Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#1269 Interview #8 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946

EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

ANOTHER REVEALING VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1269 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: In this broad­cast, we con­tin­ue our dis­cus­sion with the hero­ic Jim DiEu­ge­nio, select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his doc­u­men­tary JFK Revis­it­ed. Jim also wrote the book con­tain­ing tran­scripts of both the two-hour and four-hour ver­sions of the doc­u­men­tary and sup­ple­men­tal inter­views.

No dis­cov­ery by the ARRB was more impor­tant than its uncov­er­ing of the Oper­a­tion North­woods con­tin­gency plan to set up a provo­ca­tion to jus­ti­fy a U.S. inva­sion of Cuba.

The law­suit filed by the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion aims at com­pelling fur­ther dis­clo­sure about North­woods.

At log­ger­heads with then Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lem­nitzer, JFK replaced him with Maxwell Tay­lor, unaware that Tay­lor and Lem­nitzer were close. 

The ARRB faced seri­ous resis­tance from the Secret Ser­vice in its attempts to shed fur­ther light on the JFK assas­si­na­tion. Although pro­hib­it­ed by law from doing so, the Secret Ser­vice destroyed doc­u­ments.

Par­tic­u­lar­ly note­wor­thy are doc­u­ments from the agency about two attempts on JFK’s life in 1963 that may very well have been part of the con­stel­la­tion of events lead­ing up to Dal­las on 11/22.

That agency was par­tic­u­lar­ly reluc­tant to share records about the two attempts on JFK’s life.

ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne uncov­ered some fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion about pay records of both Oswald dur­ing his last months in the Marines and TSBD man­ag­er Roy Tru­ly, Oswald’s super­vi­sor at the build­ing.

1. No dis­cov­ery by the ARRB was more impor­tant than its uncov­er­ing of the Oper­a­tion North­woods con­tin­gency plan to set up a provo­ca­tion to jus­ti­fy a U.S. inva­sion of Cuba.

The law­suit filed by the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion aims at com­pelling fur­ther dis­clo­sure about North­woods.

At log­ger­heads with then Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lem­nitzer, JFK replaced him with Maxwell Tay­lor, unaware that Tay­lor and Lem­nitzer were close. 

The ARRB faced recal­ci­trance when it attempt­ed to gain access to the Zaprud­er film. They had to pay an enor­mous sum of mon­ey to gain access to the film, which, ulti­mate­ly was giv­en to the Sixth Floor Muse­um, which retains tight con­trol over its use. The Sixth Floor Muse­um main­tains a doc­tri­naire adher­ence to the unten­able War­ren Com­mis­sion.

2. The ARRB faced seri­ous resis­tance from the Secret Ser­vice in its attempts to shed fur­ther light on the JFK assas­si­na­tion. Although pro­hib­it­ed by law from doing so, the Secret Ser­vice destroyed doc­u­ments.

Par­tic­u­lar­ly note­wor­thy are doc­u­ments from the agency about two attempts on JFK’s life in 1963 that may very well have been part of the con­stel­la­tion of events lead­ing up to Dal­las on 11/22.

That agency was par­tic­u­lar­ly reluc­tant to share records about the two attempts on JFK’s life.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The trumped-up charges against African-Amer­i­can Secret Ser­vice agent Abra­ham Bold­en, who refused to go along with the cov­er-up of the Chica­go plot; Sim­i­lar­i­ties between Thomas Vallee—the appar­ent pat­sy in the Chica­go plot and Oswald (both for­mer Marines who had worked on the U‑2); Four appar­ent snipers with rifles and the motor­cade route, none of whom was detained for any length of time by the Secret Ser­vice; The Tam­pa plot, fea­tur­ing an appar­ent pat­sy who was affil­i­at­ed with the Fair Play for Cuba Com­mit­tee; The fact that both the Chica­go and Tam­pa plots involved the motor­cade going past a high-rise build­ing; JFK’s expres­sion of grat­i­tude to the agents who blocked the Tam­pa plot; Secret Ser­vice agent Elmer Moore’s con­fes­sion to Jim Goschenauer that he was ordered to pres­sure on the Park­land M.D. who per­formed the tra­cheoto­my on JFK and said the throat wound was entrance wound; Moore’s evi­dent sat­is­fac­tion over the neu­tral­iza­tion of Abra­ham Bold­en.

3.—The ARRB faced recal­ci­trance when it attempt­ed to gain access to the Zaprud­er film. They had to pay an enor­mous sum of mon­ey to gain access to the film, which, ulti­mate­ly was giv­en to the Sixth Floor Muse­um, which retains tight con­trol over its use. The Sixth Floor Muse­um main­tains a doc­tri­naire adher­ence to the unten­able War­ren Com­mis­sion.

4.—ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne uncov­ered some fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion about pay records of both Oswald dur­ing his last months in the Marines and TSBD man­ag­er Roy Tru­ly, Oswald’s super­vi­sor at the build­ing:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; pp. 308–309.

. . . . You’re ready for this. This is all new stuff. Oswald’s last quar­ter of earn­ings in the Unit­ed States before he defect­ed to the Sovi­et Union should have been paid by the Marine Corps. And they weren’t. Because we asked to see his Marine Corps records that the Marine Corps deposit­ed with the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion. They did not pay him any mon­ey. That has seri­ous impli­ca­tions to me because of all the spec­u­la­tion that he was a fake defec­tor. So if he was in train­ing for that, some­body else was pay­ing his salary . . . .

. . . . The oth­er infor­ma­tion that that the pub­lic should know about is that there is anoth­er record that’s sequestered in the JFK col­lec­tion. Just like Oswald’s earn­ing records. The oth­er infor­ma­tion is about employ­ees at the Book Depos­i­to­ry who were paid and the name Roy Tru­ly, Oswald’s super­vi­sor, is not on the list of peo­ple who were paid. And I don’t under­stand that. . . .

Discussion

2 comments for “FTR#1269 Interview #8 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited””

  1. It’s that time again. The 59th Anniver­sary of the JFK assas­si­na­tion. Or rather, the 59th Anniver­sary of the JFK assas­si­na­tion and sub­se­quent offi­cial coverup. 59 year of ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’. No mat­ter how much new damn­ing evi­dence gets released, there’s always been this giant trove of still-clas­si­fied files that gov­ern­ment agen­cies have repeat­ed­ly refused to release. That was all sup­posed to change in 2017 when a sup­pos­ed­ly con­crete dead­line for the release of all clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion relat­ed to the JFK assas­si­na­tion was sup­posed to be released. Instead, then-Pres­i­dent Trump decid­ed to side with the CIA and FBI and agreed to waive the dead­line, which brings us back to where we are.

    A new dead­line for the release of mate­ri­als was set for Decem­ber 15 next month by Pres­i­dent Biden. But as we’re going to see, the word­ing of that dead­line appears to still allow for the same kinds of bureau­crat­ic refusal to turn over the doc­u­ments that’s been used in the past. So we’re going to see what ulti­mate­ly gets released in a few weeks of the more than 14,000 JFK-relat­ed doc­u­ments still clas­si­fied. But in the mean­time, it turns out we got a new batch of released files. Files show­ing the cor­re­spon­dences between the Nation­al Archives and the var­i­ous gov­ern­ment agen­cies that are still refus­ing to release these files. It turns out the cor­re­spon­dences were obtained via a FOIA request by Lar­ry Schnapf, a lawyer who is rep­re­sent­ing the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion in a law­suit filed against the Pres­i­dent Biden and the Nation­al Archives, demand­ing release of all the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion doc­u­ments. Inter­est­ing­ly, while Schnapf filed the law­suit against the Nation­al Archives, he actu­al­ly prais­es them for their efforts. It’s the oth­er agen­cies that are refus­ing to release the doc­u­ments. That’s the sto­ry that unfolds in these released cor­re­spon­dences. The Nation­al Archives kept inform­ing agen­cies like the FBI and CIA that they are not abid­ing by the law. For years.

