Warren Commission Documents Edits and Proofing

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt. I have some more which I will post in due course.

Was watching the '79 all-star game on YTV and during a crowd shot, there was old Gerry sitting with Bowie Kuhn taking in the game. Couldn't help but think about this fiction he added into the report right before it was released:



http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

What are your thoughts on the edits, Bart? 

I'm kind of in two minds about them

Greg,
I have, be it sadly, not being able to go through this material yet, due lack of time.

Here is some more.

WC Chapter 4 Draft
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1VRW5qQuUKeU6Emw6w6oyMjOxKY7Qwtms

Chapters 1 and 4
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1VRW5qQuUKeU6Emw6w6oyMjOxKY7Qwtms

Liebeler  Willens Chapter 6
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JHsNrls5opqdAf3aNYWIqTcXtDu0t4zQ/view?usp=sharing


McCloy  Rankn Chapter 2 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLdCX_LR4zZZhWXpfAuLomSjgouE1O4Q/view?usp=sharing

Should have realized. Only so many hours in a day...

Not an edit, but a rare doc that has no online presence.
Thanks to Malcolm Blunt

WC - List of Documents That Are Security Classified
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17jeIR91IVzbFQyWi48_9FoGdYNu6ZbpU/view?usp=drivesdk

Howard P Willens, still kicking around so I have been told, on Chapter 4 of the WR. 26 pgs

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PnYwwm6InaOoEXgamY1gZfU2e0jrd6Cz/view?usp=drivesdk

Barry Ernest wrote to Willem's recently

https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2020/09/09/howard-willens-redux/

Yeah I read that piece. The Nile is a river in Sudan and Egypt......


Meanwhile an incomplete analysis on WC Testimonies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TtoQmWE3sMqGoTO1YUixzHaikOoK_aot/view?usp=drivesdk

This is interesting.

Ben Cash - Billy Preston - Edna Love - Thomas W Stockard - WC Materials 1977

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lWuR6O5oXX9VyunUJDhV0-qbbLfXs2DO/view?usp=sharing

LHO Career in the USMC

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JBwr8maFPuI1RACMxwsXp7FUBIs7-LT/view?usp=sharing

Chapter 1

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

Thanks Bart.

YW Vinny

Comments on Chapter 1

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HNN7TiAO0qjzc9NetB1XgyYXhkrB6lrI/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMnBiDk4qQSyRDcXkfKrBGtXp3gZVCWZ/view?usp=drivesdk

Allegations and answers of the WC, thx to Malcolm Blunt.

The Rankin papers are exempt from FOIA, but some are available to nab at NARA. Malcolm mentioned the following to me a coupe of days ago.

"re WC,anything they (NARA) labelled as "Working Papers"...this subterfuge started many,many years ago...they have never provided ANY accounting or index or indeed a reason for all the material they chose to label as "working papers"... they are supposed to review these but the last time I looked the last review was in 1993!!!!..........they can be any document they choose to withhold ...what their legal power is to do this I do not know....what I do know is that NARA labelling government documents as "Working Papers" means they are exempt from FOIA... There could be anything in these still withheld documents...crucially according to one archivist I spoke to NARA are allowed to destroy some "working papers".....the Rankin Papers are out on the shelves and available;I say this with a qualification....they were screened by both CIA and other agencies and documents withheld...for instance the crucial Slawson rough draft which nails Solie as defending Nosenko too early was not released by CIA until 2010.....36 YEARS after a Weisberg/Lesar FOIA....plus according to NARA Solie 's correspondence with Slawson(crucial) is not in the WC holdings they have...blank stares and puzzled expressions is all you get from them....."

barto wrote:The Rankin papers are exempt from FOIA, but some are available to nab at NARA. Malcolm mentioned the following to me a coupe of days ago.

"re WC,anything they (NARA) labelled as "Working Papers"...this subterfuge started many,many years ago...they have never provided ANY accounting or index or indeed a reason for all the material they chose to label as "working papers"... they are supposed to review these but the last time I looked the last review was in 1993!!!!..........they can be any document they choose to withhold ...what their legal power is to do this I do not know....what I do know is that NARA labelling government documents as "Working Papers" means they are exempt from FOIA... There could be anything in these still withheld documents...crucially according to one archivist I spoke to NARA are allowed to destroy some "working papers".....the Rankin Papers are out on the shelves and available;I say this with a qualification....they were screened by both CIA and other agencies and documents withheld...for instance the crucial Slawson rough draft which nails Solie as defending Nosenko too early was not released by CIA until 2010.....36 YEARS after a Weisberg/Lesar FOIA....plus according to NARA Solie 's correspondence with Slawson(crucial) is not in the WC holdings they have...blank stares and puzzled expressions is all you get from them....."

If this is true, then it is simply outrageous.

They seem to be a law unto themselves.

It’d be interesting to see if NARA also has working papers from the HSCA. The handwriting panel for example undoubtedly generated notes, etc. during their examinations but as far as I know all we have is that shitty report. I think Blunt mentioned this in one of his talks with Bart, but what we really need is internal NARA documents discussing record transfers, filing procedures, etc. for everything that came in, particularly stuff like the WC holdings that were transferred prior to the ARRB. However, if I recall, Blunt already tried to do this and was told those documents qualify as “NARA working papers” and are thus also exempt from FOIA…

Have a browse here Tom.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14xDPe7RYAtbfESlCHvIpJJ2xIBNcERUG?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14JFVl95mNHaul7QDUiJgZCV8TjgnffYR?usp=drive_link

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.
Scans by me.

This isn't about what can be done under FOIA.  Congress passed the '92 JFK Records Act in response to a public outcry over all the information being held in secret, precisely because FOIA was inadequate to get this information released. They created the ARRB, run by 5 private citizens, and gave it the job of defining what information to look for.
 
The Act was written in terms of information being held by government agencies.  After more than 2 years  of hearings and discussions, the Board decided to define a JFK record as broadly as possible.  A JFK record is any information in any form possessed by anybody, government agency, private institution, private individuals, foreign governments, that is relevant to understanding the murder.  See Chap 7 of the ARRB Final Report, "Pursuit of Records and Information from Non-Federal Sources" for an accounting of the things the Board did before it closed 25 years ago. The Act set up the JFK Assassination Record Collection in NARA to house the information as a place where anyone can go to find out for themselves what happened that day. Government had shown it could not be trusted with this information.
 
I don't believe NARA has any independent authority to withhold anything relevant to the murder. Including telling a person they cannot unwrap the packaging of stenographers' tapes to see what they say. They are a repository.
 
In the last 25 years NARA has done virtually nothing important to add clearly relevant JFK records to the Collection (e,g., Darnell and Wiegman). They are now arguing in the MFF lawsuit that they have no such responsibility. They say they are not  the successor in function to the ARRB.  Even though the Act set a deadline of 19 years past the closing of the ARRB for all records to be disclosed. Which means, if NARA's argument is true, no one has that responsibility.  It implies Congress intended that. 
 
Even though the Act, Section 12 (b) specifies it is the job of the Archivist at NARA to certify to Congress and the President when the task is completed, that "all assassination records have been made available to the public in accordance with this Act".  How could he know that unless NARA had done the job?  The judge disingenuously did not mention Section 12 (b), instead referencing only 12 (a) which talks about the closing of the ARRB.
 
So far the judge has accepted NARA's claim of no responsibility.  That should be a major focus of further proceedings.
 

The MFF lawsuit is a good vehicle for clearing up this mess and getting public access to more information. Unfortunately, imo, the case is in front of a bad faith judge who so far has created some severe roadblocks.