's never happened before. There's a rather peculiar sense about the reactions from folks who seem to be on some bizarre mission to "debunk" with strawman arguments etc.

It's like pretending the Sun doesn't exist, it's up to us to prove it exist, why it exist.

Just Weird.

Side note regarding Posner. That guy seems a wee bit psychotic to me. But maybe it's just because this is his career, you know "debunking JFK Conspiracy" and he's becoming more and more irrelevant with the release of new information he can't control.

Perhaps.

Just Speculating, of course.

[DanTex]

45. Yes, the existence of the sun is exactly like a JFK conspiracy!

[GoneFishin]

51. +1000. I agree on the "bizarre mission to "debunk" with strawman arguments etc."

Quite a few other people have noticed that also.

It is weird.

[Major Hogwash]

77. Posner's a goon.

Furthermore, if what the Warren Commission said is the truth, then why does he bother to even discuss it?
If all of the so-called theories are wrong, then why waste any time discussing them?
The JFK assassination happened 50 years ago, it's all old stuff.

Warren is dead, JFK is dead, Arlen Spector is dead, hell, almost all of them have passed away by now.
Posner says he knows what happened back then.
So, why would Posner waste any of his precious time on this earth discussing what someone else thinks about the Warren Commission report of 50 years ago?
He already knows what happened.

I'm sure that we all remember how President George W. Bush held off for over 18 months from appointing a commission to investigate what happened on September 11th, 2001.

Yet, we all believe that official commission report, too, right?

Yeah, sure we do.

Sure, sure.

[2banon]

78. Excellent points.. n/t

[pacalo]

55. Excellent piece.

[WillyT]

87. Yes It Is...

[pacalo]

107. Happy Thanksgiving, WillyT...

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Too bad David Talbot didn't name those political enemies of RFK

But since Bobby's choices of Allen Dulles and John McCloy were on the Commission, I'm sure his interests were well represented.

[ucrdem]

85. Guess you'll have to buy his book.

Talbot names plenty of names in Brothers and I imagine his Dulles book won't disappoint.

So start saving your pennies.

[The Midway Rebel]

88. No. Spend your money on something else.

I am sure as soon as it is in print some CTer will spread the woo here at DU.

[WillyT]

92. Don't You Just Love The Defense Of The Security State ???

They're already smearing RFK's son (check the responses)...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101679302

[villager]

108. its smug, rote-spewing ghouls have dutifully shown up in this thread

Desperate to force their MIC talking points on everyone else...

[WillyT]

109. Seig Heil, Baby...

[Bolo Boffin]

117. So I'm a Nazi?????

What the fucking hell, WillyT?

[Mc Mike]

125. I tried the second link you posted (from Google) alleging 'RFK chose Dulles'

and re-tried your first link, again. The google link is just a sign in page, for me. The 'skeptic' link is still broken.

It's only recently that I've seen the claim that RFK chose Dulles (and now McCloy, too!). I don't doubt you read it, but I think whoever wrote it originally isn't credible. There are several news and mag photos of the WC posing for official publicity shots, and Dulles as the sole member who is broadly smiling is nausea inducing, to say the least.

Your argument about 'genetic fallacy' says (I suppose) that Dulles' well documented work on behalf of far right nazi-collaborating financial interests and the CIA's Overdark-Paperclip DDU section shouldn't give people -- that believe far right financial interests killed JFK -- any qualms about his position on the commission that investigated JFK's killing, because 'Bobby got Dulles on the Commission'.

That tack you take to legitimize the WC's findings ignores the fact that RFK (and LBJ) said the WC wasn't believable. RFK said while running for President 'I now fully realize that only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's death', two days before he was assassinated in L.A.. He told reporter Haynes Johnson (of the Washington Evening Star, and Washington Post), immediately after the assassination, that the CIA-mob anti-Castro assassins killed Kennedy. He told his '68 campaign aide Richard Lubic that he would re-open the case once he was elected and, a week before he died, went for several hours to check privately for info on a report of a phone call from Oxnard pre-warning about the assassination on the morning of 11/22.

He didn't believe the WC.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. Walter Jenkins' memo to LBJ, November 29, 1963

Abe [Fortas] has talked with Katzenbach and Katzenbach has talked with the Attorney General. They recommend a seven man commission-two Senators, two Congressmen, the Chief Justice, Allen Dulles, and a retired military man (general or admiral). Katzenbach is preparing a description of how the Commission would function.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0006b.htm

Dulles was suggested by Bobby. What coverup Dulles may or may not have participated in, it was not of the murder of Bobby's brother.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. Here's another link to the PDF on my Skydrive

I don't think you have to sign into any account to download it there.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=BD8A685BC40A5D68%211207

[Mc Mike]

140. Thanks for the time you took to post the links, here and on your o.p., BB.

The history matters link in your post # 127 works for me, while skydrive's doesn't. I still haven't seen substantiation that Dulles or McCloy came from Robert Kennedy. But I have seen voluminous evidence that they were both involved with far-right financial interests, who I feel were behind the assassination(s). I believe both RFK and LBJ were operating 'under the gun' after 11-22, and RFK's subsequent death by 'a lone nut' perp bears this out, for me. I have no strong feelings about Katzenbach, but the 'chain of evidence' in the Katzenbach statement strikes me as tenuous, compared to the statements by Haynes Johnson, Rich Lubic, LBJ, and RFK himself that dispute the WC findings.

Hope you're having a good holiday.

[WillyT]

89. Final Paragraph...

The assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent coverup was a triumph for the rapidly growing U.S. national security state. Fifty years later, that surveillance colossus increasingly treats the American people as if we’re enemies of the state. We can begin to take control of our future by finally demanding ownership of our past.

From link at OP.

[upi402]

118. Of course they assasinated him.

And we let them walk.... looking forward...

[Mc Mike]

124. Thanks, v. +1 rec.

I love your Sterling Hayden - Gen'l Ripper icon.

[villager]

135. Thanks Mc Mike -- my avatar is actually a tribute to the late "PurityofEssence,"

...an old friend, and early DUer poster, who originally told me about this place.

And passed away quite suddenly, earlier this year....!

[Mc Mike]

137. I'm sorry about PoE's passing, and for your loss, villager.

That scene from Strangelove was pure genius, in acting, writing, and directing.

[MinM]

129. K & R

[Octafish]

138. Two Warren Commissioners had extensive ties to NAZI Germany...

These are connections curiously missing from American history and any corporate media mention of the assassination of President Kennedy.



Here's history curiously missing from American textbooks and any mention of the Warren Commission on television and radio: Two of its members were directly responsible for the rise of post-war fascism.

Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding.

John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice.

Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders. We all can see what that means today.