    It’s also notable that the Nation­al Archives has been telling the pub­lic not to expect any major bomb­shells when the doc­u­ments are being released. So if the still-clas­si­fied files aren’t filled with assas­si­na­tion bomb­shells, why are so many gov­ern­ment agen­cies unwill­ing to allow their release? It’s part of the ongo­ing mys­tery. Maybe the Archives is just unaware of the full damn­ing nature of some of these doc­u­ments. Or maybe they’re damn­ing, but in rela­tion to oth­er things like the CIA’s rela­tion­ship with orga­nized crime and not nec­es­sar­i­ly damn­ing in rela­tion to the assas­si­na­tion. Or per­haps each indi­vid­ual file isn’t real­ly damn­ing on its own, but the col­lec­tion of them togeth­er paints a damn­ing pic­ture. We don’t real­ly know what’s still hid­ing in those 14,000 still-clas­si­fied doc­u­ments. But it’s pret­ty damn clear the agen­cies that ran that coverup want that to be the case for as long as pos­si­ble. And 59 years isn’t long enough:

    Politi­co

    Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assas­si­na­tion Files

    The FBI and the CIA are still pro­tect­ing their sources from six decades ago.
    John F. Kennedy wav­ing from a car, with Jacque­line Kennedy sit­ting next to him.

    By Philip Shenon
    11/15/2022 11:00 AM EST

    Philip Shenon, a for­mer Wash­ing­ton and for­eign cor­re­spon­dent for the New York Times, is author of A Cru­el and Shock­ing Act: The Secret His­to­ry of the Kennedy Assas­si­na­tion.

    Almost exact­ly 59 years after those rifle shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, left a pres­i­dent mor­tal­ly wound­ed and changed the course of his­to­ry, there are still secrets that the gov­ern­ment admits it is deter­mined to keep about the Novem­ber 1963 assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy. More than 14,000 clas­si­fied doc­u­ments some­how relat­ed to the president’s mur­der remain locked away, in part or in full, at the Nation­al Archives in clear vio­la­tion of the spir­it of a land­mark 1992 trans­paren­cy law that was sup­posed to force the release of vir­tu­al­ly all of them years ago.

    The fact that any­thing about the assas­si­na­tion is still clas­si­fied — and that the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies have refused to pro­vide the pub­lic with a detailed expla­na­tion of why — has con­vinced an army of con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists that their cyn­i­cism has always been jus­ti­fied.

    New­ly released inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Nation­al Archives and Records Admin­is­tra­tion reveals that, behind the scenes, there has been a fierce bureau­crat­ic war over the doc­u­ments in recent years, pit­ting the Archives against the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies that want to keep them secret.

    The cor­re­spon­dence, obtained under the Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act, shows that the Archives has tried, and often failed, to insist that oth­er agen­cies com­ply with the 1992 law by declas­si­fy­ing more doc­u­ments. The strug­gle was espe­cial­ly fierce in 2017, when then-Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump sided with the CIA and FBI and agreed to waive a sup­pos­ed­ly con­crete legal dead­line that year to release all clas­si­fied doc­u­ments relat­ed to the JFK assas­si­na­tion.

    Last year, Pres­i­dent Joe Biden ordered anoth­er review of the doc­u­ments to allow more to be made pub­lic this Decem­ber. Offi­cials involved in the declas­si­fi­ca­tion process say they are opti­mistic that a large batch of doc­u­ments will be made pub­lic next month.

    The inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Archives helps resolve one lin­ger­ing mys­tery about the doc­u­ments: In their nego­ti­a­tions with the White House and the Archives in recent years, how have the CIA, FBI, the Pen­ta­gon and oth­er agen­cies jus­ti­fied keep­ing any secrets about a turn­ing point in Amer­i­can his­to­ry that occurred decades ago — an event that has always inspired cor­ro­sive con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries about gov­ern­ment com­plic­i­ty?

    ...

    The Archives cor­re­spon­dence reveals, for the first time, their detailed jus­ti­fi­ca­tions, pro­vid­ing a rare win­dow into rea­son­ing inside the CIA and FBI. In many cas­es, it shows, the CIA and FBI pressed to keep doc­u­ments secret because they con­tained the names and per­son­al details of still-liv­ing intel­li­gence and law-enforce­ment infor­mants from the 1960’s and 1970’s who could be at risk of intim­i­da­tion or even vio­lence if they were pub­licly iden­ti­fied.

    Many of those sources — now elder­ly, if not close to death — are for­eign­ers liv­ing out­side the Unit­ed States, which means it would be more dif­fi­cult for the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment to pro­tect them from threats. The CIA has also with­held infor­ma­tion in the doc­u­ments that iden­ti­fies the loca­tion of CIA sta­tions and safe­hous­es abroad, includ­ing sev­er­al that have been in use con­tin­u­ous­ly since Kennedy’s death in 1963.

    The Archives cor­re­spon­dence shows that, while much of the still-clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion is only indi­rect­ly relat­ed to the assas­si­na­tion, some of it comes direct­ly from the FBI’s “main inves­tiga­tive case files” about the president’s mur­der. That includes the all-impor­tant case files on Lee Har­vey Oswald, Kennedy’s assas­sin, and Jack Ruby, the Dal­las strip-club own­er who mur­dered Oswald two days after Kennedy’s death.

    The Archives paper­work shows that the FBI and Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion have fought par­tic­u­lar­ly hard to pro­tect the iden­ti­ty of infor­mants in orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions — an argu­ment that will intrigue con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists who believe the Mafia was behind Kennedy’s death. Many assas­si­na­tion researchers argue that the assas­si­na­tion was blow­back for the so-called war on orga­nized crime waged by the president’s broth­er, then-Attor­ney Gen­er­al Robert Kennedy.

    In fact, the cor­re­spon­dence shows the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of the doc­u­ments that the FBI has with­held from the pub­lic in recent years some­how involved orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions. Of the near­ly 7,500 doc­u­ments that the FBI kept clas­si­fied at the time of the 2017 dead­line, 6,000 were from “var­i­ous files of mem­bers of orga­nized crime or La Cosa Nos­tra.”

    The DEA made a spe­cial plea to black out the names of six con­fi­den­tial infor­mants iden­ti­fied in assas­si­na­tion-relat­ed files involv­ing orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions: “Giv­en the well-doc­u­ment­ed propen­si­ty for vio­lence by the Mafia, it is rea­son­able to expect the indi­vid­u­als, if alive, remain in sig­nif­i­cant dan­ger of retal­i­a­tion for their assis­tance,” the agency said in a 2018 let­ter to the Archives.

    The inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence and emails from the Archives were pro­vid­ed to POLITICO Mag­a­zine by Lar­ry Schnapf, a New York lawyer who filed a fed­er­al law­suit last month against Pres­i­dent Biden and the Nation­al Archives, demand­ing release of all the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion doc­u­ments. Schnapf, whose clients in the law­suit include the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion, an assas­si­na­tion-research group, obtained the inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Archives under a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act request.

    Even though he is now suing the Nation­al Archives, he said in an inter­view he was impressed by the aggres­sive­ness of Archives offi­cials in try­ing to force the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies to abide by the 1992 law, which called for the declas­si­fi­ca­tion of all assas­si­na­tion-relat­ed doc­u­ments with­in 25 years — a dead­line reached in Octo­ber 2017. The fact that so much infor­ma­tion remains clas­si­fied today “only feeds a lot of the more bizarre con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries” about Kennedy’s death, he said.

    The 1992 law, the John F. Kennedy Assas­si­na­tion Records Col­lec­tion Act, was adopt­ed by Con­gress in hopes of con­trol­ling a firestorm of con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries whipped up the year before by the release of Oliv­er Stone’s pop­u­lar, con­spir­a­cy-soaked film JFK, which sug­gest­ed Kennedy was killed in a coup d’etat involv­ing his suc­ces­sor, Pres­i­dent Lyn­don John­son. Opin­ion polls have shown con­sis­tent­ly since the late 1960’s that most Amer­i­cans believe there was a con­spir­a­cy in Kennedy’s death — that Oswald, assum­ing he was the assas­sin in Dealey Plaza in Dal­las, did not act alone.

