Barr Book: LBJ killed JFK
Deb Bert
Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.²
However, in his book Barr simply states that LBJ killed JFK--just as the
title says.
Can he back up this claim? You bet, as "They" say in Montana. And he does
so most convincingly.
Barr has nothing to gain with these disclosures--except possibly an
indictment for himself. Barr worked for the law firm that represented LBJ
in all of Johnson's legal matters, criminal and otherwise. Barr did conceal
valuable information about LBJ's murders and other criminal acts. In Barr's
defense, he didn't know about it until late in the game; he was not even
brought into the firm until after the assassination.
Barr has turned all of information over the the Edward Kennedy family.
He's also turned it over to the feds--as if they will do anything.
He sought independent finger print analysis on the unidentified 6th floor
print and the match is positive--Mac Wallace. The feds did their own test
and a full report is unavailable. Barr then went outside the country and
got independent tests from the French--they confirm a positive
identification with Mac Wallace.
Barr gives the complete story as no one else can. He names names, places,
dates, events. He lays out the entire history of LBJ and his lawyer, Ed
Clark and shows how the two men defrauded our government in every way they
could imagine. Mac Wallace became a partner after he murdered for Clark and
LBJ, and it was Mac Wallace who became one of the assassins of JFK.
One source claims Clark and LBJ are directly responsible for 11 murders.
Barr counts 19.
This book is dynamite and *should* blow the lid off the JFK assassination
once and for all. But will it? What *should* happen and what *does* happen
in our government rarely meet eye to eye.
There are couple of down sides on the book. One is that Barr should have
deal more effectively with his extreme hatred for Ed Clark before wrote the
book. However, it does not diminish the over-all veracity of the
information communicated. It just gets in the way once in awhile.
Another fault is the editing. Barr needed a competent editor. The book
lacks the fine eye for detail--sentences start in one manner and conclude in
another. A re-reading of the sentence usually indicates what Barr meant to
say, but an editor should have managed to get rid of that type of thing.
There are also redundancies. Lots of 'em. Lots and lots of 'em. Did I say
it repeats itself? He says things over and over. Again. And then he
visits that territory again. Get the idea? :-(
The book holds interesting insights into **New York.** And into Mac
Wallace's entire life. We get the whole picture here--and I could not help
feeling sorry for the guy. He had a bright future, and he blew it. Such a
waste of talent.
Barr also sheds new light on the "party" the night before the assassination.
It wasn't as much a "party" as it was a "smoker." An informal gathering of
the lynch mob. Barr doesn't narrate a guest list. He just mentions it
almost in passing. He doesn't state that everyone there knew what was going
to happen. He paints a convincing portrait, however, of a group joined by
mutual hate.
As far as the assassination itself goes, McClellan doesn't get into a lot of
details. Instead, he follows the money and the motives. He sets the scene
up. McClellan knows the behind the scenes details--not the nitty-gritty of
who shot from where and what the trajectory of the shot was.
He doesn't need all this stuff because we have an honest depiction of what
led up to the shooting and what happened as aftermath.
He devotes an entire chapter of LBJ's psychological fallout of the event.
Perhaps a more giving person might pity LBJ; I, however, find him pathetic
and despicable. There is and should never be redemption for LBJ.
My advice--get the book, if you can find it. Read it. Ignore the editing
problems and try (hard as it might be) to forgive the redundancies. (He's a
lawyer, after all...) And see how it fits into the different scenarios and
perhaps all of you magnificent investigators can fill in all the blanks and
get this puzzle put together once and for all.
Then we can all burn our paperback copies of "The Warren Commission Report,"
but save the hard cover to remind us what pure evil the pursuit of power
inspires.
Oh--and for those of you perhaps teaching courses on the absolute truth of
the WCR...well, read it and weep.
--Deb
CurtJester
> I'm not completely finished with Barr McClellan's book, ³Blood, Money &
> Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.²
>
> However, in his book Barr simply states that LBJ killed JFK--just as the
> title says.
So, is he saying that LBJ was the mastermind and stumped the bloc of
necessary people to complete and cover-up the deed?
I am always curious when this party pops up. Usually we get an
arms-up-in-the-air when we get an earshot of Madeleine Brown's version
of the blockbuster party list. It's hard to understand why he would
just say it in passing, and yet describe the atmosphere as "mutual
hate". What in the would he want to hold back? I am curious also, if
anyone besides Madeleine Brown has tried to pindown the happenings of
that party?
>
> As far as the assassination itself goes, McClellan doesn't get into a lot of
> details. Instead, he follows the money and the motives. He sets the scene
> up. McClellan knows the behind the scenes details--not the nitty-gritty of
> who shot from where and what the trajectory of the shot was.
Does he attempt to follow how Wallace might have left the TSBD and
what escape plan/route and sightings of him in the area after shooting
might be connected? Does he attempt to tie in Oswald and Ruby as
players at all?
>
> He doesn't need all this stuff because we have an honest depiction of what
> led up to the shooting and what happened as aftermath.
>
> He devotes an entire chapter of LBJ's psychological fallout of the event.
> Perhaps a more giving person might pity LBJ; I, however, find him pathetic
> and despicable. There is and should never be redemption for LBJ.
>
> My advice--get the book, if you can find it. Read it. Ignore the editing
> problems and try (hard as it might be) to forgive the redundancies. (He's a
> lawyer, after all...) And see how it fits into the different scenarios and
> perhaps all of you magnificent investigators can fill in all the blanks and
> get this puzzle put together once and for all.
>
> Then we can all burn our paperback copies of "The Warren Commission Report,"
> but save the hard cover to remind us what pure evil the pursuit of power
> inspires.
>
> Oh--and for those of you perhaps teaching courses on the absolute truth of
> the WCR...well, read it and weep.
>
> --Deb
Thank, CJ
Peter R. Whitmey
>>I have requested that the Fraser Valley Regional Library which
covers my area purchase it, and hopefully Vancouver Public Libary will
do so, as well as possibly nearby Whatcom County in Washington state.
Does Barr explain how Oswald was set up? This is very important and
can't be glossed over. The conspirators had to either involve Oswald
(maybe by making believe that Connally was the target whom he hated,
along with his old buddy, Fred Korth, who had represented Oswald's
stepfather in divorce proceedings back in 1948) or hope that he showed
up for work that day, so he could be blamed. - Peter R. Whitmey
Paul Seaton
"Peter R. Whitmey" <prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:945b9736.03101...@posting.google.com...
> or hope that he showed
> up for work that day, so he could be blamed.
Not just showed up.
Had to be sure he wouldn't be standing out in front of the TSBD with ten
other guys from the TSBD at 12.30, for eg.
Had to be sure no-one could give him an alibi.
Or did 'they' ( yes it's 'them' again..) just trust to fate that he'd take
it into his head to go hide when JFK passed by?
Paul Seaton
Deb Bert
945b9736.03101...@posting.google.com, "Peter R. Whitmey"
<prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Peter!
Barr's treatment of the actual assassination scenario is scant. He holds
himself to the standard that anything that he cannot independently verify,
isn't in the book. (Which I appreciate.) But the scenario he sketches
out includes Oswald, barely. Mac Wallace contacts Oswald via
recommendations from the lawyers. Korth is in the book.
Oswald is painted as a contributing patsy--not sure I understand that
concept, except it's clear to McClellan that Oswald was meant to take the
fall as the one assassin.
The outline of the actual assassination itself is definitely not a high
point for this book.
It's strong points are the portrayals of the Texas Good Old Boy Society,
the paths to power for both LBJ and Clark and how they fed off one
another, the murders and lies and deceit that got them where they wanted
to be, and the depiction of not only the Texas legal system--but also the
American legal system. It's a fascinating journey through the earlier
days of the 20th century that allowed for the Texas mentality that
accepted LBJ's kind of shenanigans.
It isn't so much an eye-opener for me as it is a verification that I *do*
see things correctly in Texas. Texas still operates on the Good Old Boy
System. They still tolerate political shenanigans (evidence our current
redistricting efforts by the GOP--special request from Bush and allies).
And this book shows how all that evolved.
I don't think you'll be disappointed in the book--but don't look for huge
revelations about Oswald's contributions.
--Deb :-)
Deb Bert
69f5d9c2.03101...@posting.google.com, "CurtJester"
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Deb Bert <deb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBB069F1.184C%deb...@cox.net>...
>> I'm not completely finished with Barr McClellan's book, ³Blood, Money &
>> Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.²
>>
>> However, in his book Barr simply states that LBJ killed JFK--just as the
>> title says.
>
> So, is he saying that LBJ was the mastermind and stumped the bloc of
> necessary people to complete and cover-up the deed?
No, Barr claims that Edward Clark, the owner of the law firm was the
mastermind. It's interesting to note that after the assassination when
LBJ took the reins of office, Ed Clark got appointed to an ambassadorship.
LBJ always paid his debts. Of course, LBJ needed to do his share of the
cover-up such as appointing the people who would judge the case. It was a
situation of appointing the judges to judge himself for LBJ. And of
course, all the other elements--CIA, FBI--were allowed to police
themselves as well, so the result was determined immediately--no
government problems, we have a lone assassin.
I'm not sure what your question is here... But the idea was that it was
an informal gathering at Murchison Jr's place. A social event that was
just for drinks and a smoke and what he refers to as "fun and games
later." Apparently Clark gave a short speech about how all their problems
were going to be handled. Nobody said JFK was going to be assassinated,
but everyone there got the idea that Texas was going to be takin' care of
bidnezz.
When groups get in a lynching mode, they don't think for themselves.
They plug their umbilical cords into that great brain in the ceiling and
get kooky. A kind of group dementia takes over.
Nobody took a vote or agreed to the assassination or took notes, or even
wanted details. For sure--nobody wanted details. To know too much was
dangerous.
But about the get-together itself, I am unsure of the source. I don't
know if McClellan is just taking Madeleine's word for it or if he was
there himself. (And it's too late to look it up, sorry.) :-/
>
>>
>> As far as the assassination itself goes, McClellan doesn't get into a lot of
>> details. Instead, he follows the money and the motives. He sets the scene
>> up. McClellan knows the behind the scenes details--not the nitty-gritty of
>> who shot from where and what the trajectory of the shot was.
>
> Does he attempt to follow how Wallace might have left the TSBD and
> what escape plan/route and sightings of him in the area after shooting
> might be connected?
Somewhat. It's sketchy, at best. But he talks about Wallace's escape and
drive out of town and back to CA.
> Does he attempt to tie in Oswald and Ruby as
> players at all?
Yes. But again, that's not the focus of the book. Barr works with what
he knows--the firm's motives, actions, and mentality. Barr is interested
in the legal maneuvers, the judges who were bought, the power behind the
power of the presidency. Oswald and Ruby are small players in this game.
Pretty insignificant, over-all. Yes-- there were shooters. There were at
least there. But who they were, where they were, what they did...those
are of little interest to Barr McClellan.
