good news about Darnell and Wiegman

First topic message reminder :

I just watched a news conference with Jeff Morley, Judge Tunnheim, and the two lawyers on the MFF lawsuit.  The subject came about new records not currently in the JFK Collection.

My new best friend, Larry Schnapf, one to the lawyers, spoke up to say it's not just government agencies withholding but NBC, a news organization, is too.  I expected a repeat of what he said on Tucker Carlson Friday about NBC hiding the records of the aide to RFK.

But no!!!  He was talking about Darnell!!  A film, he said, that might be able to establish Oswald's whereabouts.  But NBC won't let anyone examine it.

Regardless of what NARA says to me about my request to add Darnell and Wiegman, it seems clear these guys are going to ask for the films should their suit get that far.

LM:  If the “CIA did it” theory is the truth, did the CIA ever expect to have to spend this much time and effort on the cover up?


The CIA's strategy during the last formal investigation by the House in the late 70s was to wait them out.  Tell them, and allow them to see, as little as possible. Assign Joannides as their liaison helping staff to find Joannides (showing their contempt for the investigation and the politicians running it).  


Those politicians would soon be gone; CIA staff and the group following will always be there to protect the institution. Finally, critics will die off and they can hope eventually interest in the JFKA will die off as well.  The recent dribbling out of documents is part of the same game.



In short, time is their friend, not a problem.

Why do you think the CIA wanted Kennedy killed?

Until relatively recently I was pretty sure certain mid to high level CIA officials played the central role in( at the  very least) facilitating the assassination. 

But,  the more I studied ( and thought about) the sources, methods and,  perhaps crucially,  the mindset of contemporary intelligence professionals the less convinced I became. 

Two factors specifically: compartmentalision and the , for want of a better expression,  " escape hatches" invariably built into the fabric of operations ( planning for failure as well as success.)

Imho if this was primarily a CIA led operation then Oswald would never have been used as a patsy. His background  and  his associates- most especially the company he kept  during his summer sojourn in New Orleans,  going all the way back to his deployment to Atsugi ( and perhaps even before) are highly suspicious,  and highly suggestive , indicating he was,  at the very least,  a low level asset used (un) wittingly in severe (?) unrelated operations . By using Oswald they may have well have patsied themselves 

However Oswald , with his peripatetic wanderings,  mysterious background,  Russian wife etc and the all too obvious links to the so called intelligence community, lurking,  half submerged just below the surface would have been the perfect patsy to use to guarantee the various agencies,  including the CIAs, compliance in the cover up. 

I think the key is learning to separate the assassination conspiracy itself from the cover up that followed.  Imho at least these were two completely different operations, with radically different agendas. If they involved the same people,  then only a the deepest most secret level. The darkest most impenetrable nexus,  at the very heart of the web

The latter undoubtedly involving the perennial rent a villains who populate the conspiratorial rogue's gallery 

Listen to the LBJ/ Hoover telephone calls,  I don't hear the voices of two Machiavellian arch conspirators,  instead I hear the voices of two confused old men who don't have a clue about what just happened,  trying to piece together a coherent narrative. 

Either that or they could both give ole HARVEY Oswald a run for his money in the actor stakes.

Hoover, Dulles etc have,  over the intervening decades been almost reverse canonised, exuding an aura of dark glamour they have become essential players in the perverse contra factual alternative history . Imho to believe the world is governed by an occluded ( occult?) super secret elite, who possess almost godlike powers is to fundamentally misread history. To believe absolutely everything is the result of a conspiracy is just as deluded as believing nothing is 

Were they involved in the cover up? Most definitely. As willing and witting participants. Although I can't help wondering if Dulles, manipulator,  subvertor of democracy and corporate whore par excellence didn't realise he had been out maneuvered. 

With his clearly traceable link to Ruth Paine,  amongst other tantalising threads,  shimmering seductively in the cold November sunshine,  I can't help wondering if he, and his beloved agency weren't themselves on the reserve patsy list. 

Albeit far higher up the chain than poor old GP FLOOR languishing on the very bottom rung. 

The frame itself,  including the pre assassination skulduggery in Mexico City,  has always struck me as abysmally clumsy and poorly conceived. By design? A grand guignol,  one part horror to two parts arrogance,  staged by the new proprietors a la Salandria?

Perhaps 

Or the reckless half assed handiwork of plotters who were aware,  superficially at least,  of the internal mechanics of the sprawling military intelligence bureaucracy but failed to appreciate the complexities and the hidden nuances. 

The everything is fake/ doppelganger bullshit is pure pastiche. For the most part peddled by  a a crowd of pompous self absorbed bellends( or worse) , seemingly obsessed by just who can come up with the wildest most elaborate conspiracy. Picture the  redoubtable H and L footsoldiers,  blindfolded as always ( Incidentally have you ever noticed how they,  Fezzo in particular,  consistently misunderstand the parable of the 3 wise monkeys? Particularly ironic and more than just a little poignant,  if I was being particularly cruel I would have written pathetic,  considering these are researchers who have fashioned a career out of mistaking folly for wisdom,  and vice versa) they go fumbling along the wall of the inner sanctum of their gurus compound,  deep under the Nevada desert. Believing they are deciphering the mysteries of the cosmos, carefully picked out in braille,  aeons ago by the ancient aliens who introduced our ancestors to the wonders of interior decorating and ethanol based products. When in reality they are busy groping the face off the acne scarred Hispanic their guru hired at $1 50 an hour to clean up the mess the Juddufkists left,  when they visited to help celebrate Lee HARVEY Oswald's birthday.