    As a result of the law, mil­lions of pages of doc­u­ments were made pub­lic in the 1990’s that rewrote ele­ments of the his­to­ry of the assas­si­na­tion. The declas­si­fied files did not offer con­clu­sive proof of any sort of con­spir­a­cy in the president’s death. But they did reveal how much evi­dence — espe­cial­ly about Oswald — had been with­held by the CIA and FBI from the War­ren Com­mis­sion, the White House pan­el led by Chief Jus­tice Earl War­ren that con­clud­ed in 1964 that Oswald had almost cer­tain­ly act­ed alone.

    Some files declas­si­fied as a result of the 1992 law strong­ly sug­gest­ed, for exam­ple, that the CIA’s Mex­i­co City sta­tion cov­ered up evi­dence of its aggres­sive sur­veil­lance of Oswald dur­ing his mys­te­ri­ous trip to the Mex­i­can cap­i­tal just sev­er­al weeks before the assas­si­na­tion, includ­ing the fact that Oswald boast­ed there of his inten­tion to kill Kennedy. The doc­u­ments show that, if the CIA sta­tion in Mex­i­co had act­ed quick­ly on what it learned in Sep­tem­ber and Octo­ber 1963, Kennedy might have sur­vived his trip to Dal­las on Nov. 22. Accord­ing to a bare-bones index at the Archives, sev­er­al of the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion doc­u­ments are drawn from the files of the U.S. embassy in Mex­i­co — the CIA sta­tion, in par­tic­u­lar.

    In 2013, the CIA’s in-house his­to­ri­an con­clud­ed that the spy agency had con­duct­ed a “benign cov­er-up” dur­ing the War­ren Commission’s inves­ti­ga­tion in 1963 and 1964 in hopes of keep­ing the com­mis­sion focused on “what the Agency believed was the ‘best truth’ — that Lee Har­vey Oswald, for as yet unde­ter­mined motives, had act­ed alone in killing John Kennedy.”

    Oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies have offered dif­fer­ent jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion in the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion files, the new­ly dis­closed Archives cor­re­spon­dence shows.

    The Defense Depart­ment told the Archives in 2018 that it would con­tin­ue to black out por­tions of 256 clas­si­fied Pen­ta­gon doc­u­ments since they iden­ti­fy “active U.S. war plans, for­eign gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion, sen­si­tive nuclear weapons infor­ma­tion and U.S. pris­on­er of war per­son­al and debrief­ing infor­ma­tion.” Even so, the Pen­ta­gon assured the Archives, “the records iden­ti­fied are not direct­ly relat­ed to the assas­si­na­tion.”

    In its 2018 cor­re­spon­dence with the Archives, the State Depart­ment request­ed that por­tions of 31 doc­u­ments be kept secret because of “nation­al secu­ri­ty and for­eign affairs con­cerns,” although it not­ed that “none of the department’s redac­tions relate direct­ly to the JFK assas­si­na­tion.”

    The cor­re­spon­dence shows that the Archives, which has housed the assas­si­na­tion records for decades, has long warned the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies that they are fail­ing to abide by require­ments of the 1992 law, which allowed JFK-assas­si­na­tion infor­ma­tion to remain clas­si­fied only if there was “clear and con­vinc­ing evi­dence” of a “sub­stan­tial risk of harm” to nation­al secu­ri­ty or for­eign pol­i­cy.

    In a memo in August 2017, William J. Bosanko, chief oper­at­ing offi­cer of the Nation­al Archives, protest­ed the FBI’s deci­sion to con­tin­ue to with­hold the names of con­fi­den­tial sources from the 1960’s, espe­cial­ly those that came direct­ly out of the case files on Oswald and Ruby. “These files clear­ly relate direct­ly to the assas­si­na­tion,” he said. Besides, he not­ed, “it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine cir­cum­stances under which an indi­vid­ual could be harmed by the release of their name in a file in the JFK col­lec­tion.”

    But the protests by the Archives were over­ruled at the last minute by Trump. His deci­sion in Octo­ber 2017 to waive the dead­line sur­prised many in the gov­ern­ment since the for­mer pres­i­dent has been an enthu­si­as­tic con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist for decades, includ­ing about the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion, and had once promised “great trans­paren­cy” in releas­ing the doc­u­ments.

    Dur­ing the 2016 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, Trump repeat­ed­ly pro­mot­ed a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry that the father of one of his Repub­li­can oppo­nents, Sen­a­tor Ted Cruz of Texas, was some­how tied to the assas­si­na­tion — a claim, denied by the Cruz fam­i­ly, based on a grainy 1963 pho­to­graph that showed Oswald stand­ing next to a man who resem­bled Cruz’s father as both hand­ed out fliers sup­port­ing Cuban leader Fidel Cas­tro.

    In decid­ing to with­hold thou­sands of doc­u­ments, Trump said he was con­vinced they con­tained infor­ma­tion about nation­al secu­ri­ty and for­eign pol­i­cy “of such grav­i­ty that it out­weighs the pub­lic inter­est in imme­di­ate dis­clo­sure.” But he offered no specifics about his rea­son­ing; nor did the CIA, the FBI and oth­er agen­cies that urged him to block the release.

    Under the 1992 law, only the sit­ting pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States has the pow­er to with­hold doc­u­ments beyond the 2017 dead­line, which means the pow­er now rests entire­ly with Pres­i­dent Biden. Last Octo­ber, Biden ordered the archives to begin a com­pre­hen­sive review of the still-clas­si­fied records, with a goal of releas­ing as many as pos­si­ble by a new dead­line of this Dec. 15.

    But his writ­ten order dis­ap­point­ed many his­to­ri­ans and assas­si­na­tion researchers since Biden, like Trump, left open the pos­si­bil­i­ty that some doc­u­ments will remain clas­si­fied for­ev­er. Biden’s order, draw­ing on the word­ing of the 1992 law, said he would allow doc­u­ments to be with­held if their release might do “iden­ti­fi­able harm” to “mil­i­tary defense, intel­li­gence oper­a­tions, law enforce­ment, or the con­di­tion of for­eign rela­tions that is of such grav­i­ty that it out­weighs the pub­lic inter­est in dis­clo­sure.”

    The Nation­al Archives said in a state­ment to POLITICO Mag­a­zine that it had recent­ly com­plet­ed its review of the still-clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al and pro­vid­ed its rec­om­men­da­tions to Pres­i­dent Biden about which doc­u­ments should be released on Dec. 15.

    Bosanko, the Archives offi­cial over­see­ing the project, said in an inter­view that the recent inter­a­gency review of the JFK doc­u­ments had been the most inten­sive in decades, involv­ing a page-to-page inspec­tion, with the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies pressed to jus­ti­fy why any infor­ma­tion — includ­ing indi­vid­ual names and address­es — should con­tin­ue to be with­held from the pub­lic: “We looked at every sin­gle redac­tion in these doc­u­ments.” He said his team is con­tin­u­ing to nego­ti­ate with the CIA and oth­er agen­cies this month in hopes of con­vinc­ing them — before the Dec. 15 dead­line set by the White House — to lift their oppo­si­tion to releas­ing some of the still-clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al.

    A spokes­woman for the CIA said the agency was work­ing close­ly with the Archives with the goal of “releas­ing as much infor­ma­tion in the pub­lic inter­est as pos­si­ble, con­sis­tent with the need to pre­vent harm to intel­li­gence oper­a­tions.” At the time of the 2017 dead­line, the CIA had with­held 250 records in full and redact­ed infor­ma­tion from about 15,000 oth­er doc­u­ments – in some cas­es, just a few names or oth­er words on a sin­gle page, in oth­er cas­es, whole blocks of text. The CIA spokes­woman said that, as a result of declas­si­fi­ca­tion efforts since 2017, the agency is no longer with­hold­ing any doc­u­ments in full.

    ...

