The Katzenbach Memo
Robert Harris
Probably no government document makes more clear, the extreme bias of the
highest federal authorities, and their lack of interest in a legitimate
investigation, than does the Katzenbach memo, issued less than 72 hours
after the murder.
Of course, in later years Katzenbach would deny that he was trying to
stifle the investigation, and didn't really mean that he was in a rush to
pin the blame on Oswald.
But based on other evidence, it does indeed appear that this was
Katzenbach's as well as the FBI's intent. This is from the HSCA interview
of David Slawson.
"Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that
in the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or reflecting
a conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House, Walter Jenkins.
The conversation reflects that Hoover made the following statement:
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin,"
the conversation occurring November 24, 1963, 2 days after the assassination.
(unquote)
So, one day prior to the release of Katzenbach's memo, Hoover was told
that the attorney general's office would release something about how they
would "convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.".
This the full text of the Katzenbach memo:
Deputy Attorney General
November 25, 1963
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now.
1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did
not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was
such that he would have been convicted at trial.
2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we
should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist
conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing
conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on
Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife,
etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist
conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and
thus silenced.
3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can
scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police
when our President is murdered.
I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination.
This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between
this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation
of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.
The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission
of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce
its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages.
It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to
it here and abroad.
I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public
property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need
something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the
wrong sort.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General
Robert Harris
Ted Gittinger
"Robert Harris" <reha...@trip.net> wrote in message
news:reharris-051...@0-1pool41-88.nas1.clearwater1.fl.us.da.qwest.
net...
Which blows your premise to hell and gone. QED.
ted
Gil Jesus
off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone else.
And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
Ted Gittinger
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
cutting
> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
Reread this part of the memo:
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now."
"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
Neh?
ted
O.H. LEE
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
>> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
>cutting
>> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
>> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
>> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
>
>Reread this part of the memo:
>
>"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
>Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> statement to this effect be made now."
>
>"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
Presumably sir. Of course, these words of Mr. Katzenbach also followed:
"Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off"
"cut off", presumably means "cut off".
Neh?
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>Neh?
>
>ted
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone
>else.
>> And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
>
>
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Gil Jesus
through. You just don't do your homework.
The FBI didn't find Oswald's palmprint on the Carcano until it was "returned"
to them on November 29th.
This memo was dated November 25th, four days before they found the palmprint,
which would have connected Oswald with the rifle. When this memo was written,
the FBI had not yet received all of the evidence in the case from the Dallas
Police.
For example, the DPD withheld the shells in the Tippit murder until months
later.
So what evidence are they gonna reveal to the world when it has yet to be
collected ?
It's an obvious coverup and drones like you eat it up. You deserve to be led
around by the nose. You don't have the ability of independent thought, or the
energy to research before you comment. EH ?
Robert Harris
<TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
>> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
>cutting
>> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
>> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
>> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
>
>Reread this part of the memo:
>
>"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
>Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> statement to this effect be made now."
>
>"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
He NEVER said that they wanted to give people "all the facts". He
SAID that the facts should be presented in such a way that people will
think they have been told all the facts.
Read it again without the sugar coating, Ted. If you still don't get
it, take it to an English professor and have him interpret it for you.
Robert Harris
Ted Gittinger
"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3df1373f$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
> >> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
> >cutting
> >> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
> >> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
> >> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
> >
> >Reread this part of the memo:
> >
> >"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
> >Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> > United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> > statement to this effect be made now."
> >
> >"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
>
> Presumably sir. Of course, these words of Mr. Katzenbach also followed:
>
> "Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off"
>
> "cut off", presumably means "cut off".
>
> Neh?
Looks like Mr. Katzenbach favored making the facts public, in order to cut
off speculation. What do you find objectionable to that? Looks pretty open
and shut to me.
Oh: I suggest that you only say Neh? when you have something worthwhile to
say.
ted
Ted Gittinger
"Robert Harris" <reha...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:3df155e9...@news.trip.net...
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:07:45 GMT, "Ted Gittinger"
> <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
> >> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
> >cutting
> >> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
> >> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
> >> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
> >
> >Reread this part of the memo:
> >
> >"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
> >Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> > United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> > statement to this effect be made now."
> >
> >"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
>
> He NEVER said that they wanted to give people "all the facts".
Reread the memo, you thundering idiot. That is *exactly* what he said.
He said that "all the facts" should be presented. What part of that do you
not understand?