To my mind the assassination was a military style ambush,  orchestrated by a closely bonded paramilitary unit. Larry Hancock's scenario makes perfect sense. 

The actual conspirators may well have been patsys themselves,  duped by the imprimatur of their ( apparent) high level  benefactors the assurances and/ or fabulous promises relayed by intermediaries , soothed by the emollient tones and deceived , and  seduced by the allure of the enormous power he represented. 

The cover up is when the big guns move in. Not instigators but collaborators. Once the deed was done and Kennedy was safely in his grave ( and with the nation/ world suitably anaesthesised by the orgy of carefully choreographed grief) JFKs numerous enemies, flexing their power and relishing their newfound freedom,  released from the obstructions imposed by the bleeding heart communist inspired fool , whose grave they had just wept over. 

Would certain powerful influential Washington movers and shakers been aware of the plot? Most certainly 

Would they have soiled their soft lily white hands with the actual mechanics? Allowing the dirt of  to accumulate beneath those carefully pampered nails.

No chance.

Kennedy was viewed as an abhorrence,  a traitor,  worse than a traitor,  a coward. To timid and too blinded by his romantic allusions ( delusions) to act purposefully. In the defence of the Republic and the free world. 

To act like a President. 

Intervention is perhaps the best way to describe how these ' wise men " viewed the assassination. 

They would have permitted  the actual conspirators to use the props, and tread the boards, albeit anonymously and on a temporary basis,  perhaps even providing some assistance,  via carefully segregated cut outs. But once the deed was done,  before poor old Lee Oswald was dead, they would have moved in 

You could almost imagine them walking slowly away after the funeral,  making sure a camera films them wiping their eyes or wringing their hands,  fresh from embracing the ex First Lady and patting JohnJohns tousled little head. An act of kindly solicitude,  in fact an almost fatherly act of benediction. 
For these are honourable men. Who have spent their lives striving for the best of all futures, for all God's children. 

" For we are all mortal and we all breathe the same air" you can imagine one smirking,  once safely out of view and earshot. 

" We live and learn my friend,  even at our age" his companion replies softly,  before adding through slightly gritted teeth,  " Good riddance I say. We won't make the same mistake again and that's for sure "

Why didn’t JFK name Robert Kennedy to replace Dulles as CIA Director when Dulles was fired?

With my clunky computer and zero typing skills, I'm having trouble keeping up with this torrent of messages.  So to better understand what you're saying, Greg, I went back to try to piece together the broad outline of your thoughts into a coherent whole.
 

So far I have this.
 
The CIA as an agency, read its main decisionmakers, was not involved in the JFKA.  They were not involved in the coverup either.  Their only interest was in covering up their previous involvement with Oswald, connections that had nothing to do with the JFKA.  One reason:  murder is always a last resort for them.  They are in the influence business and the less messy option is always preferred.
 
There are those who had a motive to kill Kennedy before the1964 election to prevent him from doing things in his second term they didn't want.  But the CIA was not one of them.
 
JFK was murdered by a so far unidentified band of others, presumably angered by the Bay of Pigs, perhaps among other things.
 
I have claimed the murder of a President is so drastic a step it would not have happened without the perps having in place a coverup plan including shifting the blame somewhere else.  And the ability, connections, and confidence to carry it out. Merely as a matter of survival. You disagree.
 
The assassins appear to have had no such plan in place. It's not clear they had the ability to carry one out even if they did.
 
The Dallas police were corrupt with a long history of framing innocent people. It was the DPD, apparently on its own but certainly without input from the CIA, that initiated the frame of Oswald after the murder.  The Secret Service and FBI helped to continue the coverup, but they botched or failed to take up other leads and manipulated evidence against Oswald.  No one forced or directed these groups to focus solely on Oswald while ignoring, destroying. or suppressing exculpatory evidence or things that pointed elsewhere. 
 
The JFKA was a separate incident, unrelated to previous and future murders that have been linked to the CIA.  In particular, there is no evidence that the JFKA was part of a string of "political" murders of the 60s--MLK. Bobby, Malcolm, Hammarsjkold, Lamumba, Fred Hampton.
 
Heading the US government and putatively the CIA's boss, JFK was the major impediment  to their goals, but while they benefitted from his death, that doesn't mean they caused it. 
 
There is no deep state for the CIA to be part of.  Only a particular culture with unwritten rules that permeates certain areas of government.
 
Did I leave anything important out?  How did I do?
 

 How did I do?

Pretty good, Roger - except in two areas where you filled in gaps with wrong assumptions.

JFK was murdered by a so far unidentified band of others, presumably angered by the Bay of Pigs, perhaps among other things.

This is correct, but just to broaden it out, "other things" would include those mentioned by Lanceman and another mentioned by me - the investigation into Fred Korth and his contract dealings. He was either at the top of the assassination tree and that was the tipping point, or it was used to get him "on board". There are numerous reason to consider Korth, but to go into them here might taken this on yet another road. 

I have claimed the murder of a President is so drastic a step it would not have happened without the perps having in place a coverup plan including shifting the blame somewhere else.  And the ability, connections, and confidence to carry it out. Merely as a matter of survival. You disagree.

No. I disagreed that the CIA had such a plan since I don't think they were behind the assassination to start with. Clearly, if Oswald was the patsy, he was identified and steered into that job at the TSBD.  