    Archives offi­cials and oth­ers in the gov­ern­ment have cau­tioned for years that the pub­lic should not expect to find bomb­shells in the still-secret doc­u­ments – at least no bomb­shells that can be eas­i­ly detect­ed. Many of the pre­vi­ous­ly declas­si­fied CIA and FBI files were full of bureau­crat­ic jar­gon, code­names and obscure for­eign names and address­es that made them incom­pre­hen­si­ble at first, even for expe­ri­enced researchers.

    And no mat­ter what Biden decides, about 500 doc­u­ments and oth­er items in the col­lec­tion will remain secret, since the 1992 law exempts them from pub­lic release. Among them are doc­u­ments pro­duced by fed­er­al grand juries and by the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice, includ­ing the tax and employ­ment records of Oswald, Ruby and many of their asso­ciates.

    It also includes tape record­ings of six inter­views con­duct­ed in 1964 with Jacque­line Kennedy and for­mer Attor­ney Gen­er­al Robert Kennedy by the jour­nal­ist William Man­ches­ter, who was autho­rized by the Kennedy fam­i­ly to write a his­to­ry of the assas­si­na­tion. Those tapes were turned over to the Archives by the Kennedy fam­i­ly in exchange for an agree­ment they would not be made pub­lic until 2067 — the 100th anniver­sary of the pub­li­ca­tion of Manchester’s best­selling book The Death of a Pres­i­dent. The law also exempt­ed the pub­lic release of what the Archives index describes as five “very per­son­al let­ters” that Mrs. Kennedy wrote to Pres­i­dent John­son, includ­ing at least three she sent to him in the week after the assas­si­na­tion.

    What might be on Manchester’s tapes has long tan­ta­lized his­to­ri­ans and assas­si­na­tion researchers. He lat­er wrote in his mem­oirs that he record­ed 10 hours of wrench­ing con­ver­sa­tions with Mrs. Kennedy, in which she offered a detailed account of events in the days sur­round­ing the assas­si­na­tion, includ­ing a descrip­tion of the hor­ri­fy­ing scene inside the president’s lim­ou­sine as the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza. “She with­held noth­ing,” he wrote. The inter­views in Mrs. Kennedy’s home in George­town were bear­able only because of the cock­tails they drank through­out, he sug­gest­ed. “Future his­to­ri­ans may be puz­zled by the odd clunk­ing nois­es on the tapes,” Man­ches­ter wrote. “They were ice cubes. The only way we could get through those long evenings was with the aid of great con­tain­ers of daiquiris.”

    ———–

    “Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assas­si­na­tion Files” By Philip Shenon; Politi­co; 11/15/2022

    “New­ly released inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Nation­al Archives and Records Admin­is­tra­tion reveals that, behind the scenes, there has been a fierce bureau­crat­ic war over the doc­u­ments in recent years, pit­ting the Archives against the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies that want to keep them secret.”

    A fierce bureau­crat­ic war, with the Nation­al Archives on one side and agen­cies like the CIA, FBI, and State Depart­ment on the oth­er side. That’s the pic­ture depict­ed in the new­ly released inter­nal cor­re­spon­dences obtained by Lar­ry Schnafp, a lawyer whose clients include the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion. As Schnafp notes, while he end­ed up suing the Archives, he’s actu­al­ly been impressed with the agen­cy’s aggres­sive­ness in try­ing to get doc­u­ments released. That aggres­sive­ness is part of what was revealed with these inter­nal cor­re­spon­dences. Aggres­sive­ness in the form of remind­ing agen­cies like the FBI and CIA that they are not abid­ing by the 1992 law that man­dates these dis­clo­sures.

    At the same time, as the arti­cle notes, the Archives have for years warned the pub­lic not to expect any bomb­shells. At least not eas­i­ly detect­ed bomb­shells. It’s part of the mys­tery here: the Archives are declar­ing that still-with­held clas­si­fied doc­u­ments aren’t going to be rev­e­la­to­ry and yet its still run­ning into steep resis­tance from the FBI and CIA despite those agen­cies rec­og­niz­ing that they are fuel­ing the per­cep­tion of a cov­er up. It’s the kind of sit­u­a­tion that sug­gests the Archives isn’t ful­ly aware of all of the dif­fer­ent inves­tiga­tive threads that could be pulled should those still-clas­si­fied doc­u­ments get released:

    ...
    The cor­re­spon­dence, obtained under the Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act, shows that the Archives has tried, and often failed, to insist that oth­er agen­cies com­ply with the 1992 law by declas­si­fy­ing more doc­u­ments. The strug­gle was espe­cial­ly fierce in 2017, when then-Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump sided with the CIA and FBI and agreed to waive a sup­pos­ed­ly con­crete legal dead­line that year to release all clas­si­fied doc­u­ments relat­ed to the JFK assas­si­na­tion.

    ...

    The inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence and emails from the Archives were pro­vid­ed to POLITICO Mag­a­zine by Lar­ry Schnapf, a New York lawyer who filed a fed­er­al law­suit last month against Pres­i­dent Biden and the Nation­al Archives, demand­ing release of all the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion doc­u­ments. Schnapf, whose clients in the law­suit include the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion, an assas­si­na­tion-research group, obtained the inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Archives under a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act request.

    Even though he is now suing the Nation­al Archives, he said in an inter­view he was impressed by the aggres­sive­ness of Archives offi­cials in try­ing to force the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies to abide by the 1992 law, which called for the declas­si­fi­ca­tion of all assas­si­na­tion-relat­ed doc­u­ments with­in 25 years — a dead­line reached in Octo­ber 2017. The fact that so much infor­ma­tion remains clas­si­fied today “only feeds a lot of the more bizarre con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries” about Kennedy’s death, he said.

    ...

    In 2013, the CIA’s in-house his­to­ri­an con­clud­ed that the spy agency had con­duct­ed a “benign cov­er-up” dur­ing the War­ren Commission’s inves­ti­ga­tion in 1963 and 1964 in hopes of keep­ing the com­mis­sion focused on “what the Agency believed was the ‘best truth’ — that Lee Har­vey Oswald, for as yet unde­ter­mined motives, had act­ed alone in killing John Kennedy.”

    Oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies have offered dif­fer­ent jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion in the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion files, the new­ly dis­closed Archives cor­re­spon­dence shows.

    The Defense Depart­ment told the Archives in 2018 that it would con­tin­ue to black out por­tions of 256 clas­si­fied Pen­ta­gon doc­u­ments since they iden­ti­fy “active U.S. war plans, for­eign gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion, sen­si­tive nuclear weapons infor­ma­tion and U.S. pris­on­er of war per­son­al and debrief­ing infor­ma­tion.” Even so, the Pen­ta­gon assured the Archives, “the records iden­ti­fied are not direct­ly relat­ed to the assas­si­na­tion.”

    In its 2018 cor­re­spon­dence with the Archives, the State Depart­ment request­ed that por­tions of 31 doc­u­ments be kept secret because of “nation­al secu­ri­ty and for­eign affairs con­cerns,” although it not­ed that “none of the department’s redac­tions relate direct­ly to the JFK assas­si­na­tion.”

    The cor­re­spon­dence shows that the Archives, which has housed the assas­si­na­tion records for decades, has long warned the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies that they are fail­ing to abide by require­ments of the 1992 law, which allowed JFK-assas­si­na­tion infor­ma­tion to remain clas­si­fied only if there was “clear and con­vinc­ing evi­dence” of a “sub­stan­tial risk of harm” to nation­al secu­ri­ty or for­eign pol­i­cy.

    In a memo in August 2017, William J. Bosanko, chief oper­at­ing offi­cer of the Nation­al Archives, protest­ed the FBI’s deci­sion to con­tin­ue to with­hold the names of con­fi­den­tial sources from the 1960’s, espe­cial­ly those that came direct­ly out of the case files on Oswald and Ruby. “These files clear­ly relate direct­ly to the assas­si­na­tion,” he said. Besides, he not­ed, “it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine cir­cum­stances under which an indi­vid­ual could be harmed by the release of their name in a file in the JFK col­lec­tion.”