> SAID > think they have been told all the facts.
> Read it again without the sugar coating, Ted. If you still don't get
> it, take it to an English professor and have him interpret it for you.
You may need an English prof; I don't. "All the facts" means what it means.
I am glad that you are not in charge of interpreting the Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, I am alarmed that you are allowed to vote and to serve on
juries.
ted
Ted Gittinger
> Hey Teddy, you dumbass.
Hey Gil, you fucking idiot.
Once again your ignorance on this subject shows
> through. You just don't do your homework.
> The FBI didn't find Oswald's palmprint on the Carcano until it was
"returned"
> to them on November 29th.
What in the hell are you talking about? I have never referred to palmprints
or FBI evidence or anything connected to them.
Get relevant, or get out.
ted
Robert Harris
Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> news:3df155e9...@news.trip.net...
> > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:07:45 GMT, "Ted Gittinger"
> > <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
> > >> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
> > >cutting
> > >> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
> > >> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
> > >> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
> > >
> > >Reread this part of the memo:
> > >
> > >"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
> > >Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> > > United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> > > statement to this effect be made now."
> > >
> > >"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
> >
> > He NEVER said that they wanted to give people "all the facts".
>
> Reread the memo, you thundering idiot. That is *exactly* what he said.
Ted, you seem a bit tense these days. Are you taking your meds?
I notice though, that you only go into these little tantrums when you are
cornered. Let's see what brought on this last little tizzy.
>
> He said that "all the facts" should be presented.
No he did not Ted.
He said all the facts should be made public... IN A WAY WHICH WILL SATISFY
PEOPLE... THAT ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TOLD.
Ted, let me explain a fundamental fact about facts to you. When you tell
"facts", you don't tell them in a given "way", to achieve an end. You just
tell the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If Katzenbach was
really contradicting his earlier statements and decided mid-memo to
support an honest disclosure, he would have said,
"It is important that all the facts surrounding the case be released to
the public."
He didn't say that though, did he? Instead, he said the facts should be
released in such a way that everyone will think that got the real story.
Much more importantly, Ted, we already know that Katzenbach had no
intention of seeking out the real "facts" in the case anyway, since he
agreed with Hoover that the crime should be pinned on Oswald, with no
serious investigation of other possibilities.
Nice try though, Ted:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I think you are misreading the paragraph, Ted.
It does NOT say,
"It is important that all the facts be made to the people in the
United States...."
does it Ted?
It says that the facts should be made in a way that..
"will satisfy people.... that all the facts have been told...."
Ted, there is a world of difference between making a statement that
"satisfies" the public, and one that tells them the good, the bad, and the
ugly.
If there are any remaining doubts about the meaning, these other two
statements by Hoover and Katzenbach respectively, settle the matter quite
conclusively,
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin"
and
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is
the real assassin"
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021206193645...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> > Hey Teddy, you dumbass.
>
> Hey Gil, you fucking idiot.
Hey!!
How come he gets to be a "fucking" idiot and I am only a "thundering" idiot!
How come he gets to have all the fun?!
>
> Once again your ignorance on this subject shows
> > through. You just don't do your homework.
> > The FBI didn't find Oswald's palmprint on the Carcano until it was
> "returned"
> > to them on November 29th.
>
> What in the hell are you talking about? I have never referred to palmprints
> or FBI evidence or anything connected to them.
What posting are you talking about Ted??
Gil never claimed you said anything at all about the prints. Doe this kind
of thing happen to you a lot?
He only said the feds had no right to close the case before the evidence
was in.
Do you disagree with that?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
(Robert Harris) wrote:
I am not really sure how this got so screwed up but that last paragraph
should have read,
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did
not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was
such that he would have been convicted at trial. "
Robert Harris
Gil Jesus
doesn't understand what he reads. Funny how other people understand what I
write. You're the only one who doesn't Teddy.
Perhaps you're a victim of the Texas education system, which was the worst in
the country in the early sixties.
If you're problem is a result of some sort of inbreeding, then I sympathize
with you.
Either way, I think we oughta cut you some slack.
I am relevant and I'm not getting out.
As anyone who read my original posting and understands it knows, I never said
that Ted said anything about the palmprint. I was using the discovery of the
palmprint as an example to make a point.
My point is that the FBI did not find Oswald's palmprint on his rifle until
November 29th, four days AFTER the Katzenbach memo. So what's he talking about,
releasing all of the facts ? What facts were they gonna release to the world,
Teddy, when they hadn't even collected the evidence yet ? That's my point.