If Korth was not the top plotter, we are looking at the Military Indistrial Congressional Complex - which IS a thing. In fact to clarify my thoughts on the existence of any Deep State... it depends on how it is being defined - and that depends on other beliefs of the person giving the definition. It's like the Boogey Man or God - it comes in all shapes and sizes and forms depending on the needs of the teller.

But I digress, the MICC had/has tentacles throughout Washington, into the Military, all branches of government and its agencies and into Big Business and its private intelligence networks. 

And to clarify my thoughts on the MICC... it is not something that was planned out. Things like that grow organically and do have unwritten rules and a particular internal culture. That's how we all roll. No one taught us many of the mores and manners/mannerisms needed to get by in polite society. The unwritten rules that cohese society as we know it. We learn from immersion in it. We especially learn there are consequences for bucking the system, not being a team player, or talking out of school. 

Korth was particularly useful to any planning because he knew all about Oswald and also knew someone who would hire him on the parade route - his wife's cousin who grew up in close small communities she did.  Korth quickly separated from his wife after the assassination. I am bemused by the fact that no one ever noticed that Truly's unusual middle name was the same as the maiden name of Fred's wife. 

The plan from there had to involve weapons and how to hide them and what to do about Oswald afterwards. The plan also had be very flexible because everything had to look as natural as possible - and that meant the possibility of things going off the rails at various points. Flexibility really entailed the ability to think and plan on the fly. And that is why from this distance, much of the plot looks amateurish. I do think Oswald was fooled into being the first to leave and that it was set up so he would go to Oak Cliff - where he DIDN'T live - with the idea of getting him into the theatre where he would be killed in possession of evidence suggesting he was meeting a Soviet contact. 

The JFKA was a separate incident, unrelated to previous and future murders that have been linked to the CIA.  In particular, there is no evidence that the JFKA was part of a string of "political" murders of the 60s--MLK. Bobby, Malcolm, Hammarsjkold, Lamumba, Fred Hampton.

I never said they were unrelated - just that they were not all actions of the CIA. 

I can't recall if I actually spelled it out in my book, or if I just strongly hinted at it, but the Cold War was largely cover for the destruction of the Left - using the Communist Boogey Man.

That the Right has always had the upper  hand is evidenced by the fact that it is acceptable end expected to pull out the communist card against the left - but watch all hell break loose when anyone dares pull the Nazi or Fascists cards out against the Right. That's a strong indicator that not only did the Right win the war, but that it still dominates what is accepted culturally.  The (Re)Education Forum (aka The Thirteen Inch Head Emporium) is a perfect example of this double standard. 

The CIA and its various fronts had a large hand in this "win" through huge slush funds for "re-educating" union leaders around the world, bribing leaders in Latin America and elsewhere, fomenting coups in third world hot spots, and where nothing else has worked, or could work - assasination (by proxy). 

But the CIA was not alone in the efforts to remake the Left as a balless Eunuch, or wiping it out in certain cases, in certain areas. 

The Cold War ended because that goal was achieved and the Communist Boogey Man was no longer needed. Time to look for other Boogey Men to feed the MICC.

“I do think Oswald was fooled into being the first to leave and that it was set up so he would go to Oak Cliff - where he DIDN'T live - with the idea of getting him into the theatre where he would be killed in possession of evidence suggesting he was meeting a Soviet contact.”


And the DPD STILL did not broadcast Oswald as missing. They did broadcast Given’s name over the police radio, however. That said, Oswald leaving the TSBD soon after the assassination as a diversionary ruse is plausible. 


Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just have Oswald go to some private location, killed and buried out in the desert? They would have a suspect with communist ties who simply disappeared. No need to stage a shooting, risk the patsy being taken into custody, stage a hit at the police station.

Apologies to Roger and Greg if I'm butting in and ruining the flow of your dialectic. But,  not only do I think this is a fascinating and informative thread , I believe it's a crucial ( not to mention a timely) one. 

Articulating fundamental issues,  that far too often get obscured,  or lost in the gilded haze of false glamour ( the false witnesses and bullshit theories that have so bedeviled the case) and faux debate. 

My post yesterday lacked clarity and I was less than artful in my exposition, failing miserably to make the points I was trying to make. 

So, I'll try again. Making this post as brief and succinct as possible. 

Imho it was certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility for individual mid to high ranking agency officials to be involved in facilitating aspects of the plot. Either wittingly or unwittingly. Permitting certain assets etc to be utilised. 

From what ive come to understand about the dynamics of power and those who wield it,  I find it incredibly unlikely that high ranking public officials would involve themselves directly in an assassination plot. 

To me, the method employed suggests individuals outside the magic circle. Who were unable to access more sophisticated,  subtler methods of neutralizing JFK , and what they believed he stood for,  as a political force. 

I can most certainly imagine these individuals ( very senior administration officials,  up to and including cabinet level, high ranking generals,  JCS, CIA , FBI, Washington insiders , policy makers etc) picking up whispers of what was brewing and not interfering. Watching and waiting for the outcome. 

If Kennedy survived they would have been first in line to thank almighty God for sparing dear Jack's precious life,  while condemning the failed assassins in the most virulent terms. 

I think the assassination germinated deep in the bowels of the sprawling MIC infrastructure. To Kennedys many enemies it would have been a low risk opportunity,  would it not? Just to stand back,  and let events unfold. Perhaps they even provided some sort of assistance. 

Imho too many people have confused beneficiaries,  and post facto cover up facilitators for actual conspirators. 