>
>>
>> He doesn't need all this stuff because we have an honest depiction of what
>> led up to the shooting and what happened as aftermath.
>>
>> He devotes an entire chapter of LBJ's psychological fallout of the event.
>> Perhaps a more giving person might pity LBJ; I, however, find him pathetic
>> and despicable. There is and should never be redemption for LBJ.
>>
>> My advice--get the book, if you can find it. Read it. Ignore the editing
>> problems and try (hard as it might be) to forgive the redundancies. (He's a
>> lawyer, after all...) And see how it fits into the different scenarios and
>> perhaps all of you magnificent investigators can fill in all the blanks and
>> get this puzzle put together once and for all.
>>
>> Then we can all burn our paperback copies of "The Warren Commission Report,"
>> but save the hard cover to remind us what pure evil the pursuit of power
>> inspires.
>>
>> Oh--and for those of you perhaps teaching courses on the absolute truth of
>> the WCR...well, read it and weep.
>>
>> --Deb
One of the more revealing things is that Barr tells us where we can find
all the evidence--everything we all want to know--who was paid what and
when. The money trail is all in Ed Clark's files, locked away in the
Penthouse of his former office building.
If I were the FBI--I'd be getting those files right now.
But you know, in all fairness--I don't think the FBI should have any
access to those files whatsoever. I think if we want a fair and unbiased
committee, we should have a committee appointed of JFK assassination
researchers who have been involved with this for at least 20 years--from
both sides--pro conspiracy and against conspiracy. It could be made of
lawyers, medical people, PhDs, and ordinary men and women who are
concerned with finding the truth.
I believe that the files should be protected--right where they are--not
moved anywhere. And that this group and this group only should go about
studying them in an organized, rational manner.
Only that way is anybody ever going to believe that the truth has been
revealed. And if it's not there--then we would know that the government
didn't lock it away...in area 51...with little alien bodies...or whatever.
;-)
But I do sincerely believe that if those records are where Barr claims
they are, the best approach would be for a committee of the people to
examine them and report and let the chips fall where they may!
IMO
--Deb--You're welcome! :-)
Stugrad98
>Had to be sure he wouldn't be standing out in front of the TSBD with ten
>other guys from the TSBD at 12.30, for eg.
>Had to be sure no-one could give him an alibi.
>Or did 'they' ( yes it's 'them' again..) just trust to fate that he'd take
>it into his head to go hide when JFK passed by?
>
>Paul Seaton
Why are we assuming that Barr thinks that Oswald was a totally unwitting
patsy?
Why couldn't Oswald be a witting member of a conspiracy? Then all of
what you describe above falls to pieces logically.
-Stu
Deb Bert
<paulNOSP...@breathemail.net> wrote:
As I understand it, McClellan claims that Oswald was a witting participant
in that Oswald was contacted by Wallace to participate in the assassination.
Frankly, I don't think Barr knows for sure who Wallace contacted, what he
said to Oswald, etc.
I think that due to the vagueness of Barr's account of the assassination
that he's taken the scenario that he thinks works the best, but that Barr
actually doesn't know who the shooters were except for Wallace--and perhaps
he's taking the "evidence" that the WC used to connect Oswald.
Footnoting is definitely not one of McClellan's strong points, which is why
I wish he would have had a really good editor working with him.
He makes a convincing case against Ed Clark and LBJ and many of their
associates (like Mac Wallace) and otherwise, but he doesn't really make any
case for Oswald's guilt or innocence. But then--he does claim that Oswald
was indeed a patsy. ???
Confusing? Yeah--a bit.
McClellan is working on two more books that may shed more light on all this,
hopefully.
He actually makes a stronger case for Charles Harrelson as being one of the
assassins without ever mentioning Harrelson's name. He says they used
former convicts in most of their dirty deeds--which would make a great deal
of sense. For instance, if they talk--who's going to believe them?
It's like when Harrelson confessed to murdering the federal judge and
JFK--nobody cared to believe that he murdered JFK, but it was OK if he
wanted to confess to the judge's wacking. People listen selcetively to
ex-cons. Also, they're easy to put back in prison to shut them up because
they can talk to other cons all they want, but there's no other ready
audience except jailers and they don't trust what the cons say. And, if
they talk to much, they can always "hang themselves" in jail.
:-/
I'm enjoying the book--mostly because of the vicious trashing he likes to
give LBJ at every opportunity. Good stuff. ;-)
--Deb
Paul Seaton
"Stugrad98" <stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031014214445...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Stu,
True enough, but what I was arguing with was the 'or' part of what Peter
wrote :
" The conspirators had to either involve Oswald
[..] or hope that he showed
up for work that day, so he could be blamed." - Peter R. Whitmey
I think we could cut that down to "The conspirators had to involve Oswald,
period".
Just hoping that he showed up for work that day 'so he could be blamed'
isn't going to work.
( Of course, LHO being up in the window firing the rifle would also explain
his unlikely absence..... and 40 years later we're still short of a
co-conspirator or two..)
Paul Seaton
>
> -Stu
CurtJester
As far as the party went I guess the thrust of my question would be
beyond the "fun and games" and the informalness of the gathering. I
just went through The Last Hurrah Bookstore looking for a Murchison
Party title I had thought I had seen before and couldn't find
anything. I did a search and came up with Penn Jones and a book by a
Wheaton Coward that offered a few tidbits. Penn Jones said the party
was thrown in honor of J.E. Hoover and had a party theme of "A Night
in Egypt" (I wonder who J. Edna's 'Cleopatra' was?..hehe).
I think some of the names I have heard in the past that were at the
party, would be very prominent in the potential assassination and
cover-up. LBJ, Hoover, and Mcloy, plus Jack Ruby bringing some girls
over later (according to M. Brown) would be to me standouts. I did
try to copy a page from W. Coward on some of the people at the party
and also ones that were at the Cabana Hotel the night before the
assassination. Curiosly he labels the Murchison Party, 'The Victory
Party'. Anyway, here is my attempted printing:
_________________________________________________
Assassination of JFK and the Warren Report Fraud
Â
Part Two - c
What Really Happened !
-- the Victory Party
... the night before the assassination
(It was called a victory party to celebrate
the coming murder of President Kennedy)
Â
CABANA MOTEL
21 November 1963
MURCHISON'S
HOME
Marita Lorenz
former Castro mistress and CIA affiliate
(left before assassination)
Â
H. L. Hunt
As Murchison was, Hunt was one of the wealthiest oilmen in Texas;
known to have taken Ruby to lunch in midtown hotel
Frank Sturgis
CIA contract agent; Watergate burglar
These persons stayed at or visited the Cabana on the eve of the
assassination.
<====
Lyndon Johnson
Vice President; associated with Mafia; afraid of being the first
President sent to jailE. Howard Hunt
CIA agent; Watergate burglar
These persons attended a party at the Murchison home that evening.
====>
J. Edgar Hoover
Head of FBI; associated with Mafia; close friend of LBJ; hated
KennedysOrlando Busch
Cuban exile leader; operation 40 member John McCloy
Chase Manhattan Bank; former Asst. Secy. of Defense; former Pres. of
World Bank; became member of Warren CommissionPedro D. Lanz
Cuban exile leader; Operation 40 member
LBJ said this to Madeleine Brown at the Murchison party:
"After tomorrow, it's the last time those goddam Kennedys will
embarrass me again."
Madeleine Brown
former LBJ mistress; on TV show 'A Current Affair', she said LBJ knew
about the assassination plans.Eugene Brading
ex-convict on parole; With Ruby, visited Lamar Hunt's offices day
before assassination; was in LA night Bobby Kennedy was killed George
Brown
Brown & Root construction firm; made immense wealth on Vietnam War
projectsRichard Nixon
creator of Operation 40; long-time association with Mafia; former VP
and future President of U.S.
Nixon was driven to the Murchison party by Peter O'Donnell.
<====>
Richard Nixon
creator of Operation 40; long-time association with Mafia; former VP
and future President of U.S.Jack Ruby
long-time ties with Mafia; gun runner for Cuban exiles; knew Oswald.
Also had ties with Dallas police Bruce Alger
former Texas Republican senatorLarry Meyer
Chicago Mafia and friend of Jack Ruby John Currington
former #1 aide to Hunt; after Oswald arrested, Hunt sent Ruby to
Police HQ to check on security. Received daily reports from
Washington on Warren Commission investigation; said LBJ was part of
conspiracy.And Others And Others
______________________________________________
Oooops....it didn't come out too well. One would have to type in 'The
Murchison Party' and click onto the first one down to get this much
more clearly.
CJ
Peter R. Whitmey
>>Thanks for the feedback, Deb. Since you are living in Texas, is
there much publicity in Texas papers, on tv, etc., especially given
the family connection to the new press secretary, and his ex-wife's
political connections and aspirations (to be governor apparently)? -
Peter
Deb Bert
69f5d9c2.03101...@posting.google.com, "CurtJester"
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote:
...
....
Interesting stuff there. "A Night in Egypt" is an interesting name for the
get-together. Didn't Ruby have an Egyptian room in his Carousel Club?
--Deb
Deb Bert
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Deb. Since you are living in Texas, is
> there much publicity in Texas papers, on tv, etc., especially given
> the family connection to the new press secretary, and his ex-wife's
> political connections and aspirations (to be governor apparently)? -
> Peter
>
None. Zero. Zip. Nada. At least not here in West Texas. (It's a
totally different country from East Texas and South Texas.) ;-)
None of the local bookstores are carrying it. They're still claiming it
hasn't been released yet.
There have been no special reports, no human interest, not even a murmur
or a burp on the local news. Denial is a strong Texas tradition. Ignore
it and it will go away.
--Deb
John McAdams
wrote:
>Deb Bert <deb...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<BBB224DF.1945%deb...@cox.net>...
>> On 10/13/03 10:55 PM, in article
>> 69f5d9c2.03101...@posting.google.com, "CurtJester"
>> <curtj...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what your question is here... But the idea was that it was
>> an informal gathering at Murchison Jr's place. A social event that was
>> just for drinks and a smoke and what he refers to as "fun and games
>> later." Apparently Clark gave a short speech about how all their problems
>> were going to be handled. Nobody said JFK was going to be assassinated,
>> but everyone there got the idea that Texas was going to be takin' care of
>> bidnezz.
>>
>> When groups get in a lynching mode, they don't think for themselves.
>> They plug their umbilical cords into that great brain in the ceiling and
>> get kooky. A kind of group dementia takes over.
>>
>> Nobody took a vote or agreed to the assassination or took notes, or even
>> wanted details. For sure--nobody wanted details. To know too much was
>> dangerous.