What evidence did they have on November 25th that PROVED that Oswald did it
and that he didn't have any co-conspirators who were still at large ?
Answer: they didn't have any such evidence that would support their kind of
"facts" that early in the investigation. They interviewed tens of thousands of
witnesses. You think they had that all done in three days ?
Without the evidence, they had to present "all of the facts" in "such a way"
to "convince the public" that Oswald did it.
He's saying that in order for the public to buy into it, the officials must
present the evidence it in a such a way that Oswald "would have been convicted
at trial".
Katzenbach was a lawyer. He's telling them how to frame Oswald post-mortem and
fend off a Congressional investigation.
NEH ?
Vern Pascal
begun..the LBJ ADMINISTRATION IS TELLING THE WORLD THERE WAS NO
CONSPIRACY AND OSWALD WAS THE LONE ASSASSIN.
.
O.H. LEE
Right on Bob. The words of both Hoover and Katzenbach shall stand for all
time as damning indictments of both gentlemen as full accessories to the
massive coverup after the fact.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>
>Robert Harris
>
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
O.H. LEE
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3df1373f$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>>
>> "Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:20021206050250...@mb-df.aol.com...
>> >> Thanks for that re-print Bob. I'm especially attuned to the part about
>> >cutting
>> >> off speculation that this was "a right-wing plot to blame it on the
>> >> Communists", which is what I believe the assassination was.
>> >> Apparently, the government didn't want that aspect of it investigated.
>> >
>> >Reread this part of the memo:
>> >
>> >"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
>> >Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
>> > United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that
a
>> > statement to this effect be made now."
>> >
>> >"All of the facts" presumably means "all of the facts."
>>
>> Presumably sir. Of course, these words of Mr. Katzenbach also followed:
>>
>> "Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off"
>>
>> "cut off", presumably means "cut off".
>>
>> Neh?
>
>Looks like Mr. Katzenbach favored making the facts public, in order to cut
>off speculation
I would suggest he wanted a certain version of the facts made public, not
to cut off any speculation, but any real investigation as well.
What do you find objectionable to that? Looks pretty open
>and shut to me.
On November 25th? A mere three days later this case could truly be called
open and shut sir? Nothing about the timing bothers you here? Hell, an investigator's
shoe leather had barely hit the pavement yet, and we have these type of pronouncments
emanating from among the highest law enforcement officials in the land. As
a citizen, nothing about this bothers you? You see these memos as indicating
a desire for a fully impartial, "let the chips fall where the may" investigation?
With all due respect sir, if you do see it that way, one is hard pressed
to avoid concluding that this may well hint at highly delusional thinking.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>Oh: I suggest that you only say Neh? when you have something worthwhile
to
>say.
>
>ted
>>
>> Regards,
>> O.H. LEE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Neh?
>> >
>> >ted
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or
>anyone
>> >else.
>> >> And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
>> >
>> >
>>
>> O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
>
>
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Gil Jesus
delusional. His world is the LN world.
In his world, he's never wrong.
In his world, bullets do magical and mystical things. Like enter victims at
different angles. Like change course in mid air, like the Magic Bullet did.
His is a world where deposing the wrong witness to give sworn testimony in a
capital murder case is, as he himself puts it, a "minor error". And he says
he's glad Bob Harris isn't interpreting the Bill of Rights ? At least Bob
Harris knows what he's reading.
Either he's ignorant, he just bustin' balls or he's stupid, I haven't figured
out which one yet. Either way, the way he's been getting banged around lately,
it's obvious that he's in WAY over his head here.
art guerrilla
oh, lee, you so sassy -
>"Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off"
>"cut off", presumably means "cut off".
>Neh?
*ouch* that had to hurt...
hee hee hee
eye just found out what is the
sound of one nail hammering...
bang bang bang
ann if-eye-were-a-carp archy
eof
art guerrilla
tgitty dripped sour milk -
>Looks like Mr. Katzenbach favored making the facts public, in order to cut
>off speculation. What do you find objectionable to that? Looks pretty open
>and shut to me.
>
>Oh: I suggest that you only say Neh? when you have something worthwhile to
>say.