    But the protests by the Archives were over­ruled at the last minute by Trump. His deci­sion in Octo­ber 2017 to waive the dead­line sur­prised many in the gov­ern­ment since the for­mer pres­i­dent has been an enthu­si­as­tic con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist for decades, includ­ing about the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion, and had once promised “great trans­paren­cy” in releas­ing the doc­u­ments.

    ...

    Archives offi­cials and oth­ers in the gov­ern­ment have cau­tioned for years that the pub­lic should not expect to find bomb­shells in the still-secret doc­u­ments – at least no bomb­shells that can be eas­i­ly detect­ed. Many of the pre­vi­ous­ly declas­si­fied CIA and FBI files were full of bureau­crat­ic jar­gon, code­names and obscure for­eign names and address­es that made them incom­pre­hen­si­ble at first, even for expe­ri­enced researchers.
    ...

    As the arti­cle also points out, while the 1992 law requir­ing the release of the doc­u­ments has yet to demon­strate con­clu­sive proof of a con­spir­a­cy to kill Kennedy, the doc­u­ments that have been released did reveal just how much evi­dence had been with­held from the War­ren Com­mis­sion. Like evi­dence relat­ed to Oswald’s alleged ‘trip to Mex­i­co City’. A trip that the CIA ini­tial­ly claimed had no evi­dence about. And now we’re learn­ing that some of the still-with­held doc­u­ments are drawn from the CIA sta­tion at the US embassy in Mex­i­co:

    ...
    The 1992 law, the John F. Kennedy Assas­si­na­tion Records Col­lec­tion Act, was adopt­ed by Con­gress in hopes of con­trol­ling a firestorm of con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries whipped up the year before by the release of Oliv­er Stone’s pop­u­lar, con­spir­a­cy-soaked film JFK, which sug­gest­ed Kennedy was killed in a coup d’etat involv­ing his suc­ces­sor, Pres­i­dent Lyn­don John­son. Opin­ion polls have shown con­sis­tent­ly since the late 1960’s that most Amer­i­cans believe there was a con­spir­a­cy in Kennedy’s death — that Oswald, assum­ing he was the assas­sin in Dealey Plaza in Dal­las, did not act alone.

    As a result of the law, mil­lions of pages of doc­u­ments were made pub­lic in the 1990’s that rewrote ele­ments of the his­to­ry of the assas­si­na­tion. The declas­si­fied files did not offer con­clu­sive proof of any sort of con­spir­a­cy in the president’s death. But they did reveal how much evi­dence — espe­cial­ly about Oswald — had been with­held by the CIA and FBI from the War­ren Com­mis­sion, the White House pan­el led by Chief Jus­tice Earl War­ren that con­clud­ed in 1964 that Oswald had almost cer­tain­ly act­ed alone.

    Some files declas­si­fied as a result of the 1992 law strong­ly sug­gest­ed, for exam­ple, that the CIA’s Mex­i­co City sta­tion cov­ered up evi­dence of its aggres­sive sur­veil­lance of Oswald dur­ing his mys­te­ri­ous trip to the Mex­i­can cap­i­tal just sev­er­al weeks before the assas­si­na­tion, includ­ing the fact that Oswald boast­ed there of his inten­tion to kill Kennedy. The doc­u­ments show that, if the CIA sta­tion in Mex­i­co had act­ed quick­ly on what it learned in Sep­tem­ber and Octo­ber 1963, Kennedy might have sur­vived his trip to Dal­las on Nov. 22. Accord­ing to a bare-bones index at the Archives, sev­er­al of the still-clas­si­fied assas­si­na­tion doc­u­ments are drawn from the files of the U.S. embassy in Mex­i­co — the CIA sta­tion, in par­tic­u­lar.
    ...

    Then there’s the exten­sive clas­si­fi­ca­tion of fig­ures with orga­nized crime ties, with the FBI and DEA and fight­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly hard to keep the iden­ti­ties of any infor­mants clas­si­fied for as long as pos­si­ble. This is a good time to recall the pho­to tak­en just before the assas­si­na­tion that appears to show a smil­ing 24-year old Bar­ry Seal “seat­ed at a night­club table in Mex­i­co City with [Water­gate bur­glar] Frank Stur­gis, [Iran-Con­tra oper­a­tive] Felix Rodriguez, and William Sey­mour, all mem­bers of the CIA’s assas­si­na­tion squad, Oper­a­tion 40.” Any sort of Bar­ry Seal ties to the CIA assas­si­na­tion would obvi­ous­ly be some of the most damn­ing and high­ly sen­si­tive clas­si­fied info the DEA could pos­si­bly pos­sess. It’s a reminder that the rea­sons for the extreme sen­si­tiv­i­ty around these doc­u­ments isn’t just going to be relat­ed to direct fears of hav­ing the assas­si­na­tion plot exposed. There’s all the oth­er tan­gen­tial­ly plots — like decades of CIA-spon­sored major drug-traf­fick­ing — that could be revealed too:

    ...
    The inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence from the Archives helps resolve one lin­ger­ing mys­tery about the doc­u­ments: In their nego­ti­a­tions with the White House and the Archives in recent years, how have the CIA, FBI, the Pen­ta­gon and oth­er agen­cies jus­ti­fied keep­ing any secrets about a turn­ing point in Amer­i­can his­to­ry that occurred decades ago — an event that has always inspired cor­ro­sive con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries about gov­ern­ment com­plic­i­ty?

    ...

    The Archives cor­re­spon­dence reveals, for the first time, their detailed jus­ti­fi­ca­tions, pro­vid­ing a rare win­dow into rea­son­ing inside the CIA and FBI. In many cas­es, it shows, the CIA and FBI pressed to keep doc­u­ments secret because they con­tained the names and per­son­al details of still-liv­ing intel­li­gence and law-enforce­ment infor­mants from the 1960’s and 1970’s who could be at risk of intim­i­da­tion or even vio­lence if they were pub­licly iden­ti­fied.

    Many of those sources — now elder­ly, if not close to death — are for­eign­ers liv­ing out­side the Unit­ed States, which means it would be more dif­fi­cult for the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment to pro­tect them from threats. The CIA has also with­held infor­ma­tion in the doc­u­ments that iden­ti­fies the loca­tion of CIA sta­tions and safe­hous­es abroad, includ­ing sev­er­al that have been in use con­tin­u­ous­ly since Kennedy’s death in 1963.

    The Archives cor­re­spon­dence shows that, while much of the still-clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion is only indi­rect­ly relat­ed to the assas­si­na­tion, some of it comes direct­ly from the FBI’s “main inves­tiga­tive case files” about the president’s mur­der. That includes the all-impor­tant case files on Lee Har­vey Oswald, Kennedy’s assas­sin, and Jack Ruby, the Dal­las strip-club own­er who mur­dered Oswald two days after Kennedy’s death.

    The Archives paper­work shows that the FBI and Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion have fought par­tic­u­lar­ly hard to pro­tect the iden­ti­ty of infor­mants in orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions — an argu­ment that will intrigue con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists who believe the Mafia was behind Kennedy’s death. Many assas­si­na­tion researchers argue that the assas­si­na­tion was blow­back for the so-called war on orga­nized crime waged by the president’s broth­er, then-Attor­ney Gen­er­al Robert Kennedy.

    In fact, the cor­re­spon­dence shows the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of the doc­u­ments that the FBI has with­held from the pub­lic in recent years some­how involved orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions. Of the near­ly 7,500 doc­u­ments that the FBI kept clas­si­fied at the time of the 2017 dead­line, 6,000 were from “var­i­ous files of mem­bers of orga­nized crime or La Cosa Nos­tra.”

    The DEA made a spe­cial plea to black out the names of six con­fi­den­tial infor­mants iden­ti­fied in assas­si­na­tion-relat­ed files involv­ing orga­nized-crime inves­ti­ga­tions: “Giv­en the well-doc­u­ment­ed propen­si­ty for vio­lence by the Mafia, it is rea­son­able to expect the indi­vid­u­als, if alive, remain in sig­nif­i­cant dan­ger of retal­i­a­tion for their assis­tance,” the agency said in a 2018 let­ter to the Archives.
    ...