>>
>> But about the get-together itself, I am unsure of the source. I don't
>> know if McClellan is just taking Madeleine's word for it or if he was
>> there himself. (And it's too late to look it up, sorry.) :-/
>
Madeleine's word wouldn't count for much:
http://www.flash.net/~dperry2/brown.pdf
>As far as the party went I guess the thrust of my question would be
>beyond the "fun and games" and the informalness of the gathering. I
>just went through The Last Hurrah Bookstore looking for a Murchison
>Party title I had thought I had seen before and couldn't find
>anything. I did a search and came up with Penn Jones and a book by a
>Wheaton Coward that offered a few tidbits. Penn Jones said the party
>was thrown in honor of J.E. Hoover and had a party theme of "A Night
>in Egypt" (I wonder who J. Edna's 'Cleopatra' was?..hehe).
>
But J. Edgar Hoover wasn't in Texas that night. At least, he was in
Washington at 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the 22nd.
>I think some of the names I have heard in the past that were at the
>party, would be very prominent in the potential assassination and
>cover-up. LBJ,
Was at the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth.
>Hoover, and Mcloy, plus Jack Ruby bringing some girls
>over later (according to M. Brown)
But unfortunately, Ruby's whereabouts are thoroughly documented, and
at a party at the Murcheson's is not one of the places he was.
>would be to me standouts. I did
>try to copy a page from W. Coward on some of the people at the party
>and also ones that were at the Cabana Hotel the night before the
>assassination. Curiosly he labels the Murchison Party, 'The Victory
>Party'. Anyway, here is my attempted printing:
>_________________________________________________
>Assassination of JFK and the Warren Report Fraud
>Â
>Part Two - c
>
>What Really Happened !
>
>-- the Victory Party
>
>... the night before the assassination
>
>(It was called a victory party to celebrate
>the coming murder of President Kennedy)
>Â
>CABANA MOTEL
>
>21 November 1963
>
>MURCHISON'S
>
>HOME
>Marita Lorenz
>former Castro mistress and CIA affiliate
>(left before assassination)
>Â
LOL!
>H. L. Hunt
>As Murchison was, Hunt was one of the wealthiest oilmen in Texas;
>known to have taken Ruby to lunch in midtown hotel
>
Evidence for this?
>Frank Sturgis
>CIA contract agent; Watergate burglar
No to the former, yes to the latter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt_sturgis.htm
>These persons stayed at or visited the Cabana on the eve of the
>assassination.
>
><====
>Lyndon Johnson
>Vice President; associated with Mafia; afraid of being the first
>President sent to jailE.
Where are you getting this nonsense??!!
He was with the presidential party in Fort Worth.
>Howard Hunt
>CIA agent; Watergate burglar
>
Was in DC.
>These persons attended a party at the Murchison home that evening.
>
>====>
>J. Edgar Hoover
>Head of FBI; associated with Mafia; close friend of LBJ; hated
>Kennedys
Was in DC.
>Orlando Busch
>Cuban exile leader; operation 40 member John McCloy
>Chase Manhattan Bank; former Asst. Secy. of Defense; former Pres. of
>World Bank; became member of Warren CommissionPedro D. Lanz
>Cuban exile leader; Operation 40 member
>
Evidence?
>LBJ said this to Madeleine Brown at the Murchison party:
>"After tomorrow, it's the last time those goddam Kennedys will
>embarrass me again."
>Madeleine Brown
>former LBJ mistress; on TV show 'A Current Affair', she said LBJ knew
>about the assassination plans.
http://www.flash.net/~dperry2/brown.pdf
Do you think you can believe any nonsense you find on the Internet?
>Eugene Brading
>ex-convict on parole; With Ruby, visited Lamar Hunt's offices day
>before assassination; was in LA night Bobby Kennedy was killedÂ
Evidence?
>George
>Brown
>Brown & Root construction firm; made immense wealth on Vietnam War
>projects
Since there was no such party, it's not likely he was there.
>Richard Nixon
>creator of Operation 40; long-time association with Mafia; former VP
>and future President of U.S.
>Nixon was driven to the Murchison party by Peter O'Donnell.
No, his whereabouts are accounted for.
><====>
>
>Richard Nixon
>creator of Operation 40; long-time association with Mafia; former VP
>and future President of U.S.Jack Ruby
>long-time ties with Mafia; gun runner for Cuban exiles; knew Oswald.
>Also had ties with Dallas police Bruce Alger
>former Texas Republican senatorLarry Meyer
>Chicago Mafia and friend of Jack Ruby John Currington
>former #1 aide to Hunt; after Oswald arrested, Hunt sent Ruby to
>Police HQ to check on security. Received daily reports from
>Washington on Warren Commission investigation; said LBJ was part of
>conspiracy.And Others And Others
>______________________________________________
>
>Oooops....it didn't come out too well. One would have to type in 'The
>Murchison Party' and click onto the first one down to get this much
>more clearly.
>
Earth to Curt: this is nonsense. The whole "assassination party"
story is bogus. If memory serves, it was invented by Roger Craig.
Several of the people who were supposed to be there are accounted for
in some other location.
The women who pushes this, Madeleine Duncan Brown, was convicted of
forgery.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martha
supply some "oomph" by way of a party girl. (By the way - does "oomph" tell
you something about my age?:) I have made a very detailed timeline of
Jack's activities from 11/20 to 11/24. Several varied and sundry witnesses
place him in other venues all evening long and into the wee hours of the
morning. Now maybe he dropped someone off and was there for a few
seconds - but my money would be on the evidence.
Martha
"Deb Bert" <deb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BBB365DD.1A03%deb...@cox.net...
Deb Bert
<m...@comteck.com> wrote:
> I have often heard the claim that Jack was at the party. Supposedly to
> supply some "oomph" by way of a party girl. (By the way - does "oomph" tell
> you something about my age?:) I have made a very detailed timeline of
> Jack's activities from 11/20 to 11/24. Several varied and sundry witnesses
> place him in other venues all evening long and into the wee hours of the
> morning. Now maybe he dropped someone off and was there for a few
> seconds - but my money would be on the evidence.
>
> Martha
Sounds like the way I party at Christmas time and around New Years--house to
house, occasion to occasion. Stay for 5 minutes if it's a drag--15 if it's
fun. Then on to the next one... I can see Ruby doing that.
"Oomph" is a good word. And maybe he was into "multi-threading." That'd
get Barb's attention... ;-)
--Deb :-)
CurtJester
And we would never suspect a politican or prominent businessman of
stretching the truth, using an occasional alibi, having selective
amnesia, or having people conjure up tales for them against their
accusers, would we?
Perhaps some tidbits concerning the party can be found in
Assassination of JFK and the Warren Report Fraud, by Wheaton Miller
Coward, Jr. or "Forgive my grief IV", by Penn Jones. I have the
feeling that the party was not advertised in the local Dallas-Ft.
Worth media.
Nixon, was said to have been driven to the party by a Peter O'Donnell.
Anybody ever heard of him?
CJ
CurtJester
> On 10/15/03 4:07 PM, in article
> 69f5d9c2.03101...@posting.google.com, "CurtJester"
> <curtj...@webtv.net> wrote:
> ...
> > As far as the party went I guess the thrust of my question would be
> > beyond the "fun and games" and the informalness of the gathering. I
> > just went through The Last Hurrah Bookstore looking for a Murchison
> > Party title I had thought I had seen before and couldn't find
> > anything. I did a search and came up with Penn Jones and a book by a
> > Wheaton Coward that offered a few tidbits. Penn Jones said the party
> > was thrown in honor of J.E. Hoover and had a party theme of "A Night
> > in Egypt" (I wonder who J. Edna's 'Cleopatra' was?..hehe).
> >
>
> > I think some of the names I have heard in the past that were at the
> > party, would be very prominent in the potential assassination and
> > cover-up. LBJ, Hoover, and Mcloy, plus Jack Ruby bringing some girls
> > over later (according to M. Brown) would be to me standouts. I did
> > try to copy a page from W. Coward on some of the people at the party
> > and also ones that were at the Cabana Hotel the night before the
> > assassination. Curiosly he labels the Murchison Party, 'The Victory
> > Party'. Anyway, here is my attempted printing:
> >
> > Murchison Party' and click onto the first one down to get this much
> > more clearly.
> >
>
> > CJ
>
> ....
>
> Interesting stuff there. "A Night in Egypt" is an interesting name for t
> he
> get-together. Didn't Ruby have an Egyptian room in his Carousel Club?
>
> --Deb
Not that I know of. Maybe you are confusing an Egyptian room with a
bigger more notorious club called The Egyptian Lounge run by Dallas
mafioso Joseph Campisi. Ruby was there at 10:00 P.M eating a steak
dinner the evening prior to the assassination. Ruby's roommate,
Senator, described Campisi as one of Ruby's three closest friends,
with a like confirmation from his sister Eva. Campisi was tied into
Carlos Marcello of New Orleans and had a fair ammount of phone
recordings with Carlos the time prior to 11/22.
Ruby supposedly met with Larry Meyers from Chicago at the Cabana at
midnite. Eugene Brading was also staying at the Cabana. One of
Ruby's strippers said she had a $200 encounter with Mr. Meyers who had
flown in with a stripper looking gal from Chicago. She also said Mr.
Meyers had business interests in Minneaopolis and Las Vegas, and that
he was married.
ref. Contract on America pgs. 123,293
I believe I just read while perusing the subject and sites, maybe from
R.D. Morningstar, that LBJ who was purportedly late and brief at the
Murchison gala, that LBJ was on his way to The Cellar on leaving the
party, right after his supposed intimate, shocking tirade to Madeleine
about JFK. I believe I also read too, where LBJ knew or knew of Ruby
and he and Madeleine had on occassion stopped in Ruby's Carousel Club.
CJ
GMcNally
> On 10/16/03 12:42 AM, in article 3f8e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "Martha"
> <m...@comteck.com> wrote:
>
> > I have often heard the claim that Jack was at the party. Supposedly to
> > supply some "oomph" by way of a party girl. (By the way - does "oomph" tell
> > you something about my age?:) I have made a very detailed timeline of
> > Jack's activities from 11/20 to 11/24. Several varied and sundry witnesses
> > place him in other venues all evening long and into the wee hours of the
> > morning. Now maybe he dropped someone off and was there for a few
> > seconds - but my money would be on the evidence.
> >
> > Martha
>
> Sounds like the way I party at Christmas time and around New Years--house to
> house, occasion to occasion. Stay for 5 minutes if it's a drag--15 if it's
> fun. Then on to the next one... I can see Ruby doing that.
>
> "Oomph" is a good word. And maybe he was into "multi-threading." That'd
> get Barb's attention... ;-)
There was no party. Murchison was in ill-health and wasn't even in
Dallas.
Deb, you've got to learn to spot a hoax. Or remain one of Barnum's
'suckers born every minute.'