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
*ach* now eye know the sound of a
sour grape pealing...
ow ow ow
ann listen-to-the-warm archy
eof
art guerrilla
another nail in the coffin -
>3 days after the Assassination.before any investigation has truly
>begun..the LBJ ADMINISTRATION IS TELLING THE WORLD THERE WAS NO
>CONSPIRACY AND OSWALD WAS THE LONE ASSASSIN.
wave buh-bye, tgitty...
buh-bye
hee hee hee
ann right-foreleg-waving archy
eof
Ted Gittinger
>
> Right on Bob. The words of both Hoover and Katzenbach shall stand for all
> time as damning indictments of both gentlemen as full accessories to the
> massive coverup after the fact.
>
> Regards,
> O.H. LEE
Nonsense. Firstly, it takes a deliberate misreading to arrive at such a
conclusion; secondly, if it is such a damning indictment, why was it
committed to paper and allowed to survive?
ted
Ted Gittinger
>
> I think you are misreading the paragraph, Ted.
>
> It does NOT say,
>
> "It is important that all the facts be made to the people in the
> United States...."
>
> does it Ted?
>
> It says that the facts should be made in a way that..
>
> "will satisfy people.... that all the facts have been told...."
>
>
> Ted, there is a world of difference between making a statement that
> "satisfies" the public, and one that tells them the good, the bad, and the
> ugly.
I repeat the relevant passage, emphasis mine:
*It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
>> Assassination be made public* in a way which will satisfy people in the
>> United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
>> statement to this effect be made now.
Nothing can be plainer. All of the facts means "all of the facts." Of
course he said that in so doing the government wanted to satisfy the
people that all of the facts have been told. What would you have him say?
That all of the facts should be made public in a way that will not satisfy
the people?
ted
Robert Harris
Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3df1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> >
> > Right on Bob. The words of both Hoover and Katzenbach shall stand for all
> > time as damning indictments of both gentlemen as full accessories to the
> > massive coverup after the fact.
> >
> > Regards,
> > O.H. LEE
>
> Nonsense. Firstly, it takes a deliberate misreading to arrive at such a
> conclusion; secondly, if it is such a damning indictment, why was it
> committed to paper and allowed to survive?
Ok, if we are being "misleading", then why don't you tell us what Mr.
Hoover *really* meant when he said,
""The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin"
Go ahead, Ted. You have the floor.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
So, if a used car salesman said, "It isimportant that the customer be
given all the facts about this used car in a way that will make him
believe the thing will last more than a couple weeks."
You would then conclude that this was an honest salesman, right Ted?
I mean after alll, he did say "all the facts", didn't he?
Or are you a bit concerned about the "way" he was going to present
those facts??
BTW, Ted. I am still waiting for your interpretation of Hoover's
statement:
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is
the real assassin"
Robert Harris
Gil Jesus
parentheses so I don't confuse my bud Teddy.
(If we want to sucessfully cover this crime up)
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United
States and abroad that all the facts have been told.
(We can achieve this by doing the following)
1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not
have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that
he would have been convicted at trial.
2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should
have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy
or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on
the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on
Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife,etc.). The
Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and
it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction.
Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the
world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is
murdered.
We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of
the wrong sort.
O.H. LEE
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3df1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
>>
>> Right on Bob. The words of both Hoover and Katzenbach shall stand for
all
>> time as damning indictments of both gentlemen as full accessories to the
>> massive coverup after the fact.
>>
>> Regards,
>> O.H. LEE
>
>Nonsense. Firstly, it takes a deliberate misreading to arrive at such a
>conclusion;
On the contrary. I must respectfully disagree here sir and hold that it would
take a deliberate misreading to attach any type of *noble* motive to either
Mr. Hoover or Mr.Katzenbach in authoring these memos.
secondly, if it is such a damning indictment, why was it
>committed to paper and allowed to survive?
Oh, I feel fairly certain that Mr. Katzenbach has indeed asked this same
question countless times throughout the years sir. I believe that he rather
rues the fact that his memo ever saw the light of day.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>ted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Robert Harris
>> >
>>
>> O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
>
>
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
AnthonyMarsh
I know this comes in late, but it bears remembering that there is a vast
difference between what the government believes and what it wants the
public to believe. Everyone in Washington thought that it was a
conspiracy, but they did not want the public to believe that, lest it
spark WWIII.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
David Wimp
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> > >Which blows your premise to hell and gone. QED.
> >
> > I think you are misreading the paragraph, Ted.
> >
> > It does NOT say,
> >
> > "It is important that all the facts be made to the people in the
> > United States...."
> >
> > does it Ted?
> >
> > It says that the facts should be made in a way that..