    Final­ly, there’s the lat­est promise to final­ly get all these remain­ing doc­u­ments declas­si­fied. Decem­ber 15 is the next due date. But it sounds like the exact same excus­es that pre­vent­ed the release of these doc­u­ments could still apply:

    ...
    Last year, Pres­i­dent Joe Biden ordered anoth­er review of the doc­u­ments to allow more to be made pub­lic this Decem­ber. Offi­cials involved in the declas­si­fi­ca­tion process say they are opti­mistic that a large batch of doc­u­ments will be made pub­lic next month.

    ...

    Under the 1992 law, only the sit­ting pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States has the pow­er to with­hold doc­u­ments beyond the 2017 dead­line, which means the pow­er now rests entire­ly with Pres­i­dent Biden. Last Octo­ber, Biden ordered the archives to begin a com­pre­hen­sive review of the still-clas­si­fied records, with a goal of releas­ing as many as pos­si­ble by a new dead­line of this Dec. 15.

    But his writ­ten order dis­ap­point­ed many his­to­ri­ans and assas­si­na­tion researchers since Biden, like Trump, left open the pos­si­bil­i­ty that some doc­u­ments will remain clas­si­fied for­ev­er. Biden’s order, draw­ing on the word­ing of the 1992 law, said he would allow doc­u­ments to be with­held if their release might do “iden­ti­fi­able harm” to “mil­i­tary defense, intel­li­gence oper­a­tions, law enforce­ment, or the con­di­tion of for­eign rela­tions that is of such grav­i­ty that it out­weighs the pub­lic inter­est in dis­clo­sure.”

    The Nation­al Archives said in a state­ment to POLITICO Mag­a­zine that it had recent­ly com­plet­ed its review of the still-clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al and pro­vid­ed its rec­om­men­da­tions to Pres­i­dent Biden about which doc­u­ments should be released on Dec. 15.

    Bosanko, the Archives offi­cial over­see­ing the project, said in an inter­view that the recent inter­a­gency review of the JFK doc­u­ments had been the most inten­sive in decades, involv­ing a page-to-page inspec­tion, with the CIA, FBI and oth­er agen­cies pressed to jus­ti­fy why any infor­ma­tion — includ­ing indi­vid­ual names and address­es — should con­tin­ue to be with­held from the pub­lic: “We looked at every sin­gle redac­tion in these doc­u­ments.” He said his team is con­tin­u­ing to nego­ti­ate with the CIA and oth­er agen­cies this month in hopes of con­vinc­ing them — before the Dec. 15 dead­line set by the White House — to lift their oppo­si­tion to releas­ing some of the still-clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al.

    ...

    And no mat­ter what Biden decides, about 500 doc­u­ments and oth­er items in the col­lec­tion will remain secret, since the 1992 law exempts them from pub­lic release. Among them are doc­u­ments pro­duced by fed­er­al grand juries and by the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice, includ­ing the tax and employ­ment records of Oswald, Ruby and many of their asso­ciates.
    ...

    So are they wait­ing for every­one involved to have passed? Or wait­ing for democ­ra­cy and any form of pub­lic account­abil­i­ty to have passed? Either way, we’ll see how many doc­u­ments are indeed released next month. And how many new excus­es get deployed but why it is once again a major dis­ap­point­ment. A very guilty-look­ing major dis­ap­point­ment.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 22, 2022, 4:30 pm
  2. Time flies when you’re hav­ing fun. Less so when cov­er­ing up. And yet there’s no deny­ing the grim real­i­ty: it’s been a wild­ly suc­cess­ful cov­er up. 60 years and count­ing. Who knows how much longer it will go, but it does indeed appear that there will be no hon­est pub­lic account­ing of the John F. Kennedy assas­si­na­tion while any of the fig­ures involved are still alive. EVERYONE is going to be LONG dead before the truth is allowed to come out. Assum­ing that ever hap­pens.

    Recall how Con­gress passed a law in 1992 man­dat­ing a release of gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments on the assas­si­na­tion by 2017, a dead­line that has been pushed back on by both the Trump and Biden admin­is­tra­tions, result­ing in thou­sands of doc­u­ments still held back by the gov­ern­ment.

    So with the bla­tant cov­er up of this sem­i­nal event on track to con­tin­ue indef­i­nite­ly, here’s a piece in The Inde­pen­dent that con­tains a fun fact that the US pub­lic real­ly should be more and more aware of as the years tick by and the cov­er up con­tin­ues: a recent Gallup poll found hat 65 per cent of US adults think Oswald worked with oth­ers to elim­i­nate Kennedy, while 29 per cent believe he was sole­ly respon­si­ble. And that’s just this year’s poll. Gallup has been con­duct­ing that poll since 1963, and if you look at that his­to­ry of polling there has NEVER been a point where a major­i­ty of US adults did­n’t sus­pect a broad­er con­spir­a­cy. It’s anoth­er part of this over­all sto­ry that could only emerge slow­ly over time, but here it is: the JFK assas­si­na­tion cov­er up has effec­tive­ly been car­ried out in the face of a skep­ti­cal pub­lic the entire time.

    But then there’s the oth­er side of this sto­ry: it’s not like the US pub­lic has real­ly pri­or­i­tized this issue. Sim­ply answer­ing a poll­ster’s ques­tion the same as actu­al­ly car­ing or doing some­thing about it. It’s been 60 years of pub­lic sus­pi­cions, but extra­or­di­nar­i­ly pas­sive pub­lic sus­pi­cions. The kind of extreme­ly vague sus­pi­cions a large­ly dis­en­gaged pub­lic can’t real­ly artic­u­late or act upon.

    With the 60th Anniver­sary of that dark day upon us with the in-your-face gov­ern­ment cov­er up still very bla­tant­ly intact, it’s hard to think about what more there is to say about this sto­ry. It hap­pened, it was bla­tant­ly cov­ered up, that cov­er up is still in place, and while sus­pi­cions remain to this day no one actu­al­ly cares. That’s the JFK assas­si­na­tion sto­ry in 2023: the extra­or­di­nary pas­siv­i­ty of the US pub­lic in the face of 6 decades of bla­tant cov­er up. Two gen­er­a­tions now of Amer­i­cans sus­pect­ing some sort of big con­spir­a­cy sur­round­ing the assas­si­na­tion of JFK, but not actu­al­ly car­ing enough to do real­ly any­thing about it:

    The Inde­pen­dent

    JFK: 60 years on from assas­si­na­tion, what do we know and what remains a mys­tery?

    Fas­ci­na­tion with unan­swered ques­tions over the fourth pres­i­den­tial assas­si­na­tion per­sists, writes Graeme Massie

    11/22/2023

    When John F Kennedy became the fourth sit­ting US pres­i­dent to be assas­si­nat­ed, at the hands of a gun­man, in Texas 60 years ago, the coun­try was left stunned and heart­bro­ken.

    The hand­some and charis­mat­ic New Eng­lan­der was shot dead in Dal­las, Texas, on 22 Novem­ber 1963, join­ing an infa­mous list that includes Abra­ham Lin­coln, James Garfield and William McKin­ley.

    Lin­coln was shot in April 1865 by actor John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s The­ater in Wash­ing­ton DC, five days after the sur­ren­der of Con­fed­er­ate Gen­er­al Robert E Lee, in an attempt to dis­rupt the Union and save the Con­fed­er­a­cy. Garfield was shot in July 1881 by Charles Gui­teau at a Wash­ing­ton DC train sta­tion, after the pres­i­dent refused to appoint him to a diplo­mat­ic post. Garfield died from his injuries sev­er­al months lat­er in Sep­tem­ber 1881.

    McKin­ley was shot twice in the chest by anar­chist Leon Czol­go­sz in Buf­fa­lo in 1901 with his attack­er claim­ing the pres­i­dent was the head of a cor­rupt gov­ern­ment. He died of a gan­grene infec­tion weeks lat­er.

    But the moti­va­tion for the killing of JFK, which the FBI and the War­ren Com­mis­sion con­clud­ed was car­ried out by lone assas­sin Lee Har­vey Oswald, has always remained unclear spark­ing a debate that has raged for decades.