Jerry
Martha
I just read the reference Barr McClellan made to a party (McClellan called
it a smoker) that was held at Clint Jr's estate. It was held on Thursday
night. McClellan just mentioned it in passing saying the participants knew
nothing would get out about the little gathering so things were said.
I could not tell, by the reading, that it was/is a hoax. However, this
author was more in a position to know than you, me, and, Deb.
Martha
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.03101...@posting.google.com...
John McAdams
>
> Jerry
>
> I just read the reference Barr McClellan made to a party (McClellan called
> it a smoker) that was held at Clint Jr's estate. It was held on Thursday
> night. McClellan just mentioned it in passing saying the participants knew
> nothing would get out about the little gathering so things were said.
>
> I could not tell, by the reading, that it was/is a hoax. However, this
> author was more in a position to know than you, me, and, Deb.
>
Martha,
Who does he say was at the party?
Deb Bert
a163e09.03101...@posting.google.com, "GMcNally"
<jer...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Barr says that the get-together (he doesn't call it a party), or "smoker,"
was at Murchison **Jrs.** place. I don't think he was in ill health.
> Deb, you've got to learn to spot a hoax. Or remain one of Barnum's
> 'suckers born every minute.'
"Remain one?" That's quite rude, Jerry.
--Deb
Martha
mentioned.
Martha
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3F8F5C...@marquette.edu...
Deb Bert
20031014214445...@mb-m16.aol.com, "Stugrad98"
<stug...@aol.com> wrote:
I don't get the impression that Barr thinks that Oswald was totally
unwitting. I think that Barr believes that Oswald was a witting participant
contracted by Wallace.
However, Barr also claims that Oswald was indeed the patsy. ??? Perhaps
Barr meant "sitting duck"--or something--because he thinks Oswald was set up
to take the fall. Oswald was meant to be caught so that the other shooters
could get away. In other words, I believe that Barr thinks that Oswald was
shamelessly used and that he was supposed to have been killed.
When he wasn't, then they had to bring in Ruby to clean up the mess.
Of course, Ruby didn't think he'd really get the electric chair for it
because the judges would be in on the fix since McClellan had most of them
in his pocket.
And that is not too far-fetched for Texas.
:-/
When we moved here, we were told that "texas is a little different."
You better believe it.
--Deb
Winston Smith
interesting part of this post: the FINGERPRINT! A google search shows
this fingerprint issue has been discussed here before, but I sure
didn't see anything definitive - did I miss it?
Can anyone debunk the claim that Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found
on the 6th floor of the TSBD????
Winston
"Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was
forgotten, the lie became truth. Just once in his life he had
possessed -- after the event: that was what counted -- concrete,
unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification. He had held it
between his fingers for as long as thirty seconds." - 1984
Deb Bert
dde37cb3.03101...@posting.google.com, "Winston Smith"
<outerparty...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
For anyone who wants to look over some of the info in Barr McClellan's
book (for free), go here:
http://www.barrmcclellan.com/press.html
Check out the "Sample evidence" on the right side of the page.
Look at exhibit_g_8.tif for a fingerprint, pics_13 2.tif for locations,
and pics_26-29.tif for a composite of a "suspect" and a photo of Wallace.
The fingerprint info. on the website doesn't tell you much, if anything.
You'd have to get the book to really see the matches and read the
documentation. Which is why he's not putting this info. on the internet
of course...he wants you to buy his book.
The site says,
"The most compelling evidence of all, says McClellan, is not posted on the
website but is presented in his book... Photographs, personal memos and
other legal records in the book document the payments and maneuvers
orchestrated by Texas power broker Ed Clark Law Firm to compensate Wallace
and others for their part in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
The book also identifies the money-laundering corporation used by
Johnson."
The money-laundering corp. is identified as "Brazos-tenth" which was a
transparently phony company, using the address of LBJ's radio station as
it's name. (Dumb...)
--Deb
clark wilkins
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > I just read the reference Barr McClellan made to a party (McClellan
called
> > it a smoker) that was held at Clint Jr's estate. It was held on Thursday
> > night. McClellan just mentioned it in passing saying the participants
knew
> > nothing would get out about the little gathering so things were said.
> >
> > I could not tell, by the reading, that it was/is a hoax. However, this
> > author was more in a position to know than you, me, and, Deb.
> >
>
> Martha,
>
> Who does he say was at the party?
>
> .John
I know where you're going, John. If we can get the guest list list - And it
sounds like he's describing the imaginary "Hoover/LBJ/Murchison" gathering,
we could rip it up (Hoover also wasn't in Dallas on Thursday) but this
author conveniently left out the names. Clever of him. Whenever an attorney
writes a JFK book (Garrison, Posner, Lane, etc.) I get leery.
::Clark::
clark wilkins
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3f8e1a13...@129.250.170.82...
clark wilkins
"CurtJester" <curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:69f5d9c2.0310...@posting.google.com...
So what person has ever produced a reliable guest list?
::Clark::
clark wilkins
> On 10/14/03 5:23 PM, in article 3f8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "Paul
Seaton"
> <paulNOSP...@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Peter R. Whitmey" <prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:945b9736.03101...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> >> or hope that he showed
> >> up for work that day, so he could be blamed.
> >
> > Not just showed up.
> > Had to be sure he wouldn't be standing out in front of the TSBD with ten
> > other guys from the TSBD at 12.30, for eg.
> > Had to be sure no-one could give him an alibi.
> > Or did 'they' ( yes it's 'them' again..) just trust to fate that he'd
take
> > it into his head to go hide when JFK passed by?
> >
> > Paul Seaton
>
> As I understand it, McClellan claims that Oswald was a witting participant
> in that Oswald was contacted by Wallace to participate in the
assassination.
This would be vey difficult to do. If you wanted to contact Oswald in
Dallas in Oct/Nov '63, how would you do it? You can begin with how you would
even know he was in Dallas at all?
>
> Frankly, I don't think Barr knows for sure who Wallace contacted, what he
> said to Oswald, etc.
Although I haven't read the book, I'll bet you're right.
>
> I think that due to the vagueness of Barr's account of the assassination
> that he's taken the scenario that he thinks works the best, but that Barr
> actually doesn't know who the shooters were except for Wallace--and
perhaps
> he's taking the "evidence" that the WC used to connect Oswald.
It's the fingerprint that makes the book's case. I didn't know that Mac
wallace's prints are in the book. James Olmstead may want to compare
Wallace's prints to the unidentified print on LHO's rifle.
>
> Footnoting is definitely not one of McClellan's strong points, which is
why
> I wish he would have had a really good editor working with him.
He's a lawyer - that's why the footnotes are missing. Ever read Posner's
footnotes? Lots of them but with no meaning or relevancy to the topic of
discussion.
>
> He makes a convincing case against Ed Clark and LBJ and many of their
> associates (like Mac Wallace) and otherwise, but he doesn't really make
any
> case for Oswald's guilt or innocence. But then--he does claim that Oswald
> was indeed a patsy. ???
>
> Confusing? Yeah--a bit.
A bit? It requires that LHO went off to the Paine's, as a patsy, retrieved
his rifle, as a patsy, conveniently walked in with a 38" long bag, as a
patsy, and handed his rifle to Wallace, as a patsy, suddenly realized while
buying a coke that he was the patsy, then told the press he was a patsy that
night, but never mentioned Wallace to the police who he obviously knew had
set him up to be the patsy.
>
> McClellan is working on two more books that may shed more light on all
this,
> hopefully.
I doubt it.
>
> He actually makes a stronger case for Charles Harrelson as being one of
the
> assassins without ever mentioning Harrelson's name. He says they used
> former convicts in most of their dirty deeds--which would make a great
deal
> of sense. For instance, if they talk--who's going to believe them?
>
> It's like when Harrelson confessed to murdering the federal judge and
> JFK--nobody cared to believe that he murdered JFK, but it was OK if he
> wanted to confess to the judge's wacking. People listen selcetively to
> ex-cons. Also, they're easy to put back in prison to shut them up because
> they can talk to other cons all they want, but there's no other ready
> audience except jailers and they don't trust what the cons say. And, if
> they talk to much, they can always "hang themselves" in jail.
>
> :-/
>
> I'm enjoying the book--mostly because of the vicious trashing he likes to
> give LBJ at every opportunity. Good stuff. ;-)
Yes. I'm under the impression that you believe LBJ assassinated JFK because
he had the means (Wallace), motive (Hoover's investigation of Bobby Baker) a
nd opportunity (Texas). Plus, he was dishonest (Billy Sol Estes). But do you
know how many other individuals fit this same scenario? Try Santos
Trafficante', Jimmy Hoffa, and Carlos Marcello. Then, besides Harrelson as
shooters implicating themselves, there's Loran Hall, James Files, and
Patrick Hemming.
What's missing from all these types of books is a way to connect the
selected bad guy, be it LBJ, Castro, or Yosemite Sam, to LHO. They all fail.
No connection equals no case. You're engaging in conviction by suspicion.
Let's look at what LBJ should have done if he had JFK killed:
1) Excluded the FBI from the investigation. Oswald had not performed a
federal crime.
2) Placed the investigation in the hands of the "good old boys", his friends
in Dallas and the Dallas State Police.
3) Removed RFK from his position as AG to prevent him from creating his own
investigation.
4) He should have been checking up daily with "spies" in the WC to make sure
they hadn't dug up anything on him.
Here's what he should not have done:
1) Form a "blue ribbon" commission he didn't control (The WC).
2) Trust Hoover who had just been massacring him with Bobby Baker.
3) Tell Walter Cronkite he didn't believe the WR and that JFK was killed by
a conspiracy.
4) Not listen to RFK's assistant, Katzenbach.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
>
> --Deb
>
>
Peter R. Whitmey
>>I think it's much more likely that certain individuals in Texas wanted
LBJ to become president, and they knew the only way that would happen is
by getting rid of JFK (a scandal wouldn't work, as that would help the
Republicans, especially Goldwater). It could be that LBJ knew why JFK was
killed, and had no choice but to accept it and make the most of suddenly
being what he always wanted to be. - Peter R. Whitmey
CurtJ...@webtv.net
>Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Mon, Oct 20,
> 2003, 6:55pm (PDT+3) From:
> clwi...@prodigy.net (clark wilkins)
>So what person has ever produced a reliable guest
> list?
>::Clark::
Might that be like asking who can find a reliable witness for the
eye-witness shooting of JFK?
Nobody would know for absolutely sure, and I am sure no R.S.V.P's were
extended.
There are those who claimed they were at the party and have come forward
to 'report'. I find much of JFK 'findings' in the case come down to
simple belief. Maybe in this area it would come down to 'alibi'
testimony vs. 'witness' testimony.
Here is some of the article that is online from Pat Shannan's,
Assassination and Cover-up, LYNDON AND MADELEINE.