> >
> > "will satisfy people.... that all the facts have been told...."
> >
> >
> > Ted, there is a world of difference between making a statement that
> > "satisfies" the public, and one that tells them the good, the bad, and the
> > ugly.
>
> I repeat the relevant passage, emphasis mine:
>
> *It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
> >> Assassination be made public* in a way which will satisfy people in the
> >> United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> >> statement to this effect be made now.
>
> Nothing can be plainer.
Oh, please. If the intent was to say that all the facts should come out, as you
seem to believe, then it is a damned convoluted way of saying it and, yes, it
could be a lot plainer. You conveniently mark just the part of the sentence
that you want and ignore the rest. If that part of the sentence conveyed the
meaning, then why did it go on so long after that? It says a statement should
be made that all the facts have come out. It goes on to indicate that one of
the "facts" that is of the utmost importance for the public to believe is that
Oswald acted alone and had no confederates still at large at a time when nobody
could make any claim to knowing that was a fact. Taken in context, rather than
out, I think the meaning here is that it is important for people to be satisfied
that the story ended with Oswald.
> All of the facts means "all of the facts." Of
> course he said that in so doing the government wanted to satisfy the
> people that all of the facts have been told. What would you have him say?
> That all of the facts should be made public in a way that will not satisfy
> the people?
How about, "All the facts should be made public". (period)
--
Dave
It's easier to get smart people to act stupid than to get stupid people to act
smart.
Ted Gittinger
..net...
Answer my question first. How did the Katzenbach memo survive to make it
into the LBJ Library archives?
ted
paull...@hotmail.com
It's kind of like eating the same crap over and over again !
David Wimp
Ted Gittinger wrote:
Perhaps this was LBJ's authorization from Bobby to make Oswald the lone
assassin. He wanted it personally from Bobby, but had to settle for
Katzenbach as proxy. If the cover up came unraveled, LBJ could say he was
abiding by the wishes of the AG and the Kennedy family (and I think he
basically was, whatever his pre knowledge, involvement, etc. ) and have
something to back it up, unless Katzenbach was going to take sole
responsibility for the contents of the memo. Katzenbach was Bobby's
assistant and reported to him, as you know. LBJ kept the memo and never
saw a reason not to keep it.
Ted Gittinger
"David Wimp" <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3DF22DED...@ix.netcom.com...
Of course. Because that is what Katzenbach believed. The whole point was
that there was a perfectly good explanation for the events of 11/22, and
there was a need to get it out to the public, before all sorts of nutty
conspiracy theories inflamed the mind of the people.
Looks like the idea worked, in the main.
Not entirely, however. Heh.
ted
Walt
net...
>
> 3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can
scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police
when our President is murdered.
The whole Katzenbach memo is disturbing...... It's very clear that they
were more concerned with CYA than any real investigation.....as revealed
by Katzenbach's... "We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the
image of the Dallas police.......
Katzenbach knew that the DPD were making a mess of the case by releasing
to much information to the newspapers and by telling stupid lies......
He didn't care that they ( Wade and Curry ) were lying.....only that they
were telling stupid lies that could easlily be proved to be lies.....
Walt
art guerrilla
his gill plates flared briefly -
>Either he's ignorant, he just bustin' balls or he's stupid, I haven't figured
>out which one yet. Either way, the way he's been getting banged around
>lately,
>it's obvious that he's in WAY over his head here.
orrrrr...
he's a bot, plain and simple...
hee hee hee
probably an amateur bot, both a victim
of propaganda, *and* a twue bewiever,
which makes him impossible to reason
with...
ho ho ho
ann bot-spotting archy
eof
Caeruleo
David Wimp <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
He isn't ignoring the rest, since the remainder of the sentence contains
further elaboration of the same idea: "in a way which will satisfy
people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told
and that a statement to this effect be made now."
> If that part of the sentence conveyed the
> meaning, then why did it go on so long after that?
To further elaborate & clarify the meaning, apparently.
> It says a statement
> should
> be made that all the facts have come out. It goes on to indicate that one of
> the "facts" that is of the utmost importance for the public to believe is
> that
> Oswald acted alone and had no confederates still at large at a time when
> nobody
> could make any claim to knowing that was a fact.
I disagree that nobody could at least make a fairly well-substantiated
claim to knowing it was a fact. Just with the rifle traced to Oswald
alone, Katzenbach may have at least believed that he was stating fact.