Look at Van Der Lubbe, Elser,  Ali Agca for example. The first two,  a weak minded communist zealot and an avowed anti Nazi were identified and picked up by the Gestapo,  they were encouraged , and given material assistance in their schemes ( setting fire to the Reichstag and blowing up Hitler with a time bomb at the annual commemoration of the Beer Hall Putsch) the outcomes were then manipulated to the benefit of the Nazis. 

While Ali Agca was picked up by Bulgarian intelligence,  who duly reported him to the KGB,  who instructed their subservient allies to give him the wherewithal ( money,  passport,  pistol) and point him towards Rome. 

Perhaps  the parallels  are not  exact, but I think its highly probable the actual conspirators were themselves deceived and manipulated. 

The disconnect between Oswald the very vocal and visible Marxist, and ardent supporter of Fidel ( I'm inclined to think his posturing was part of another,  unconnected operation. Perhaps targeting the FPCC, or involved with Senator Dodds investigation into mail order weapons. I think " Oswald the file" was also utilised. ) and the angry maladjusted lone nut is inexplicable otherwise. 

Having successfully removed JFK from office, the actual conspirators were swiftly and ( no doubt) ruthlessly sidelined. The assassination was co opted and exploited,  JFKs policies were quickly expunged and a radically different framework was duly implemented. 

Militaristic and expansionist,  with limited civil rights and "the Great Society " used as a smokescreen,  a sop to JFKs " legacy "

I'm still on the picket fence regarding Tippit. Clumsy as it was I can't believe that Ruby( apologies to my chums over at the OIC, of course I meant a toupee wearing  blank firing FBI agent ) was plan A. I  strongly suspect something went badly wrong. If Oswald had lived,  despite the chirping of the mockingbird and the all pervasive influence Mighty Wurlitzer , the rickety frame , with all the nagging inconsistencies and bizarre coincidences,  would surely have crumbled under the spotlight and/or  sustained examination.  

Only something like the Warren Report,  an uncontested whitewash supported by the near hysterical media campaign ( dipping into the pay ops bag of tricks. Patriotism,  religious imagery etc) could be relied upon to to numb and dazzle the populace. I think many folks believed the Report,  despite their suspicions because it was what they wanted to believe. The alternative,  the abyss was, quite literally unthinkable)

The rather poignant image of the police jacket,  hanging in the back of Tippits car has always struck me as suggestive. 

As Greg rightly points out the assassination,  as it happened,  doesn't go ahead without Truly. Throw in the ubiquitous Sgt Hill and another couple of characters. The calibre of the known participants on the ground level is,  imho highly significant. 

Likewise the bungled theatrics in Mexico City. 

Compare and contrast with the cover up. The sheer scale,  scope and professionalism. 

The difference between the soft, delicate but deadly thump of hand stitched Italian leather and the noisy uncoordinated clumping of worn ammunition boots. 

Certain CIA individual personnel could have been involved with the actual plot and  most definitely they were deeply complicit in the cover up,  but to suggest the " CIA" was responsible for the assassination is,  imho, is to misunderstand the innermost mechanisms of the covert power structure. 

If these characters wanted rid of Kennedy badly enough then they had a vast arsenal of dirty tricks,  smears etc to deploy. 

Imho to JFKs enemies the actual assassination plot was a low risk gamble well worth taking. Step just a little further back into the shadows and watch...and wait. There's opportunity in everything after all. 

If the plot fails,  if the President survives,  he may well be incapacitated. The subsequent medical drama may well serve as the perfect backdrop to allow certain damaging facts to leak out. Accidentally,  or on purpose. 

But if the assassination is successful?...well,  we all know what happened. 

Imho the other major assassinations of the 60s were most certainly linked. On a deeply profound almost metaphysical level. 

Not the destruction of hope but its annihilation. The beginning of the inextricable,  seemingly unstoppable rise of hatred and division. Polarisation,  militarism,  mindless materialism etc..

Once MLK widened his campaign,  targeting poverty,  injustice and after he had called the US government the biggest purveyors of violence in the world today,  imho he had seigned his own death warrant. 

The scenery and the actors may change: communist lone nuts, racist lone nuts, confused young lone nuts but ultimately it's the stage and the same script,  with appropriate modifications. 

And the same impresarios hovering possessively in the shadows. 

With the rhetoric he started using,  the huge almost fanatical ( and  perhaps crucially) multi racial crowds he drew,and the potential threat he represented,  perhaps RFK was viewed as the biggest menace of all.

Greg's work on the Gaitan assassination especially regarding the profile of the patsy  was pretty damn revelatory. 

To my mind the difference between the assassinations of RFK and JFK was the difference between real professionals and amateurs. Sirhan Sirhan was the perfect patsy, with no messy, embarassing, potentially incriminating links to any one, or any agency.

“Listen to the LBJ/ Hoover telephone calls,  I don't hear the voices of two Machiavellian arch conspirators,  instead I hear the voices of two confused old men who don't have a clue about what just happened,  trying to piece together a coherent narrative.”


I get that impression as well. I’m surprised the Warren Commission didn’t just rubber stamp the FBI report which sounds like what Johnson had in mind when he was discussing the need for a commission to Hoover.