In 1994, I began a series of interviews with a former CIA pilot who had
fallen from grace a decade earlier after he began to blow the whistle on
the agency's part in the American drug activity. He had been confined
for more than six years in the Springfield, Missouri federal "hospital"
and force-fed mood and mind altering drugs. Because of a promise not to
put his name in print during his lifetime, we shall refer to him
throughout as "The Colonel."
The Colonel, himself, is a book walking around waiting to be published
but never will. He was an OSS pilot in WWII and moved over to the CIA in
the year of its birth, 1947. He admitted committing some despicable acts
"in the name of democracy" (such as the kidnapping and murder of the
Shah of Iran and his whole family in 1952 - a mission headed up by
Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr., father of the celebrated Army General) but
finally put his foot down in 1983, when it came to drugging American
kids.
The Colonel would always wince when reminded of the tap dance of "the
only two adults in America" who couldn't remember where they were the
day Kennedy was shot - George Bush and Richard Nixon. "I knew where both
the lying !@#$%*&! were," he said with a beaming grin. "They were right
there in Dallas with me. We were at Clint Murchinson's house at a party
the night before the assassination." The Colonel said that it was he who
had flown the "triangular assassination team" into Dallas but was
reluctant to discuss any further details either then or in our several
subsequent interviews, finally becoming visibly angered at my repeated
inquiries.
Private investigation had already turned up the Murchinson party that
took place on Thursday night, November 21st, but the reports were all
third party hearsay with no participants or eyewitnesses willing to
talk. A book or two had mentioned it in passing, but there was nothing
solid until now. Suddenly the unasked question became Did The Colonel
read this somewhere or had he really been there? He recited a whole
laundry list of muckety-mucks which I was fairly confident had never
been published before, in addition to Nixon and Bush and including Henry
Kissinger, J. Edgar Hoover, H. L. Hunt, and Lyndon Johnson. I wanted to
believe, but it was out of the mouth of only one source, so the
interview was tucked into a file drawer for future reference. I needed
some confirmation, and that would be four more years in coming.
At the Dallas Preparedness Expo in 1998, I stopped by the book booth
being attended by Madeleine Duncan Brown, the 73-year-young author of
Texas in the Morning, the story of her 21-year intermittent love affair
with Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson. In 1950, she had given birth to
Lyndon's out-of-wedlock son and received a cash delivery of $500 a week
from Lyndon's lawyer until shortly after Lyndon died in January of 1973.
>From her book, I learned that she was a longtime friend of Clint
Murchinson and had been at that party in his home on November 21st.
Bingo! I immediately got Madeleine on the phone and began grilling her.
I already could tell that she would pull no punches, but how much did
she remember? She had named so
many more than The Colonel had volunteered to remember, so I
specifically recalled his two favorites for her.
"Do you remember George Bush and Henry Kissinger being there?" I almost
yelled into the phone. (She had already named Nixon in her book.) No,
unfortunately, she didn't, but that didn't mean they weren't there. Bush
and Kissinger were very obscure characters in 1963, and ones who did not
yet carry much public recognition. But there was no doubt now that the
party took place and that Madeleine was there. She remembers many of the
details as if it were last week.
Clint Murchinson was the owner of the Dallas Cowboys of the National
Football League, an oil-rich multi-millionaire, and longtime supporter
of Lyndon Johnson. He had called Madeleine in the afternoon to invite
her to come along that evening. He did not mention that Lyndon would be
dropping by later that night, after his dinner engagement in Fort Worth
with President Kennedy's entourage.
A Strange Coalition
As an eyewitness, Madeleine Brown tells us of what must have been one of
the largest and secret bi-partisan gatherings of governmental bigwigs to
ever gather in Texas. When LBJ did arrive, he strode to the bar where
Madeleine was seated and chatted for a moment while the bartender poured
for him his favorite libation. He was soon summoned to join the others
and the group moved with their cigars and drinks into the large library
room, and the double doors were closed behind them. She confirmed that
others in the private circle included the two highest-ranking men in the
FBI, J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson; oilmen and industrialists H. L.
Hunt, George Brown, and R. L. Thornton; ousted (by JFK) CIA Director
Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster, the former Secretary of State in
the Eisenhower Administration; and John J. McCloy, Chairman of the Chase
Manhattan Bank. These were some of the most powerful men in the United
States, and we find it of interest that at least two, McCloy and Allen
Dulles, were later
handpicked by LBJ to sit on the Warren Commission, in order to portray
the fraudulent "investigation" conclusions to the American people.
Madeleine Brown drops another bombshell on us. During the hour or so
duration of this mysterious meeting, as she sat nursing a drink at the
bar in Murchinson's den, another acquaintance of hers walked in with a
prostitute in tow. It was none other than Jack Ruby.
She is not suggesting that Ruby was invited for the pow-wow but rather
only to drop off the woman. It was common knowledge among this group
that Ruby was the supplier of female favors whenever the Washington
bigshots came to town. She knew Jack well, and she says he sat with her
and had one drink before leaving alone.
CJ
Deb Bert
945b9736.03102...@posting.google.com, "Peter R. Whitmey"
<prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, let's see... Barr claims that Oswald arrived in Ft. Worth on June 12,
1962 via the USSR. In short order, he met George de Mohrenschildt who
introduced Oswald to friends in the oil business, one of whom was fellow
geologist Sam Ballen. Clark worked for Ballen and McClellan claims that
Ballen "inadvertently provided the lead" to Oswald. Ballen owned a natural
gas company in the Texas panhandle (poor soul).
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Frankly, I don't think Barr knows for sure who Wallace contacted, what he
>>> said to Oswald, etc.
>>
>> Although I haven't read the book, I'll bet you're right.
>>
>>>
>>> I think that due to the vagueness of Barr's account of the assassination
>>> that he's taken the scenario that he thinks works the best, but that Barr
>>> actually doesn't know who the shooters were except for Wallace--and
>> perhaps
>>> he's taking the "evidence" that the WC used to connect Oswald.
>>
>>
>> It's the fingerprint that makes the book's case. I didn't know that Mac
>> wallace's prints are in the book. James Olmstead may want to compare
>> Wallace's prints to the unidentified print on LHO's rifle.
Yes, there's a full set of Mac Wallace's finger prints in the "exhibits"
section. It's a fairly good reproduction for a book. Wallace was finger
printed when he was arrested for the murder of John Kinser. Whoever finger
printed him did a pretty good job. Not great--but better than I would have
expected--judging from the photocopy in the book and suspecting that
something was lost along the way, of course.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Footnoting is definitely not one of McClellan's strong points, which is
>> why
>>> I wish he would have had a really good editor working with him.
>>
>> He's a lawyer - that's why the footnotes are missing. Ever read Posner's
>> footnotes? Lots of them but with no meaning or relevancy to the topic of
>> discussion.
They make up their own system! It's just funky.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> He makes a convincing case against Ed Clark and LBJ and many of their
>>> associates (like Mac Wallace) and otherwise, but he doesn't really make
>> any
>>> case for Oswald's guilt or innocence. But then--he does claim that Oswald
>>> was indeed a patsy. ???
>>>
>>> Confusing? Yeah--a bit.
>>
>> A bit? It requires that LHO went off to the Paine's, as a patsy, retrieved
>> his rifle, as a patsy, conveniently walked in with a 38" long bag, as a
>> patsy, and handed his rifle to Wallace, as a patsy, suddenly realized while
>> buying a coke that he was the patsy, then told the press he was a patsy that
>> night, but never mentioned Wallace to the police who he obviously knew had
>> set him up to be the patsy.
>>
There're a lot of confusing points in the book. There's too much left to
conjecture and speculation, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm a big fan of circumstantial evidence because (contrary to popular
opinion) that's the best kind of evidence there is! Circumstances don't
like--people do. Circumstances don't offer opinions; people do. The
circumstances are the physical acts of what happened.
But then Barr gets into interpretations of the circumstances that I'm not so
sure the circumstances support.
Besides--he needs to have *all* the circumstances, and it's pretty evident
that he hasn't done much, if any, research into Oswald.
>>
>>>
>>> McClellan is working on two more books that may shed more light on all
>> this,
>>> hopefully.
>>
>> I doubt it.
You're probably right.
Actually, LBJ did have connections to the other bad guys. Billy Sol Estes
worked for LBJ on the infamous Ballot Box 13 scandal. This was when LBJ
stole the senate election from Coke Stevenson in '48. (Not that Coke wasn't
above doing this himself.) But Estes, LBJ, Don Thomas, Luis Salas, Sam
Smithwick--and others, were all involved in the phony election.
Smithwick then went on to get in trouble. He was a deputy sheriff and heard
Bill Mason, a radio DJ insulting his daughter on the air, so Smithwick drove
over and shot and killed the guy.
Smithwick was convicted, but he expected Salas to contact Johnson and get
him some help out of the situation. It didn't happen.
Smithwick got tired of waiting, and in 1952 he wrote Coke Stevenson a letter
telling him that he could produce ballot box 13 and prove that the election
was stolen.
As soon as Stevenson got the letter, he took off for Huntsville prison, but
before he could reach Smithwick, Smithwick was dead. Cause: suicide. He
supposedly hanged himself in his jail cell and was found tied by the neck to
his bed railing, with his knees touching the floor.
Allen Shivers claims that Smithwick was murdered and that LBJ was behind it.
In 1951 Mac Wallace was working for the Department of Agriculture in
Washington. He and LBJ knew each other well. But after a call from LBJ's
lawyer, telling Wallace about an affair his wife was having with Kinser,
Wallace took a leave of absence from his job, drove home, and killed Kinser.
Wallace was convicted of premeditated murder--and received a 5 year
suspended sentence from a judge who owed Clark and LBJ a lot of favors. The
DA (Bob Long) stated that he could never find a motive for the murder, but
Johnson claimed it was because of a "sex ring" that involved Kinser and
Wallace's wife. However, according to the press and the popular opinion in
TX, it was a murder with no motive.
Since Wallace was just on probation, he needed a job. LBJ and Clark
arranged for him to be employed with Luscombe Aircraft Corp. which in short
order became a part of Ling-TEMCO-Vaught (LTV), of which D. H. Byrd became
CEO.
As evidenced by a few DWIs (which should have served to revoke his
probation) Wallace took up drinking.
After 5 years. Wallace's murder verdict was set aside. He still worked for
LTV as an economist and had clearance to work at a "secret" military
aviation plant in Garland, TX.
After one arrest for public intoxication, Wallace was shipped off to
California where he continued to wrok for Ling electronics in Anaheim. He
again sought and gained security clearance from the ONI even though a
thorough investigation turned up the murder, his arrests for drinking, his
wife's "sexual deviancy" (she was at least bisexual...maybe tri-sexual),
;-)
And the finding was that he should *not* be given a security clearance. Oh
yes--his security investigation also turned up that he was a Marxist--or
"had marxist leanings."