> Taken in context, rather
> than
> out, I think the meaning here is that it is important for people to be
> satisfied
> that the story ended with Oswald.
Part of that very context was this:
"...we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a
Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."
And:
"The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation."
It could be said, then, that Katzenbach was perhaps very concerned about
what he perceived to be all these wild rumors, as he had not seen any
evidence to support belief in such conspiracies.
Caeruleo
reha...@cybermesa.com (Robert Harris) wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2002 11:49:28 -0500, "Ted Gittinger"
> <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> So, if a used car salesman said, "It isimportant that the customer be
> given all the facts about this used car in a way that will make him
> believe the thing will last more than a couple weeks."
>
> You would then conclude that this was an honest salesman, right Ted?
That is not analogous to the Katzenbach sentence you're imitating, as
the 2nd clause of your sentence is not even remotely parallel to his.
Katzenbach did *not* say, for example:
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad for more than a couple of weeks that all the
facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."
If you're going to post an analogy, you may wish to make it applicable
to the sentence you're analyzing, such as:
"It is important that the customer be given all the facts about this
used car in a way that will make him believe that he has indeed been
given all the facts."
O.H. LEE
But daren't you incredulous that a mere 3 days after the event, one of the
top law enforcement officials in the land seemed so certain that Oswald did
not have any confederates? Shouldn't Mr. Katzenbach have insisted that no
stone would be left unturned in the effort to get at the *truth* here, rather
than seeming to concentrate on quelling rumors?
>> Taken in context, rather
>> than
>> out, I think the meaning here is that it is important for people to be
>> satisfied
>> that the story ended with Oswald.
>
>Part of that very context was this:
>
>"...we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a
>Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
>right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."
Why would that be, if this is where the facts led following a thorough investigation?
>And:
>
>"The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
>conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation."
And here, at long last, is where I finally give Mr. Katzenbach a passing
grade with respect to this portion of his memo. For it is difficult indeed
to disagree with any portion of the above statement.
>It could be said, then, that Katzenbach was perhaps very concerned about
>what he perceived to be all these wild rumors, as he had not seen any
>evidence to support belief in such conspiracies.
But what he *should* have been "very concerned" about at this very early
stage was in unearthing the truth.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Robert Harris
Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
LOL!
This has to qualify for everybody's top ten list of absolute worst
arguments ever presented in this case.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2002 22:30:47 -0500, reha...@trip.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>
> >
> >Probably no government document makes more clear, the extreme bias of the
> >highest federal authorities, and their lack of interest in a legitimate
> >investigation, than does the Katzenbach memo, issued less than 72 hours
> >after the murder.
> >
> >Of course, in later years Katzenbach would deny that he was trying to
> >stifle the investigation, and didn't really mean that he was in a rush to
> >pin the blame on Oswald.
> >
> >But based on other evidence, it does indeed appear that this was
> >Katzenbach's as well as the FBI's intent. This is from the HSCA interview
> >of David Slawson.
> >
> >"Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that
> >in the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or reflecting
> >a conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House, Walter Jenkins.
> >The conversation reflects that Hoover made the following statement:
> >
> >"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
> >something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
> >real assassin,"
> >
> >the conversation occurring November 24, 1963, 2 days after the assassination.
> >
> >(unquote)
> >
> >So, one day prior to the release of Katzenbach's memo, Hoover was told
> >that the attorney general's office would release something about how they
> >would "convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.".
> >
> >
> >This the full text of the Katzenbach memo:
> >
> >
> >
> >Deputy Attorney General
> >
> >November 25, 1963
> >
> >MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS
> >
> >It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
> >Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
> >United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
> >statement to this effect be made now.
> >
> >1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did
> >not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was
> >such that he would have been convicted at trial.
> >
> >2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we
> >should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist
> >conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing
> >conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on
> >Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife,
> >etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist
> >conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and
> >thus silenced.
> >
> >3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
> >conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can
> >scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police
> >when our President is murdered.
> >
> >I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
> >possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
> >assassination.
> >
> >This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between
> >this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation
> >of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.
> >
> >The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission
> >of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce
> >its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages.
> >
> >It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to
> >it here and abroad.
> >
> >I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public
> >property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need
> >something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the
> >wrong sort.
> >
> >Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
> >
> >Deputy Attorney General
> >
>
> This is the full text of his HSCA testimony.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/katzen.txt
>
> If one assumes, as conspiracists do, that there was clear evidence of
> a conspiracy, and that Katzenbach *knew* there was such evidence, then
> the memo is the recipe for a coverup.