RFK and the Kennedy family in general did not seem too eager to have the JFK assassination reinvestigated. Is there any indication RFK had independent investigators examine the autopsy material he had in his possession? Another troubling aspect is RFK’s friend Walter Sheridan at NBC trying to discredit the Garrison investigation. I don’t know if  Sheridan was involved but NBC’s “Tonight Show” host Johnny Carson had Garrison on as a guest and Carson was extremely antagonistic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ahBSHUE-yc

What's missing from your account, Greg, is a sense of the leadership the killers that would have needed to pull off the JFKA and get away with it. No sense of the power centers in Washington and New York whose approval or at least acquiescence was necessary before the planners could have the confidence that the murder would work.  I refer to the "intelligence community", the military, wall street, and the media. 
 
Kennedy was popular.  If you discount the polls and election results, consider this.  Name another president whose murder would have occasioned such an outpouring of grief.  The sense of loss was immediate, widespread, and real
 
The one person who could bring all of these power elements together at the time was Allen Dulles.  Former NY corporate lawyer who, with his brother came to run the foreign policy for Ike in the 50s.  Allen Dulles, who believed the US had been on the wrong side in WWII, who believed the Soviet Union was the real enemy, who always took the side of a colonial power repressing indigenous people, who believed there was no such thing as an unaligned nation--you were either with us or the commies (the CIA  took part in the Assassination attempt on DeGaulle because he wanted independence for Algeria).  It was quickly clear to Dulles that JFK was one of his enemies.  The main one, in fact, who stood in his way
 
The day after the murder, Castro in a 2 hour speech had no trouble explaining who murdered JFK. The same for Che Guevara a couple of days later.  On the day of the murder, Castro was meeting with an envoy who had a message from JFK trying to start the process of finding peace.  When he heard the news of the murder, Castro exclaimed, this changes everything. He knew.  So did DeGaulle and many other foreign leaders.
 
Yet here we are, 59 years later, trying to concoct scenarios where the main power centers, starting with the CIA, merely stood by an watched.
 
One particularly discordant note is the idea that it was the Dallas police who initiated the frame of Oswald after the murder.   Apparently on their own since their was no one at that time directing the coverup until LBJ took it over.  Their was no coverup plan in place before the murder.  The DPD was treating it just like any other murder for which they devised a frame.  
 
Did the DPD decide on their own that Oswald did it and arrest him soon after the murder?  If so, why did they suspect him so quickly?  Did the reports that afternoon, including one from Hoover I believe, that the murderer was already in custody originate from the DPD?  Did the DPD give the same message to the White House situation room for its conveyance to the plane coming back from Dallas?   Or how about the statements from the young Cuban group saying a commie Castro sympathizer had killed JFK?  Was there someone coordinating these early acts and many others?  What was Dulles doing at the CIA hideaway in Virginia that weekend?  Anybody have an idea of how to find out?
 
While I'm asking questions, what about Dulles.  Did he know anything about the murder beforehand?  If yes, it's clear to me he would have taken charge of it and nothing would have happened without his consent or without a coverup plan in place.  He ran the CIA at the center of government in Washington from1953 until well into the 60s, during the time it was transformed from an intelligence gathering agency to a foreign policy monster, and then a monster, period.  It's hard to exaggerate how powerful he was. 
 
If you think the answer is no:  it's difficult for me to imagine the JFKA was pulled off without Dulles' knowledge; his tentacles were everywhere (as you acknowledge).  All of the important elements who wanted Kennedy dead of course knew each.  If some group slipped by and did the murder on their own without assurances of the others or plan to cover their tracks, it's easy to conclude they were certifiable.  And its likely they didn't live to much longer afterward. 

If that were found to be true, though, we can close up shop.  Nothing to see here.  The JFKA was an accident of history just like if Oswald had done it.
 
If that *were* true, i. e., the facts showed that, it would be a good thing.  If not, it's just another diversion.
 

You talk about Fred Korth, about whom I know next to nothing, to say he may have been the top planner, "at the top of the assassination tree".  But then you say he was useful to the assassins because he knew Oswald so well.  The latter almost certainly seems more likely and it doesn't support the former.  But if Korth was useful in that way, the planners would have been setting up Oswald as the patsy before the murder rather than the DPD framing him afterward.

AW:  Imho if this was primarily a CIA led operation then Oswald would never have been used as a patsy. His background  and  his associates- most especially the company he kept  during his summer sojourn in New Orleans,  going all the way back to his deployment to Atsugi ( and perhaps even before) are highly suspicious,  and highly suggestive , indicating he was,  at the very least,  a low level asset used (un) wittingly in severe (?) unrelated operations . By using Oswald they may have well have patsied themselves 

However Oswald , with his peripatetic wanderings,  mysterious background,  Russian wife etc and the all too obvious links to the so called intelligence community, lurking,  half submerged just below the surface would have been the perfect patsy to use to guarantee the various agencies,  including the CIAs, compliance in the cover up. 


RO:  There were different groups who wanted JFK dead and some had different reasons and objectives.  It's not clear how or when these differences were resolved into the LN explanation of the WR.  We do know that LBJ quickly rejected those who wanted to use the JFKA as a pretext to invade Cuba or attack the Soviet Union before their nuclear arsenal could be upgraded to match the US.
 
They put a lot of work into creating Oswald the Castro sympathizer.  He was a disgruntled loner as well, or could be easily painted as one. A patsy was needed. Oswald was a valuable patsy precisely because he could fit either story.
 

With control of the media, they weren't too worried about the effect of Oswald's ties to them. They simply denied them.  Look at how long it has taken for those ties to be broached and the discussion hasn't even reached the population yet.  Moreover, at the moment, acknowledging some ties to Oswald gives them another thing to dangle as the latest limited hangout.