    Here is what we know about the slay­ing of Pres­i­dent John F Kennedy.

    Why was JFK in Texas?

    Pres­i­dent Kennedy and first lady Jacque­line Kennedy had trav­elled to Texas as part of a cam­paign to uni­fy the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty and kick off his 1964 re-elec­tion bid.

    The cou­ple spent 21 Novem­ber in San Anto­nio, Hous­ton and Fort Worth, fly­ing to Dal­las Love Field on Air Force One the next day.

    The pres­i­dent and first lady were col­lect­ed by a con­vert­ible Lin­coln Con­ti­nen­tal that would take them, along with Texas Gov­er­nor John Con­nal­ly, through the streets of down­town Dal­las on his way to give a speech at the Trade Mart at 12.30pm.

    Gun­shots ring out

    As the lim­ou­sine pulled into Dealey Plaza, Texas’s first lady Nel­lie Con­nal­ly turned to Kennedy and remarked on the size of the crowds, say­ing “Mr Pres­i­dent, you can’t say Dal­las doesn’t love you.”

    ...

    The offi­cial ver­sion of what hap­pened is that Kennedy was hit by two bul­lets from above and behind, one in the back of the neck, exit­ing through his throat before hit­ting Gov Con­nal­ly, who was seri­ous­ly wound­ed but sur­vived the attack. The oth­er bul­let struck the pres­i­dent in the head.

    Secret Ser­vice agent Clint Hill jumped on top of the limo and cov­ered the first lady and the pres­i­dent. The motor­cade then rushed to Park­land Hos­pi­tal. Thir­ty min­utes lat­er the pres­i­dent was dead.

    ...

    The arrest of Lee Har­vey Oswald

    For­mer Marine Lee Har­vey Oswald, who had spent time in the Sovi­et Union, was arrest­ed for the mur­der in a movie the­atre less than an hour after the shoot­ing after also killing Dal­las police offi­cer JD Tip­pit.

    Two days lat­er, as Oswald was moved through the base­ment of the Dal­las Police Depart­ment head­quar­ters live on tele­vi­sion, he was shot and killed by local night­club own­er Jack Ruby.

    Ruby was con­vict­ed of killing Oswald and sen­tenced to death but he appealed and died of can­cer in 1967, before the retri­al could take place.

    FBI and War­ren Com­mis­sion

    Fol­low­ing the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion the FBI car­ried out some 25,000 inter­views and chased down thou­sands of leads, before con­clud­ing that Oswald act­ed alone.

    The War­ren Com­mis­sion, set up by Pres­i­dent John­son to inves­ti­gate the killing, spent a year prob­ing the assas­si­na­tion and in its 889-page final report also con­clud­ed that Oswald had act­ed alone.

    The report con­firmed that there was “no evi­dence” that Oswald or Ruby were part of a domes­tic con­spir­a­cy to kill Kennedy, or that a for­eign gov­ern­ment had planned and car­ried out the attack.

    It did note that Oswald had trav­elled to the Sovi­et Union in 1959, unsuc­cess­ful­ly applied for Sovi­et cit­i­zen­ship, and lived there until 1962. The report also stat­ed that Oswald, a Marx­ist, had vis­it­ed the Russ­ian and Cuban embassies in Mex­i­co City in Sep­tem­ber 1963, months before the shoot­ing.

    Con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists have ques­tioned the rea­son for Oswald’s vis­it to the embassies and whether or not he had con­tact with intel­li­gence offi­cials there.

    How­ev­er, the report ulti­mate­ly did not give a con­clu­sive motive for why Oswald had shot and killed Kennedy.

    “The expla­na­tion of Oswald’s motive for killing Pres­i­dent Kennedy was buried with him,” TIME wrote in 1964.

    Con­spir­a­cies and Zaprud­er film

    Debate and con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries have raged about the assas­si­na­tion over the last six decades, with thou­sands of books, movies, TV shows and pod­casts ded­i­cat­ed to what hap­pened and the mys­ter­ies that may remain.

    Accord­ing to a Gallup poll ear­li­er this month a major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans believe that Oswald did not act alone on 22 Novem­ber 2023 and that oth­ers were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy.

    The poll found that 65 per cent of US adults think Oswald worked with oth­ers to elim­i­nate Kennedy, while 29 per cent believe he was sole­ly respon­si­ble.

    Gallup first asked Amer­i­cans the same ques­tion imme­di­ate­ly after the killing and found that 52 per cent of peo­ple believed there was “some group or ele­ment” oth­er than Oswald involved. It found that 29 per cent believed he act­ed alone, while 19 per cent were unsure.

    One rea­son why con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries in the case have remained con­sis­tent could be that the gov­ern­ment has nev­er released all its files. It was sup­posed to have been com­plet­ed by 2017 but that date has been pushed back dur­ing both the Trump and Biden admin­is­tra­tions.

    The War­ren Com­mis­sion did not rely on X‑rays of Kennedy or pho­tos of the autop­sy, say­ing that pub­li­ca­tion of that mate­r­i­al would be an inva­sion of the Kennedy family’s pri­va­cy.

    The Nation­al Archives report on the assas­si­na­tion states that “the secre­cy that sur­round­ed the autop­sy pro­ceed­ings, there­fore, has led to con­sid­er­able skep­ti­cism towards the Commission’s find­ings.”

    Adding to that sense of doubt is a film of the assas­si­na­tion tak­en by ama­teur pho­tog­ra­ph­er Abra­ham Zaprud­er. In his video, Kennedy’s head appears to be thrown back­wards, sug­gest­ing that a bul­let hit the front of his head. Con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists have claimed that the bul­let could have been fired by a sec­ond gun­man posi­tioned on a grassy knoll near­by.

    Two oth­er gov­ern­ment pan­els, a team of foren­sic pathol­o­gists in 1968 and the Com­mis­sion on CIA Activ­i­ties With­in the Unit­ed States in 1975, both agreed that Kennedy was struck by two bul­lets from behind.

    Mean­while, 2024 pres­i­den­tial hope­ful Robert Kennedy Jr – a nephew of JFK and son of Robert F Kennedy, who was him­self assas­si­nat­ed in Los Ange­les in 1968 while run­ning for pres­i­dent – backs a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry that the CIA was respon­si­ble for the killing of his uncle, call­ing the evi­dence “over­whelm­ing.”

    “There is over­whelm­ing evi­dence that the CIA was involved in his mur­der,” Mr Kennedy said in a May inter­view with John Cat­si­ma­tidis on New York City radio sta­tion WABC 770. “I think it’s beyond a rea­son­able doubt at this point.”

    Mr Kennedy went on to sug­gest that the killing was car­ried out because the pres­i­dent had refused to com­mit US troops to Viet­nam.

    “When my uncle was pres­i­dent, he was sur­round­ed by a mil­i­tary-indus­tri­al com­plex and intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus that was con­stant­ly try­ing to get him to go to war in Laos, Viet­nam, etc,” Mr Kennedy said. “He refused. He said that the job of the Amer­i­can pres­i­den­cy is to keep the nation out of war.”

    The House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions said in a 1979 report that it was prob­a­ble that two gun­men fired at Kennedy and that he was like­ly assas­si­nat­ed because of a con­spir­a­cy. How­ev­er, it could not iden­ti­fy the sec­ond gun­man or give any real details on what the con­spir­a­cy was.

    John McCone, who was CIA direc­tor when Kennedy was assas­si­nat­ed, tes­ti­fied to the com­mit­tee that despite con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries Oswald was not a CIA agent and that the agency had nev­er com­mu­ni­cat­ed with him.

    But of course, with Oswald’s assas­si­na­tion by Ruby, he could nev­er be put on tri­al or tell a jury exact­ly why he had car­ried out the killing.

    Secret Ser­vice agent reveals new detail in book

    On 22 Novem­ber 1963, Paul Lan­dis was a 28-year-old Secret Ser­vice agent rid­ing in the car direct­ly behind the president’s lim­ou­sine. He was assigned to pro­tect the first lady.