Nonsense.
The "recipe for coverup was" was very, very clear:
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
real assassin,"
> The reality, however, is that
> Katzenbach like most of official Washington was convinced that Oswald
> had done it alone,
Utter nonsense - 30 hours after the assassination, he probably had to
think hard to remember Oswald's full name.
And even if he believed Oswald shot Kennedy, neither he nor Hoover had a
speck of evidence or reason to be sure there were no accomplices.
Closing a political murder case of that magnitude so early, is beyond
outrageous. It would be utterly unbelievable if we didn't have the docs
to prove it. Can you imagine the FBI doing that in the McVeigh case or
any other crime in modern history????
How can you NOT express outrage, John? How can this not bother you?
We both know very well, about Hoover's aversion to going after organized
crime. Do you doubt for a second, that this was his motive for undermining
the investigation of the assassination??
Robert Harris
Vern Pascal
the case 3 days after the Assassination.
There is something else that goes to the black heart of this case that
has never been answered.and to me it's the single biggest and most
important question in this whole mess..no one has ever claimed in the
FBI-CIA-SS-Dallas Police that Oswald had an accomplice, and there was a
castro or Russian Agent on the Knoll, or firing in front of the
President... So who read the Riot Act to Boswell, Finck and Humes?
My understanding is that Burkley told the 3 Bethesda Doctors." we have a
man in custody who did this... he fired from behind the President in the
TSBD" before the Autopsy begun.
Burkley got his orders from either the upper echelon of the Navy and or
high Military Brass, The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, or Lyndon Johnson. ...JP
Mike
> Hey Teddy, you dumbass. Once again your ignorance on this subject shows
>through. You just don't do your homework.
> The FBI didn't find Oswald's palmprint on the Carcano until it was "returned"
>to them on November 29th.
>
>This memo was dated November 25th, four days before they found the palmprint,
>which would have connected Oswald with the rifle. When this memo was written,
>the FBI had not yet received all of the evidence in the case from the Dallas
>Police.
>For example, the DPD withheld the shells in the Tippit murder until months
>later.
>
> So what evidence are they gonna reveal to the world when it has yet to be
>collected ?
>
> It's an obvious coverup and drones like you eat it up. You deserve to be led
>around by the nose. You don't have the ability of independent thought, or the
>energy to research before you comment. EH ?
>
>
>
>"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone else.
>And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
What do you think about the fact that Oswald's fingerprints were
verified on the rifle in photographs taken AT THE CRIME SCENE?
You should read First Day Evidence......
Gil Jesus
assassination to avoid a congressional inquiry. That's why they named the
assassin before the investigation had begun, to avoid Congress getting
involved.
Oswald was a patsy who was framed post-mortem.
Ted Gittinger
Very excellent; I give it a 9.8 for style.
Now then: degree of difficulty?
Oh dear. We seem to have gone off the scale, downward. The judges are
conferring. Yes, yes, that is confirmed, the judges state that the dive
lacked almost all substance--but what there was, was cherce.
A prize to all who identify that last line.
ted
Caeruleo
"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <3DF22DED...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > David Wimp <joli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It says a statement
> >> should
> >> be made that all the facts have come out. It goes on to indicate that
> one of
> >> the "facts" that is of the utmost importance for the public to believe
> is
> >> that
> >> Oswald acted alone and had no confederates still at large at a time when
>
> >> nobody
> >> could make any claim to knowing that was a fact.
> >
> >I disagree that nobody could at least make a fairly well-substantiated
> >claim to knowing it was a fact. Just with the rifle traced to Oswald
> >alone, Katzenbach may have at least believed that he was stating fact.
>
> But daren't you incredulous that a mere 3 days after the event, one of the
> top law enforcement officials in the land seemed so certain that Oswald did
> not have any confederates?
Not "incredulous," exactly, but yes, despite what I posted I do believe
him a little "quick" on this. I've postulated reasons for this before,
as in, for example, who was above him. I guess my point is just that
this is what he may have "believed" at the time, & that it was not
necessarily an indication of any dishonesty on his part.
> Shouldn't Mr. Katzenbach have insisted that no
> stone would be left unturned in the effort to get at the *truth* here, rather
> than seeming to concentrate on quelling rumors?