If JFK was assassinated because of his less than hawkish views regarding the Soviets, why wasn’t Nixon assassinated for his policies of detente with the Peoples Republic of China and the USSR? We know for a certainty that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were alarmed at the secret diplomacy conducted by Nixon and Kissinger and were at least actively spying on Kissinger? Further, Nixon was trying to disengage from Vietnam in a way that would at least not undermine his attempts at detente (even though many would have preferred he just withdraw).

The movie “Nixon” portrays CIA director Richard Helms as confronting Nixon about his secret diplomacy with the Chinese and Soviets when it was the senior military leadership that was concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorer-Radford_Affair

lanceman wrote:“I do think Oswald was fooled into being the first to leave and that it was set up so he would go to Oak Cliff - where he DIDN'T live - with the idea of getting him into the theatre where he would be killed in possession of evidence suggesting he was meeting a Soviet contact.”


And the DPD STILL did not broadcast Oswald as missing. They did broadcast Given’s name over the police radio, however. That said, Oswald leaving the TSBD soon after the assassination as a diversionary ruse is plausible. 


Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just have Oswald go to some private location, killed and buried out in the desert? They would have a suspect with communist ties who simply disappeared. No need to stage a shooting, risk the patsy being taken into custody, stage a hit at the police station.

All Fritz knew was that Oswald was missing from work. Not a major suspect. Givens on the other hand was known to have a criminal record and was of color. Oswald did not become important (to Fritz and others) until after his arrest.

Someone other that Postal called in the tip that the assassin was hiding out in the theatre.

And at least one of the cops who came in through the back had to be in on the plot with the intent of killing him and planting the throwdown (which unknown at the time, had to become the Tippit weapon retrospectively) and the boxtop - which would be used to show he was meeting a  Soviet contact.

Oswald saved his skinny ass by yelling out that he was not resisting. There were too many witnesses to risk it. Taking him alive, they got away with losing the names of all the patrons. Had they killed him, that list was either going to survive, or be remade by some intrepid reporter.

To cover old ground again, one or more of the plotters was very familiar with little known details of the Rosenberg case, and was using those details to paint Oswald in the same light.

Example One - Aline Mosby wrote a fairly even-handed story on Oswalf in 1959. Post-assassination, she wrote a second, far less even-handed story, allegedly based on the same interview notes, which included details not in the original story. In particular, it claimed that Oswald said he got turned on to Marxism at age 15 in NY after being given a pamphlet on the Rosenberg case. This was bullshit. Never happened.

Oswald had barely turned 14 when he left NY. The story was lifted 100% from a letter Julius Rosenberg sent from prison, part of which said he got turned on to Marxism at 15 in NY after being given a pamphlet on the innocence of jailed West Coast unionist, Tom Mooney.

Example two: The box-top allegedly found on Oswald was also straight from the Rosenberg case where it came out in the trial that Greenglass was to use a box top to identify himself to the Soviet contact in a particular theatre. I hasten to add that the sons of the Rosenbergs hotly dispute that this was true - and indeed, the prosecution at the time, had to admit the boxtop they produced was a replica, not the original.

Kind of like the paper sack in the case at hand. 

Oswald was kinda guessing correctly (or at least was in the right ball park) when he said they only took him in because he had lived in the Soviet Union. He knew how they operated. He knew that would be all they needed in order to build a frame around him, Or if he didn't FULLY understand it when he made that comment, he was getting the picture pun intended when shown the BYP.

To go off on another tangent - the focus on the cops who went to the balcony as being among the plotters is laughably wrong. The misplaced focus in this case is frighteningly high.  It was the cops downstairs - or at least one of them - that they should be focused on. The cops in the balcony were the ones who responded to the call Postal DID make - about kids sneaking in and going up there.  It was one of those teens seen being interviewed on the stairs. 

All of that is by way of saying, no I don't think letting Oswald go first was a diversion. But the idea that he was is far more credible than 99% of what has been said of it in the past - including at times by me when I was still caught up in the hoo-hah of the conpiratocracy.

Roger Odisio wrote:What's missing from your account, Greg, is a sense of the leadership the killers that would have needed to pull off the JFKA and get away with it. No sense of the power centers in Washington and New York whose approval or at least acquiescence was necessary before the planners could have the confidence that the murder would work.  I refer to the "intelligence community", the military, wall street, and the media. 
 
Kennedy was popular.  If you discount the polls and election results, consider this.  Name another president whose murder would have occasioned such an outpouring of grief.  The sense of loss was immediate, widespread, and real
 
The one person who could bring all of these power elements together at the time was Allen Dulles.  Former NY corporate lawyer who, with his brother came to run the foreign policy for Ike in the 50s.  Allen Dulles, who believed the US had been on the wrong side in WWII, who believed the Soviet Union was the real enemy, who always took the side of a colonial power repressing indigenous people, who believed there was no such thing as an unaligned nation--you were either with us or the commies (the CIA  took part in the Assassination attempt on DeGaulle because he wanted independence for Algeria).  It was quickly clear to Dulles that JFK was one of his enemies.  The main one, in fact, who stood in his way
 
The day after the murder, Castro in a 2 hour speech had no trouble explaining who murdered JFK. The same for Che Guevara a couple of days later.  On the day of the murder, Castro was meeting with an envoy who had a message from JFK trying to start the process of finding peace.  When he heard the news of the murder, Castro exclaimed, this changes everything. He knew.  So did DeGaulle and many other foreign leaders.
 