Back to Estes, though--LBJ, Clark and Estes worked together to defraud the
government of millions, all syphoned through a phony corporation called
"Brazos-tenth Street." They were set up like dominoes, and if Estes fell,
Clark and LBJ knew that the eventual investigation would lead to them too.
And that's what was happening when Henry Marshall, investigator for the USDA
turned up some skeletons. Estes freaked out and called Clark, who sent
Wallace to reason with Marshall. When that didn't work out very well,
Wallace shot Marshall 6 times and killed him. His death was ruled a
suicide.
Thanks to Clint Peoples, Texas Ranger, who could not let the case go, Estes
eventually testified before a grand jury after LBJ was dead. He swore under
oath that Mac Wallace had killed Marshall and that Clark and LBJ had
arranged the murder. While the grand jury did rule the death a homicide
(finally) all the people to indict were dead, so they returned no
indictments. Had LBJ lived, he would have been indicted for murder.
McClellan claims he can back all this up by following the money trail. He
was in charge of drawing up contracts and trusts, so he knew where the money
was going.
>> Let's look at what LBJ should have done if he had JFK killed:
>>
>> 1) Excluded the FBI from the investigation. Oswald had not performed a
>> federal crime.
In effect, isn't that what he did? Hoover kept the FBI from doing much of
anything while giving the public appearance of a "thorough investigation."
We can all see what a shabby job they did,
>> 2) Placed the investigation in the hands of the "good old boys", his friends
>> in Dallas and the Dallas State Police.
Well, that was pretty much the case. They were in charge of LHO when he was
murdered.
>> 3) Removed RFK from his position as AG to prevent him from creating his own
>> investigation.
I think LBJ did this as soon as he was comfortably able. Besides, RFK was
absolutely distraught over his brother's death. He spent a lot of time
ready Greek literature according to most accounts. It seems he wasn't
really concentrating on his brother's death or the government.
And then when LBJ was elected, he did accept RFK's resignation.
>> 4) He should have been checking up daily with "spies" in the WC to make sure
>> they hadn't dug up anything on him.
I believe he was, if the tapes of his White House years are to be believed.
He let Hoover know he wanted to be kept up to date. He called the hospital,
to see if LHO survived the attack according to the doctor in charge of LHO's
care.
He put Dulles on the WC to keep the CIA involvement in check and make sure
the WC got exactly the information LBJ wanted them to have.
Dulles began the proceedings with a message about how lone assassins work in
the United States, but conspiracies only happen in foreign countries.
I mean--look at Dulles. He must have hated JFK with a passion, but LBJ
appointed him to the commission.
LBJ told Dick Russell that he wanted Russell to be his eyes and ears on the
WC. Russell kept him informed.
LBJ told Earl Warren exactly what the WC needed to find--a lone assassin.
He left no wiggle room for any investigation, and he even objected to
Tippet's murder being a part of the investigation.
>>
>> Here's what he should not have done:
>>
>> 1) Form a "blue ribbon" commission he didn't control (The WC).
I believe he had too much pressure from the Congress and the Senate. He had
to do it, and it sounded like he wasn't happy about it. But, he did get to
pick the people who would be investigating, essentially--himself. What
could be better?
>> 2) Trust Hoover who had just been massacring him with Bobby Baker.
Hoover got his goodies. He was promoted to his position for life.
>> 3) Tell Walter Cronkite he didn't believe the WR and that JFK was killed by
>> a conspiracy.
What could be better than to hide out in the public? That's where
alcoholics do their best performances. LBJ was the classic crook--he
thought he was so much smarter than anyone else that he could say
anything--even the truth--and nobody would believe him.
>> 4) Not listen to RFK's assistant, Katzenbach.
Nick? I don't know what that's about. :-/
>>
>>
>> Just a thought.
And good ones, at that.
--Deb :-)
clark wilkins
But, in April, 1963 LHO moved to NO. He did not return to Dallas until Oct
3, 1963 - and then arrived unannounced. He then moved into a boarding house
under an assumed name, the address being known to no one. He didn't rent a
post office box until 11/1/63.
So, again, if you wanted to contact Oswald when he returned to Dallas in Oct
'63, how would you do it?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Frankly, I don't think Barr knows for sure who Wallace contacted, what
he
> >>> said to Oswald, etc.
> >>
> >> Although I haven't read the book, I'll bet you're right.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think that due to the vagueness of Barr's account of the
assassination
> >>> that he's taken the scenario that he thinks works the best, but that
Barr
> >>> actually doesn't know who the shooters were except for Wallace--and
> >> perhaps
> >>> he's taking the "evidence" that the WC used to connect Oswald.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's the fingerprint that makes the book's case. I didn't know that Mac
> >> wallace's prints are in the book. James Olmstead may want to compare
> >> Wallace's prints to the unidentified print on LHO's rifle.
>
> Yes, there's a full set of Mac Wallace's finger prints in the "exhibits"
> section. It's a fairly good reproduction for a book. Wallace was finger
> printed when he was arrested for the murder of John Kinser. Whoever
finger
> printed him did a pretty good job. Not great--but better than I would
have
> expected--judging from the photocopy in the book and suspecting that
> something was lost along the way, of course.
Have you looked into this, James?
That's the least of their connections. Estes had a gov't agent killed. When
he got out of prison, he fingered LBJ as his partner in the murder
> This was when LBJ
> stole the senate election from Coke Stevenson in '48. (Not that Coke
wasn't
> above doing this himself.) But Estes, LBJ, Don Thomas, Luis Salas, Sam
> Smithwick--and others, were all involved in the phony election.
>
> Smithwick then went on to get in trouble. He was a deputy sheriff and
heard
> Bill Mason, a radio DJ insulting his daughter on the air, so Smithwick
drove
> over and shot and killed the guy.
>
> Smithwick was convicted, but he expected Salas to contact Johnson and get
> him some help out of the situation. It didn't happen.
>
> Smithwick got tired of waiting, and in 1952 he wrote Coke Stevenson a
letter
> telling him that he could produce ballot box 13 and prove that the
election
> was stolen.
>
> As soon as Stevenson got the letter, he took off for Huntsville prison,
but
> before he could reach Smithwick, Smithwick was dead. Cause: suicide. He
> supposedly hanged himself in his jail cell and was found tied by the neck
to
> his bed railing, with his knees touching the floor.
The USG agent that committed "suicide" for Estes shot himself three times in
the chest with a bolt action rifle (Meaning he had to work the bolt between
shots). Then got into a car with a hose from the exhaust pipe leading into
it. Texas ruled it suicide too.
>
> Allen Shivers claims that Smithwick was murdered and that LBJ was behind
it.
As LBJ himself said, they don't catch me for what I do but then they try and
catch me for what I don't do.
>
> In 1951 Mac Wallace was working for the Department of Agriculture in
> Washington. He and LBJ knew each other well. But after a call from LBJ's
> lawyer, telling Wallace about an affair his wife was having with Kinser,
> Wallace took a leave of absence from his job, drove home, and killed
Kinser.
In 1951, I expect that was legal to do in Texas (Grin).
>
> Wallace was convicted of premeditated murder--and received a 5 year
> suspended sentence from a judge who owed Clark and LBJ a lot of favors.
The cost of bribing a Texas judge in 1951 was the price of a hooker.
> The
> DA (Bob Long) stated that he could never find a motive for the murder, but
> Johnson claimed it was because of a "sex ring" that involved Kinser and
> Wallace's wife. However, according to the press and the popular opinion
in
> TX, it was a murder with no motive.
>
> Since Wallace was just on probation, he needed a job. LBJ and Clark
> arranged for him to be employed with Luscombe Aircraft Corp. which in
short
> order became a part of Ling-TEMCO-Vaught (LTV), of which D. H. Byrd became
> CEO.
>
Didn't he own the TSBD?
> As evidenced by a few DWIs (which should have served to revoke his
> probation) Wallace took up drinking.
>
> After 5 years. Wallace's murder verdict was set aside. He still worked
for
> LTV as an economist and had clearance to work at a "secret" military
> aviation plant in Garland, TX.
He's in the "loop".
But he's been on the payroll ever since his job at the Dept. of Agriculture.
It's called "commodity futures".
>
> After one arrest for public intoxication, Wallace was shipped off to
> California where he continued to wrok for Ling electronics in Anaheim. He
> again sought and gained security clearance from the ONI even though a
> thorough investigation turned up the murder, his arrests for drinking, his
> wife's "sexual deviancy" (she was at least bisexual...maybe tri-sexual),
> ;-)
> And the finding was that he should *not* be given a security clearance.
Oh
> yes--his security investigation also turned up that he was a Marxist--or
> "had marxist leanings."
>
> Back to Estes, though--LBJ, Clark and Estes worked together to defraud the
> government of millions, all syphoned through a phony corporation called
> "Brazos-tenth Street." They were set up like dominoes, and if Estes fell,
> Clark and LBJ knew that the eventual investigation would lead to them too.
Estes did fall but LBJ didn't.
>
> And that's what was happening when Henry Marshall, investigator for the
USDA
> turned up some skeletons.
Including his own.
> Estes freaked out and called Clark, who sent
> Wallace to reason with Marshall. When that didn't work out very well,
> Wallace shot Marshall 6 times and killed him. His death was ruled a
> suicide.
Three times - but whose counting?
>
> Thanks to Clint Peoples, Texas Ranger, who could not let the case go,
Estes
> eventually testified before a grand jury after LBJ was dead. He swore
under
> oath that Mac Wallace had killed Marshall and that Clark and LBJ had
> arranged the murder.
Yep!
But when you have a prison record your credibility falls to zero. Does that
sound familiar with something I e mailed you?
> While the grand jury did rule the death a homicide
> (finally) all the people to indict were dead, so they returned no
> indictments. Had LBJ lived, he would have been indicted for murder.
But he would have been found innocent because his accuser would have benn a
convicted con.
This is how politics works, Deb.
Even Billy Sol Estes, one of the most famous criminals in accountng history
(CPA's are required to study his crime to get their licenses) loses instant
credibility,
If you can control the convictions, you control the credibility.
The bad guys really can't lose. They either keep their chums out of jail and
continue to make money or, if he goes to jail, his testimony against them
becomes worthless.
>
> McClellan claims he can back all this up by following the money trail. He
> was in charge of drawing up contracts and trusts, so he knew where the
money
> was going.
I don't doubt him.
LBJ was in up to his eyeballs in the Estes case. But it would have been
Estes who ordered Marshall killed, not LBJ. Estes would have been the first
to go to jail. His neck was on the line. The "good old boy" system then
ruled Marshall's death a suicide. This was the same "good old boy" system
that was fixing defense contracts with Fred Korth.
>
> >> Let's look at what LBJ should have done if he had JFK killed:
> >>
> >> 1) Excluded the FBI from the investigation. Oswald had not performed a
> >> federal crime.
>
> In effect, isn't that what he did? Hoover kept the FBI from doing much of
> anything while giving the public appearance of a "thorough investigation."