    In a new book Mr Lan­dis, now 88, says that he found an intact bul­let next to the first lady, which he col­lect­ed and left on the president’s stretch­er but nev­er told the War­ren Com­mis­sion about because of the trau­ma he suf­fered. He does not believe there was a sec­ond shoot­er.

    “I reached over and took her by the shoul­ders and tried to help her up, but she was lean­ing over the president’s head, cov­er­ing his head,” he told Pittsburgh’s Action News in an inter­view to mark the 60th anniver­sary.

    He accom­pa­nied Kennedy to the hos­pi­tal, where he remem­bered “every­body was push­ing and shov­ing and scream­ing.”

    And he recalled: “I got wedged up against the exam table where they had removed the president’s body.”

    While the new descrip­tion of the bul­let is a small detail, Mr Landis’s account dif­fers from the offi­cial account of the shoot­ing, which says that the bul­let was found on Gov Connally’s stretch­er. The new claim chal­lenges the idea of a “mag­ic bul­let” hit­ting Kennedy, then hit­ting Con­nal­ly and adding anoth­er lay­er of mys­tery to the events.

    Mr Lan­dis thinks that the bul­let may have been under­charged and hit Kennedy in the back before pop­ping out and com­ing to rest in the lim­ou­sine, where he found it.

    His new book, The Final Wit­ness, was pub­lished by Chica­go Review Press last month.

    “There’s no goal at this point,” he said in an inter­view before its pub­li­ca­tion. “I just think it had been long enough that I need­ed to tell my sto­ry.”

    Mr Landis’s new account has drawn scep­ti­cism from oth­ers who were there that day, includ­ing his col­league Clint Hill.

    “If he checked all the evi­dence, state­ments, things that hap­pened, they don’t line up,” Mr Hill told NBC News. “It doesn’t make any sense to me that he’s try­ing to put it on the president’s gur­ney.”

    ————

    “JFK: 60 years on from assas­si­na­tion, what do we know and what remains a mys­tery?” by Graeme Massie; The Inde­pen­dent; 11/22/2023

    “One rea­son why con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries in the case have remained con­sis­tent could be that the gov­ern­ment has nev­er released all its files. It was sup­posed to have been com­plet­ed by 2017 but that date has been pushed back dur­ing both the Trump and Biden admin­is­tra­tions.”

    A con­sis­tent refusal to release the doc­u­ments the law man­dates be released. Gee, might that have some­thing to do with per­sis­tence of all the ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries’ around this event? Both Trump and Biden refused to release them all. Of course, this refusal to release all the doc­u­ments is a rel­a­tive­ly new rea­son for sus­pi­cions since that release dead­line was only 6 years ago in 2017, 54 years after the assas­si­na­tion. But it’s been six years now of delays and push­backs. It’s the kind of sit­u­a­tion that would beg the ques­tion “What is the gov­ern­ment hid­ing?”, if we already weren’t inun­dat­ed with decades of evi­dence point­ing towards a mas­sive cov­er up. Evi­dence that now includes Secret Ser­vice agent Paul Lan­dis­’s recount­ing of events that fur­ther under­cuts the absurd ‘mag­ic bul­let’ nar­ra­tive that remains the offi­cial nar­ra­tive to this day. Recall how Lan­dis­’s account is backed up by the rec­ol­lec­tions nurse Phyl­lis Hall pub­licly shared in 2013. The more time pass­es, the more evi­dence and insights gained, the more a pic­ture has emerged of a gross cov­er up that remains in place to this day:

    ...
    The War­ren Com­mis­sion did not rely on X‑rays of Kennedy or pho­tos of the autop­sy, say­ing that pub­li­ca­tion of that mate­r­i­al would be an inva­sion of the Kennedy family’s pri­va­cy.

    The Nation­al Archives report on the assas­si­na­tion states that “the secre­cy that sur­round­ed the autop­sy pro­ceed­ings, there­fore, has led to con­sid­er­able skep­ti­cism towards the Commission’s find­ings.”

    Adding to that sense of doubt is a film of the assas­si­na­tion tak­en by ama­teur pho­tog­ra­ph­er Abra­ham Zaprud­er. In his video, Kennedy’s head appears to be thrown back­wards, sug­gest­ing that a bul­let hit the front of his head. Con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists have claimed that the bul­let could have been fired by a sec­ond gun­man posi­tioned on a grassy knoll near­by.

    ...

    The House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions said in a 1979 report that it was prob­a­ble that two gun­men fired at Kennedy and that he was like­ly assas­si­nat­ed because of a con­spir­a­cy. How­ev­er, it could not iden­ti­fy the sec­ond gun­man or give any real details on what the con­spir­a­cy was.

    ...

    On 22 Novem­ber 1963, Paul Lan­dis was a 28-year-old Secret Ser­vice agent rid­ing in the car direct­ly behind the president’s lim­ou­sine. He was assigned to pro­tect the first lady.

    In a new book Mr Lan­dis, now 88, says that he found an intact bul­let next to the first lady, which he col­lect­ed and left on the president’s stretch­er but nev­er told the War­ren Com­mis­sion about because of the trau­ma he suf­fered. He does not believe there was a sec­ond shoot­er.

    “I reached over and took her by the shoul­ders and tried to help her up, but she was lean­ing over the president’s head, cov­er­ing his head,” he told Pittsburgh’s Action News in an inter­view to mark the 60th anniver­sary.

    He accom­pa­nied Kennedy to the hos­pi­tal, where he remem­bered “every­body was push­ing and shov­ing and scream­ing.”

    And he recalled: “I got wedged up against the exam table where they had removed the president’s body.”

    While the new descrip­tion of the bul­let is a small detail, Mr Landis’s account dif­fers from the offi­cial account of the shoot­ing, which says that the bul­let was found on Gov Connally’s stretch­er. The new claim chal­lenges the idea of a “mag­ic bul­let” hit­ting Kennedy, then hit­ting Con­nal­ly and adding anoth­er lay­er of mys­tery to the events.
    ...

    So with the 60 years now hav­ing past, and the offi­cial cov­er up still very much intact, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that it isn’t sim­ply the case that 65 per­cent of US adults sus­pect there was a broad­er con­spir­a­cy. Take a look at Gallup polling going back to 1963 and you’ll find that a major­i­ty of US adults has NEVER believed the offi­cial sto­ry. it’s a part of this that only grows more and more promi­nent as the decades tick by: the cov­er up was exe­cut­ed in the face of over­whelm­ing pub­lic sus­pi­cion. For 60 years now. And with no appar­ent end in sight. The end was sup­posed to be the 2017 dead­line for the release of all those doc­u­ments but that obvi­ous­ly isn’t hap­pen­ing

    ...
    Accord­ing to a Gallup poll ear­li­er this month a major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans believe that Oswald did not act alone on 22 Novem­ber 2023 and that oth­ers were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy.

    The poll found that 65 per cent of US adults think Oswald worked with oth­ers to elim­i­nate Kennedy, while 29 per cent believe he was sole­ly respon­si­ble.

    Gallup first asked Amer­i­cans the same ques­tion imme­di­ate­ly after the killing and found that 52 per cent of peo­ple believed there was “some group or ele­ment” oth­er than Oswald involved. It found that 29 per cent believed he act­ed alone, while 19 per cent were unsure.
    ...

    Of course, while the US pub­lic may have har­bored sus­pi­cions about the nature of the assas­si­na­tion plot this whole time, you can’t real­ly argue the pub­lic did much about it. Out­side of a few fig­ures on the fringes, there’s almost no real inter­est of con­cern about the long-term impli­ca­tions of a suc­cess­ful con­spir­a­cy to kill a pres­i­dent and then cov­er up it.

    So while the world in 2023 may seem like it’s com­ing apart at the seems, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that the world in 2023 has very much been shaped by the pow­er­ful forces who exe­cut­ed that assas­si­na­tion and man­aged to main­tain such a deep grip on pow­er that we still can’t talk about them 60 years lat­er. It’s their world and we’re just pas­sive­ly liv­ing in it.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 22, 2023, 5:33 pm

Post a comment