Yet here we are, 59 years later, trying to concoct scenarios where the main power centers, starting with the CIA, merely stood by an watched.
 
One particularly discordant note is the idea that it was the Dallas police who initiated the frame of Oswald after the murder.   Apparently on their own since their was no one at that time directing the coverup until LBJ took it over.  Their was no coverup plan in place before the murder.  The DPD was treating it just like any other murder for which they devised a frame.  
 
Did the DPD decide on their own that Oswald did it and arrest him soon after the murder?  If so, why did they suspect him so quickly?  Did the reports that afternoon, including one from Hoover I believe, that the murderer was already in custody originate from the DPD?  Did the DPD give the same message to the White House situation room for its conveyance to the plane coming back from Dallas?   Or how about the statements from the young Cuban group saying a commie Castro sympathizer had killed JFK?  Was there someone coordinating these early acts and many others?  What was Dulles doing at the CIA hideaway in Virginia that weekend?  Anybody have an idea of how to find out?
 
While I'm asking questions, what about Dulles.  Did he know anything about the murder beforehand?  If yes, it's clear to me he would have taken charge of it and nothing would have happened without his consent or without a coverup plan in place.  He ran the CIA at the center of government in Washington from1953 until well into the 60s, during the time it was transformed from an intelligence gathering agency to a foreign policy monster, and then a monster, period.  It's hard to exaggerate how powerful he was. 
 
If you think the answer is no:  it's difficult for me to imagine the JFKA was pulled off without Dulles' knowledge; his tentacles were everywhere (as you acknowledge).  All of the important elements who wanted Kennedy dead of course knew each.  If some group slipped by and did the murder on their own without assurances of the others or plan to cover their tracks, it's easy to conclude they were certifiable.  And its likely they didn't live to much longer afterward. 

If that were found to be true, though, we can close up shop.  Nothing to see here.  The JFKA was an accident of history just like if Oswald had done it.
 
If that *were* true, i. e., the facts showed that, it would be a good thing.  If not, it's just another diversion.
 

You talk about Fred Korth, about whom I know next to nothing, to say he may have been the top planner, "at the top of the assassination tree".  But then you say he was useful to the assassins because he knew Oswald so well.  The latter almost certainly seems more likely and it doesn't support the former.  But if Korth was useful in that way, the planners would have been setting up Oswald as the patsy before the murder rather than the DPD framing him afterward.

See my previous post which I think answers some of this, but let me add some detail showing how haphazard the frame was.

How was it that Oswald was accused of using the allias "A Hidell"?

It was via  a series of comical errors, that's how.

When Jones phoned the FBI, he told them that he had "files on Lee Harvey Oswald and an A Hidell." That is to say, he had files on two individuals who had some sort of connection.

The agent, when typing this up, mistook his own notes as reading "Lee Harvey Oswald and Ana Hidell". That caused the FBI to scramble looking for a female by that name. Later, they decided it really should have read "Lee Harvey Oswald AKA Hidell". They backstopped this bullshit claim by saying that was what the NO police had discovered during its investigation of Oswald and his FPCC chapter.  But they discovered no such thing. All they had was a flyer with that name stamped on it along with Oswald's (incorrect) PO box. Weirdly, when Oswald took over distribution of the flyers from whoever Hidell actually was, and put his own name on them, he used him home address. It is almost like he had nothing personally to do with that box.

But i digress. That was the origin of that name. All that was left to do was put the Hidell name on a replica USMC card Oswald had made as practice using the specialized equipment at Jaggers. Voila! Instant proof he did indeed use the name himself as an alias. 

How was it, it was claimed Oswald used the alias OH Lee?

Again through a series of comical errors starting with his misidentifaction by the daughter of the Johnsons as being "Mr Lee".  That misidentifaction was then compounded when the cops were shown "Mr Lee" in the ledgers which said something like "Room 0 H Lee" or to spell that out "Room zero H Lee". But to the eyes of the cops, it was obviously O for Oswald, H for Harvey and Lee for Lee. 

You couldn't possibly plan these fuck-ups, let alone plan them with the idea of turning them to your advantage. That stuff is done on the fly, borne of years of practice, rat cunning and a dash of desperation. 

There is certainly no way this is the work of the well-oiled machinery of the CIA. 

Moreover, I hotly dispute that you need a machiavellian puppet-master to pull the assassination off.  That is just a shibboleth used by the conspiratocracy to justify the grandiosity and  Carré-ian plot twists of their theorizing.  

Look, I promise that if/when I get my books finished or find some other way of getting the info out in an impactful way, the facts will be mindblowing enough, and will have myriad interesting offshoots - none of which paint a pretty picture of who we are as a society, or what we have been willing to accept via willful ignorance at one end and fuck-up fantasizing at the other.

Not sure whether this is useful, just saw it and thought hmmm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/01/something-is-not-right-with-copyright-this-public-domain-day-conan-doyle

I’m reading Don Gibson’s “The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up”.

https://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Assassination-Cover-up-Donald-Gibson/dp/1615779639/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0&qid=1672765691&refinements=p_28%3Akennedy+assassination%2Cp_27%3Agibson&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

According to Gibson’s research, Johnson originally favored an FBI investigation and a State of Texas inquiry. Speculation of a communist conspiracy was cut off when Wade was instructed to remove any reference to a communist conspiracy from the charges filed against Oswald as the JFK assassin. That seemed to lay the issue to rest.