> We can all see what a shabby job they did,
In convicting Oswald their work was first rate.
> >> 2) Placed the investigation in the hands of the "good old boys", his
friends
> >> in Dallas and the Dallas State Police.
> Well, that was pretty much the case. They were in charge of LHO when he
was
> murdered.
If you try and link the DPD with Oswald's death, you've got an uphill debate
on your hands.
> >> 3) Removed RFK from his position as AG to prevent him from creating his
own
> >> investigation.
> I think LBJ did this as soon as he was comfortably able. Besides, RFK was
> absolutely distraught over his brother's death. He spent a lot of time
> ready Greek literature according to most accounts. It seems he wasn't
> really concentrating on his brother's death or the government.
Publicly, he didn't do a thing. He declined to have any role in the
investigation at all, this in site of the fact that Hoover answered to him.
When the WC informed him it did not trust Hoover's investigation, he asked
that they please not involve him.
Does this sound like the RFK that went after Hoffa?
Privately, he sent the Soviets a message advising them that he did not
believe his brother was assasinated by the LW, but killed instead by the RW.
What's wrong with this picture? RFK believes his brother was killed by a RW
conspiracy but he won't go after them?
Do you suppose he planned not to go after them if elected President in 1968?
Would this make RFK a threat to the "RW"?
What happened to RFK in 1968?
>
> And then when LBJ was elected, he did accept RFK's resignation.
Technically, RFK resigned on 11/22/63.
But when RFK resigned, it was to do what?
> >> 4) He should have been checking up daily with "spies" in the WC to make
sure
> >> they hadn't dug up anything on him.
> I believe he was, if the tapes of his White House years are to be
believed.
> He let Hoover know he wanted to be kept up to date. He called the
hospital,
> to see if LHO survived the attack according to the doctor in charge of
LHO's
> care.
You are well read. My compliments. But it isn't enough to be kept up by
Hoover. Any President would request to be kept abreast of the assassination.
LBJ, if guilty, needs to be kept abreast of the WC's thinking. How did he do
that?
>
> He put Dulles on the WC to keep the CIA involvement in check and make sure
> the WC got exactly the information LBJ wanted them to have.
Except for his first day talk on "lone assassins", what information was
Dulles giving the WC that LBJ wanted them to have?
>
> Dulles began the proceedings with a message about how lone assassins work
in
> the United States, but conspiracies only happen in foreign countries.
Yes, He even gave them a CIA printed pamphlet to go along with his speech,
which he knew was a lie when he gave it.
>
> I mean--look at Dulles. He must have hated JFK with a passion, but LBJ
> appointed him to the commission.
What is your evidence that Dulles hated JFK?
>
> LBJ told Dick Russell that he wanted Russell to be his eyes and ears on
the
> WC. Russell kept him informed.
???
>
> LBJ told Earl Warren exactly what the WC needed to find--a lone assassin.
Yes. But if that's what he wanted the finding to be, why didn't he leave the
investigation in the hands of the "good old boy" system in Texas?
> He left no wiggle room for any investigation, and he even objected to
> Tippet's murder being a part of the investigation.
I am not familiar with this.
> >>
> >> Here's what he should not have done:
> >>
> >> 1) Form a "blue ribbon" commission he didn't control (The WC).
> I believe he had too much pressure from the Congress and the Senate.
There was no pressure on him from Congress or the Senate. The only
competition was Senator Eastland's SISS which certainly wasn't going to
accuse LBJ of killing JFK.
> He had
> to do it, and it sounded like he wasn't happy about it.
No. He didn't want it.
But would a guilty man have allowed it?
And once he got on board with the idea, it was he who talked Russell and
Earl Warren into serving. Do you think Earl Warren would cover up a
conspiracy by LBJ to assassinate JFK?
Wasn't Warren the worst possible choice for a guilty
President?
> But, he did get to
> pick the people who would be investigating, essentially--himself. What
> could be better?
It would be better if he picked Texans to serve to serve on the WC. Did John
Tower serve?
> >> 2) Trust Hoover who had just been massacring him with Bobby Baker.
>
> Hoover got his goodies. He was promoted to his position for life.
JFK would have given him the same goodies after Hoover found out about
Marilyn Monroe and Judith Exner.
> >> 3) Tell Walter Cronkite he didn't believe the WR and that JFK was
killed by
> >> a conspiracy.
>
> What could be better than to hide out in the public? That's where
> alcoholics do their best performances. LBJ was the classic crook--he
> thought he was so much smarter than anyone else that he could say
> anything--even the truth--and nobody would believe him.
He wasn't even a suspect when he told Cronkite in 1967.
> >> 4) Not listen to RFK's assistant, Katzenbach.
>
> Nick? I don't know what that's about. :-/
Nick called Hoover on Sunday, after Oswald wsas killed and impressed upon
him the need to get the investigation out of Texas - You see, the "good old
boys" in Texas were claiming JFK had been killed by a conspiracy. Isn't that
just the opposite of what the "good old boys" should be doing?
Not trusting LBJ to listen to Hoover, Nick went to the Washington Post on
Monday and had them call LBJ requesting a commission. A reluctant LBJ
agreed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
>
> And good ones, at that.
Once in awhile I get lucky.
::Clark::
Deb Bert
>wilkins" <clwi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> "Deb Bert" <deb...@cox.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Well, let's see... Barr claims that Oswald arrived in Ft. Worth on June
>> 12,
>> 1962 via the USSR. In short order, he met George de Mohrenschildt who
>> introduced Oswald to friends in the oil business, one of whom was fellow
>> geologist Sam Ballen. Clark worked for Ballen and McClellan claims that
>> Ballen "inadvertently provided the lead" to Oswald. Ballen owned a
>> natural
>> gas company in the Texas panhandle (poor soul).
>
> But, in April, 1963 LHO moved to NO. He did not return to Dallas until Oct
> 3, 1963 - and then arrived unannounced. He then moved into a boarding house
> under an assumed name, the address being known to no one. He didn't rent a
> post office box until 11/1/63.
> So, again, if you wanted to contact Oswald when he returned to Dallas in Oct
> '63, how would you do it?
Hmm. I'm going to have to go back to the book and check that out. I think
McClellan says something like...by that time Oswald was back in Dallas. :-/
This is one of the things I find so frustrating about the book--these little
"skips." Or "leaps." I know he's theorizing at these points because he
didn't see what happened, so he doesn't really know. He's going by the
circumstances he's familiar with, but he just doesn't quite....get it.
>
...
>>>> It's the fingerprint that makes the book's case. I didn't know that Mac
>>>> wallace's prints are in the book. James Olmstead may want to compare
>>>> Wallace's prints to the unidentified print on LHO's rifle.
>>
>> Yes, there's a full set of Mac Wallace's finger prints in the "exhibits"
>> section. It's a fairly good reproduction for a book. Wallace was finger
>> printed when he was arrested for the murder of John Kinser. Whoever
>> finger
>> printed him did a pretty good job. Not great--but better than I would
>> have
>> expected--judging from the photocopy in the book and suspecting that
>> something was lost along the way, of course.
>
> Have you looked into this, James?
Yes, Jamesç´€'d like your opinion on this too. You're the fingerprint man,
James--you the man! You go, dude! (Just being flaky.) ;-) You are really
good, you know.
>
...
>
>
>>
>> Allen Shivers claims that Smithwick was murdered and that LBJ was behind
>> it.
>
> As LBJ himself said, they don't catch me for what I do but then they try and
> catch me for what I don't do.
As "they" say in West Texas, "Ya' just gotta love 'im." Whataguy.
>
>
...
>>
>> Since Wallace was just on probation, he needed a job. LBJ and Clark
>> arranged for him to be employed with Luscombe Aircraft Corp. which in
>> short
>> order became a part of Ling-TEMCO-Vaught (LTV), of which D. H. Byrd became
>> CEO.
>>
>
> Didn't he own the TSBD?
Yes, he did. Small world, isn't it.
>
>
>> As evidenced by a few DWIs (which should have served to revoke his
>> probation) Wallace took up drinking.
>>
>> After 5 years. Wallace's murder verdict was set aside. He still worked
>> for
>> LTV as an economist and had clearance to work at a "secret" military
>> aviation plant in Garland, TX.
>
> He's in the "loop".
> But he's been on the payroll ever since his job at the Dept. of Agriculture.
> It's called "commodity futures".
:-) Wallace later was transferred to a LTV job in California. Good pay,
comfy lifestyle--and he didn't even have to show up for work, if he didn't
want to.
...
>> Back to Estes, though--LBJ, Clark and Estes worked together to defraud the
>> government of millions, all syphoned through a phony corporation called
>> "Brazos-tenth Street." They were set up like dominoes, and if Estes fell,
>> Clark and LBJ knew that the eventual investigation would lead to them too.
>
> Estes did fall but LBJ didn't.
Pity, huh? Not that Estes *did* fall--it just would have been nice to see
him fall a little further than he did and land on LBJ.
>
>
>>
>> And that's what was happening when Henry Marshall, investigator for the
>> USDA
>> turned up some skeletons.
>
> Including his own.
==:-D
>
>> Estes freaked out and called Clark, who sent
>> Wallace to reason with Marshall. When that didn't work out very well,
>> Wallace shot Marshall 6 times and killed him. His death was ruled a
>> suicide.
>
> Three times - but whose counting?
Three, six, five...whatever. He was pretty dead. ;-)
>
>>
>> Thanks to Clint Peoples, Texas Ranger, who could not let the case go,
>> Estes
>> eventually testified before a grand jury after LBJ was dead. He swore
>> under
>> oath that Mac Wallace had killed Marshall and that Clark and LBJ had
>> arranged the murder.
>
> Yep!
> But when you have a prison record your credibility falls to zero. Does that
> sound familiar with something I e mailed you?
Exactly. The Chicago 7 or 8 comes to mind also.
>
>> While the grand jury did rule the death a homicide
>> (finally) all the people to indict were dead, so they returned no
>> indictments. Had LBJ lived, he would have been indicted for murder.
>
> But he would have been found innocent because his accuser would have benn a
> convicted con.
> This is how politics works, Deb.
Yes, and it's despicable. I've known law enforcement people all my life and
their testimonies are taken as sacred because they're professionals and
highly credible, etc, etc... But you have to know them well to understand.
There are some I would not trust around my kids. There are others who
really are above reproach. As far as ex-cons go--most I wouldn't trust
around my kids--but there are a few who do know the straight facts and
really do tell the truth. People are people. Some lie, some don't.
> Even Billy Sol Estes, one of the most famous criminals in accountng history
> (CPA's are required to study his crime to get their licenses) loses instant
> credibility,
>
> If you can control the convictions, you control the credibility.
>
> The bad guys really can't lose. They either keep their chums out of jail and
> continue to make money or, if he goes to jail, his testimony against them
> becomes worthless.
It sucks.
>
>
>>
>> McClellan claims he can back all this up by following the money trail. He
>> was in charge of drawing up contracts and trusts, so he knew where the
>> money
>> was going.
>
> I don't doubt him.
> LBJ was in up to his eyeballs in the Estes case. But it would have been
> Estes who ordered Marshall killed, not LBJ.
Possibly. Or even Ed Clark. But LBJ wouldn't have lost any sleep over the
matter, and he definitely benefited.
> Estes would have been the first
> to go to jail. His neck was on the line. The "good old boy" system then
> ruled Marshall's death a suicide. This was the same "good old boy" system
> that was fixing defense contracts with Fred Korth.
Yes--Korth was on equal footing.
>
>>
>>>> Let's look at what LBJ should have done if he had JFK killed:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Excluded the FBI from the investigation. Oswald had not performed a
>>>> federal crime.
>>
>> In effect, isn't that what he did? Hoover kept the FBI from doing much of
>> anything while giving the public appearance of a "thorough investigation."
>> We can all see what a shabby job they did,
>
> In convicting Oswald their work was first rate.
>
>>>> 2) Placed the investigation in the hands of the "good old boys", his
> >>>friends
>>>> in Dallas and the Dallas State Police.
>> Well, that was pretty much the case. They were in charge of LHO when he
>> was
>> murdered.
>
> If you try and link the DPD with Oswald's death, you've got an uphill debate
> on your hands.
No, I don't think the DPD was involved with LHO's murder. I think I should
have written "They were in charge of the investigation up until the time LHO
was murdered."
>
>>>> 3) Removed RFK from his position as AG to prevent him from creating his
> own
>>>> investigation.
>> I think LBJ did this as soon as he was comfortably able. Besides, RFK was
>> absolutely distraught over his brother's death. He spent a lot of time
>> ready Greek literature according to most accounts. It seems he wasn't
>> really concentrating on his brother's death or the government.
>
> Publicly, he didn't do a thing. He declined to have any role in the
> investigation at all, this in site of the fact that Hoover answered to him.
> When the WC informed him it did not trust Hoover's investigation, he asked
> that they please not involve him.
>
> Does this sound like the RFK that went after Hoffa?
No.
>
> Privately, he sent the Soviets a message advising them that he did not
> believe his brother was assasinated by the LW, but killed instead by the RW.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? RFK believes his brother was killed by a RW
> conspiracy but he won't go after them?
It makes no sense to me and never did.
>
> Do you suppose he planned not to go after them if elected President in 1968?
I think he would have, absolutely.
>
> Would this make RFK a threat to the "RW"?
You bet.
> What happened to RFK in 1968?
He was assassinated by yet another "lone nut." Now we have three lone nuts
(SS, LHO, and Ruby)--plus the one who murdered MLK. Four lone nuts.
America is famous for its lone nut assassins. Of course, three gunmen were
convicted of Malcolm X's murder. Does anybody know if they were three lone
nuts as well? ;-)
>
>
>>
>> And then when LBJ was elected, he did accept RFK's resignation.
>
> Technically, RFK resigned on 11/22/63.
>
> But when RFK resigned, it was to do what?
Ummmm.....how many guesses do I get? He ran for Senator of New York, wasn't
it? First step towards the oval office.
>
>>>> 4) He should have been checking up daily with "spies" in the WC to make
> sure
>>>> they hadn't dug up anything on him.
>> I believe he was, if the tapes of his White House years are to be
> believed.
>> He let Hoover know he wanted to be kept up to date. He called the
> hospital,
>> to see if LHO survived the attack according to the doctor in charge of
> LHO's
>> care.
>
> You are well read. My compliments.
Thank you, Clark!
> But it isn't enough to be kept up by
> Hoover. Any President would request to be kept abreast of the assassination.
> LBJ, if guilty, needs to be kept abreast of the WC's thinking. How did he do
> that?
He was continually in touch with Russell. Dulles was the key though, I
believe. Dulles regulated what the commission saw and what they didn't see.
>
>>
>> He put Dulles on the WC to keep the CIA involvement in check and make sure
>> the WC got exactly the information LBJ wanted them to have.
>
> Except for his first day talk on "lone assassins", what information was
> Dulles giving the WC that LBJ wanted them to have?
Anything that would convict Oswald; nothing that serve to cause doubt that
he acted alone.
>
>>
>> Dulles began the proceedings with a message about how lone assassins work
> in
>> the United States, but conspiracies only happen in foreign countries.
>
> Yes, He even gave them a CIA printed pamphlet to go along with his speech,
> which he knew was a lie when he gave it.
Absolutely.
>
>>
>> I mean--look at Dulles. He must have hated JFK with a passion, but LBJ
>> appointed him to the commission.
>
> What is your evidence that Dulles hated JFK?
JFK fired Dulles and said that he was going to crush the CIA. JFK felt
mislead and lied to by the CIA. He was furious after the Bay of Pigs.
Although he accepted all responsibility for it publicly (unlike Boy Bush now
who cannot point enough fingers at everyone else), privately JFK cursed the
CIA and his generals. I believe JFK made the statement that the worst part
of the job was having to work with the Generals. He didn't trust them after
that.
That's one of the reasons he set up direct communication with Khrushchev.
And I believe this infuriated his Generals as well as the CIA.
>
>
>>
>> LBJ told Dick Russell that he wanted Russell to be his eyes and ears on
> the
>> WC. Russell kept him informed.
>
> ???
>
>>
>> LBJ told Earl Warren exactly what the WC needed to find--a lone assassin.
>
> Yes. But if that's what he wanted the finding to be, why didn't he leave the
> investigation in the hands of the "good old boy" system in Texas?
Because they wouldn't have regulated the flow of information. They probably
would have investigated the crimes as well as their abilities would have
allowed. And they might have turned up some things that the government
didn't want turned up.
>
>> He left no wiggle room for any investigation, and he even objected to
>> Tippet's murder being a part of the investigation.
>
> I am not familiar with this.
I'll look it up and get back to you on it. It's on the tapes. He yelled
something like, "We cannot go investigating every little shooting in Texas,"
or something like that. It was quite rude. (But it's 3:00 am right
now...and I'm getting tired...) ;-)
>
>>>>
>>>> Here's what he should not have done:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Form a "blue ribbon" commission he didn't control (The WC).
>> I believe he had too much pressure from the Congress and the Senate.
>
> There was no pressure on him from Congress or the Senate. The only
> competition was Senator Eastland's SISS which certainly wasn't going to
> accuse LBJ of killing JFK.
>
>> He had
>> to do it, and it sounded like he wasn't happy about it.
>
> No. He didn't want it.
> But would a guilty man have allowed it?
Yes, if he could control it.
> And once he got on board with the idea, it was he who talked Russell and
> Earl Warren into serving. Do you think Earl Warren would cover up a
> conspiracy by LBJ to assassinate JFK?
Absolutely.
> Wasn't Warren the worst possible choice for a guilty
> President?
Warren was not all that great. He was promised "The first available
appointment on the supreme court" for doing a favor at the convention.
Little did anyone know at that time that the first available slot would be
chief justice. Of course, when the chief justice died, Earl Warren was on
the phone in a flash. He was told if he could be in Wash. DC in 5 days to
fill in during the interim, he would be nominated for the position. They
thought he wouldn't drop the ball in the California Governor's office just
like that--but as soon as he got off the phone, Earl Warren was packing his
bags and he was in Washington with time to spare. Earl Warren was an LBJ
boy all the way.
>
>> But, he did get to
>> pick the people who would be investigating, essentially--himself. What
>> could be better?
>
> It would be better if he picked Texans to serve to serve on the WC. Did John
> Tower serve?
No.
>
>>>> 2) Trust Hoover who had just been massacring him with Bobby Baker.
>>
>> Hoover got his goodies. He was promoted to his position for life.
>
> JFK would have given him the same goodies after Hoover found out about
> Marilyn Monroe and Judith Exner.
Probably. I think Hoover already knew about MM and Exner.
>
>
>>>> 3) Tell Walter Cronkite he didn't believe the WR and that JFK was
> killed by
>>>> a conspiracy.
>>
>> What could be better than to hide out in the public? That's where
>> alcoholics do their best performances. LBJ was the classic crook--he
>> thought he was so much smarter than anyone else that he could say
>> anything--even the truth--and nobody would believe him.
>
> He wasn't even a suspect when he told Cronkite in 1967.
>
>
>>>> 4) Not listen to RFK's assistant, Katzenbach.
>>
>> Nick? I don't know what that's about. :-/
>
> Nick called Hoover on Sunday, after Oswald wsas killed and impressed upon
> him the need to get the investigation out of Texas - You see, the "good old
> boys" in Texas were claiming JFK had been killed by a conspiracy. Isn't that
> just the opposite of what the "good old boys" should be doing?
Yes--so they couldn't be trusted to investigate. Thanks--I didn't know
about Nick.
>
> Not trusting LBJ to listen to Hoover, Nick went to the Washington Post on
> Monday and had them call LBJ requesting a commission. A reluctant LBJ
> agreed.
Ah--OK. I see.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought.
>>
>> And good ones, at that.
>
> Once in awhile I get lucky.
Once in awhile? More than that, I would say.
--Deb :-)
Deb Bert
<deb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 10/23/03 6:45 AM, in article vpevvm9...@corp.supernews.com, "clark
>> wilkins" <clwi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> "Deb Bert" <deb...@cox.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>>> He left no wiggle room for any investigation, and he even objected to
>>> Tippet's murder being a part of the investigation.
>>
>> I am not familiar with this.
>
> I'll look it up and get back to you on it. It's on the tapes. He yelled
> something like, "We cannot go investigating every little shooting in Texas,"
> or something like that. It was quite rude. (But it's 3:00 am right
> now...and I'm getting tired...) ;-)
...
I need to correct this information. :-/ (Good grief, Deb!)
It was *not* Tippet's murder being a part of the investigation that LBJ
objected to--it was the US government getting involved at all in the
assassination investigation. (You were totally correct, Clark.)
Mea Culpa, Hail Mary, and Gesundheit!
--
>From Beschloss, "Taking Charge," p. 31
Monday, November 25, 1963
Conversation with J. Edgar Hoover 10:30 a.m.
LBJ: Apparently some lawyer in Justice [Robert Kennedy's Justice
Department, which, as Johnson knows, is Hoover's nemesis] is lobbying the
Post because that's where the suggestion came from for this presidential
commission [to investigate Kennedy's murder], which we think would be very
bad and put it right in the White House. We can't be checking up on every
shooting scrape in the country...
--
I guess that's what it was to LBJ--a "shooting scrape."
I sure am relieved to read it was nothing more serious than that! I guess
we can all go on to other things now; it was no big deal. LBJ said so.
After all, if you can't trust the President of the United States of
America,who can you trust?
--Deb