Within less than two hours of the assassination of Oswald, a press for what eventually became the Warren Commission was launched. Gibson has found that such an idea originated with Yale Law School  Dean Eugene Rostow, not Asst. AG Nicholas Katzenbach. Eventually, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, Joseph Alsop and others were pushing for such a commission. Johnson initially vehemently opposed such a commission but over the next few days was convinced to support it.

Since I have only read the initial chapter, I am assuming that Gibson ties this into an establishment coverup. By establishment I mean the foreign policy elite, MIC, Wall Street etc.

In the mean time, I have tried to think of some non-sinister explanations against which to evaluate Gibson’s case.

1. Would people like Acheson, Rostow, Alsop know anything about the details of the assassination to know that a commission would be needed to to perform a coverup? They could have been genuinely concerned about reckless charges of a communist conspiracy re-emerging after Oswald was silenced and wanted to avoid it. Then again, this reason could have been suggested to them by those that knew a coverup was needed.

2. Eugene Rostow could have been alarmed at a possible antisemitic backlash arising from how Jesse Curry announced the death of Oswald and that Jack Ruby was the name of his killer. Curry twice repeated that Ruby‘s name was Rubenstein. As best as I can determine, this happened at 2:25 PM EST. Rostow’s first call to LBJ was sometime before 4:00 PM EST. Rostow could have encouraged non-Jews who, while not antisemites, were also not favorable to the creation of the State of Israel (which was typical for State Dept. officials at the time) to buttress his efforts and perhaps avoid his motivations for doing so promoting what he hoped to prevent.

This article appears to be essentially the chapter I have read:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/gibson-warren-commission.pdf

I think there may be simpler explanation about the creation of the Warren Commission.
 
In a previous post I claimed the the JFKA would not have happened without the approval of Allen Dulles. He was that powerful at the time; he had tentacles everywhere. Had some other (rogue) group been planning the murder that he was no doubt considering, he would have known about it.  Had he known about it, he would have taken it over and controlled it and the coverup the followed.
 
Lyndon Johnson was in a similar, though not identical, position.  He wanted to be president very badly.  As President, he was the key to not only the coverup, but also changing some of the Kennedy's policies that had motivated the murder.  The coup leaders had to have some assurance that LBJ would do those things to make the murder worthwhile. There had to have been some interaction between coup planners and Johnson.  Cue the story of an unrecorded visit (or was it two?) a few weeks before the murder by Dulles to the LBJ ranch
 
This means that Johnson knew Oswald didn't do it.  In fact there was an early tussle over what to claim was Oswald's motive and Johnson swiftly eliminated anything that might be designed to lead to an invasion of Cuba or a confrontation with the Soviet Union.  Moreover, Hoover had told him early on that the case against Oswald was weak (and Johnson played along on the call), before going along with the coverup shortly thereafter by saying the FBI had concluded Oswald was the lone assassin.
 
For the coverup to work, it seems clear that there would be no investigation by either the Senate or House, as had been suggested.  Or by Waggoner Carr as Texas AG.  Despite the claim, swallowed by many,  that LBJ initially wanted to do one or some of them. The coverup demanded something much more controllable. 
 
That's what happened.  The FBI quickly did a cursory investigation.  The Warren Commission composed of 7 great Americans, who played a minor role, except for Dulles, in the report they signed, hired a bunch of lawyers to frame Oswald.
 
In short, despite the back and forth discussion immediately following Oswald's murder (it was then clear an investigation was needed), I suspect Johnson already knew what the coverup needed.  He had been thinking about the coverup before the murder.
 

I'm reminded of the story Johnson put out (after RFK was dead as I recall) that it was Robert Kennedy who asked that Allen Dulles be included on the Warren Commission. Anything Johnson said or was reported to have said, in the days following the murder should be taken with a grain of salt. 

I’m skeptical about Johnson’s involvement in or foreknowledge of the assassination, much as I despise Johnson. However, I do think whoever was responsible for the JFK assassination thought they would get MUCH better treatment from Johnson.

Is there any indication that Johnson coveted Dulles’ advice during his presidency?

Your view of the possibility of Johnson's involvement depends in the first instance on what kind of assurance the plotters would want, and he could give, that they would deem sufficient to go ahead. I'm sure they "thought" Johnson would do things they wanted that Kennedy wouldn't. But murdering Kennedy was a drastic and risky step.  I think they probably wanted clear assurances from him of what sort of things he would do as president. In particular whether he would be an impediment to their plans.
 
They knew how much Johnson wanted to be president. He had schemed to get on the ticket with Kennedy, who had originally wanted Symington of Mo. to be his vice president. It's unlikely a man like Dulles would have had any qualms about broaching the subject with Johnson.  If brought into the plan, they knew Johnson wouldn't blow the whistle on them.  It's likely he would have been an enthusiastic supporter. In fact, it's not even clear to me which of these two bastards was the initial instigator. 
 
We know as president Johnson did lots of things the CIA had wanted, the Vietnam war and the bloody overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in '65 are two of the larger examples.  A few years after the JFKA, Johnson told McNamara he had never agreed with his and JFK's plan to pull out of Vietnam, but kept his mouth shut. JFK supported Sukarno and was scheduled to meet with him in the Spring of '64.  Johnson reversed that.
 
So these things he did can be viewed as basic LBJ policies, not needing much CIA advocacy.  And maybe they had enough confidence that he would do those kind of things that they didn't need pre-murder assurances.  The less people who know about the plot the better, after all.
 

Plausible, but I think unlikely, given the stakes and what we know about the ruthlessness of Dulles and Johnson.