Perhaps, but history has seemed to bear him out, as Communist
involvement, for example, is one of the less popular theories among CTs.
> >> Taken in context, rather
> >> than
> >> out, I think the meaning here is that it is important for people to be
>
> >> satisfied
> >> that the story ended with Oswald.
> >
> >Part of that very context was this:
> >
> >"...we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a
>
> >Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
> >right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."
>
> Why would that be, if this is where the facts led following a thorough
> investigation?
As I said above. And there seems to be little to support any conclusion
that that's where the facts would have led.
> >And:
> >
> >"The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
> >conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation."
>
> And here, at long last, is where I finally give Mr. Katzenbach a passing
> grade with respect to this portion of his memo. For it is difficult indeed
> to disagree with any portion of the above statement.
Indeed, & maybe that statement is the key to understanding Mr.
Katzenbach's true feelings.
> >It could be said, then, that Katzenbach was perhaps very concerned about
>
> >what he perceived to be all these wild rumors, as he had not seen any
> >evidence to support belief in such conspiracies.
>
> But what he *should* have been "very concerned" about at this very early
> stage was in unearthing the truth.
With that I certainly agree. I'm simply saying that, right or wrong, he
may have felt that he had sufficient cause to believe he already knew
the truth.
Robert Harris
Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Ted, the reason your argument is so bad, is that it is a terrible fallacy.
You seem to be arguing that we should excuse the content of that document,
which was hidden from the public for fiifteen years, because its creators
did not think to destroy it. Of course, if they had, we would not be
talking about it today.
Officer John: Come over here, Officer Ted, I think we have proof that this
guy is a terrorist.
Officer Ted: What did you find, Officer John?
Officer John: Well, I have this letter, dated 9/10/2001 that says,
"Tommorow we are doing to blow up the twin towers!".
Officer Ted: Oh, forget about it Officer John. He's innocent.
Officer John: What?? How could that be?
Officer Ted: Well, if he was guilty, he would have destroyed the letter,
wouldn't he? Let the man go and get back to his flying lessons.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
McAdams) wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2002 23:58:24 -0500, reha...@trip.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>
>>In article <3df2d437...@news.newsguy.com>,
>>john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is the full text of his HSCA testimony.
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/katzen.txt
>>>
>>> If one assumes, as conspiracists do, that there was clear evidence of
>>> a conspiracy, and that Katzenbach *knew* there was such evidence, then
>>> the memo is the recipe for a coverup.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>The "recipe for coverup was" was very, very clear:
>>
>>"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
>>something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the
>>real assassin,"
>>
>
>Selective quote, Bob.
Ok, then how about this one:
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he
did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the
evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
How can you defend something like this, John?????
That goes far beyond narrow mindedness. That reeks of deliberate
obstruction of justice. These men should have been prosecuted and
jailed.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The reality, however, is that
>>> Katzenbach like most of official Washington was convinced that Oswald
>>> had done it alone,
>>
>>Utter nonsense - 30 hours after the assassination, he probably had to
>>think hard to remember Oswald's full name.
>>
>
>Bob, the case against Oswald was quite clear, "beyond a reasonable
>doubt and to a moral certainty" according to Wade.
Irrelevant
Even if he believed Oswald was involved, he didn't have a shred of
reason to eliminate the possibility of accomplices.
>
>
>>And even if he believed Oswald shot Kennedy, neither he nor Hoover had a
>>speck of evidence or reason to be sure there were no accomplices.
>>
>
>They had no reason to believe there *were* accomplices.
Not on this planet, John.
DPD originally stated that Kennedy was the victim of a "communist
conspiracy". They only switched to the LN theory when the feds told
them too.
Obviously, they were wrong about the commies too, but that just goes
to prove how irresponsible it is to call a case before its been
properly investigated, or in this case, almost not at all.
>
>And remember that McCarthyism was just a decade in the past at that
>time. Wild charges about who might have been involved were a
>legitimate concern.
That falls light years short of a decent excuse for preventing an
investigation of the crime.
Perhaps this makes it a bit clearer, why I so seriously doubt the
sincerity of those who waste their lives trying to defend these thugs.
Exactly how much faith can anyone put in the results of the FBI's
"investigation", which included a deliberate coverup of Jack Ruby's
deceptions in his polygraph tests, the coverup of arrest records and
interviews, deliberately destroyed evidence, and even the admission of
perjury, made in front of the WC.
Even WC people complained about the FBI's refusal to investigate
potential conspiracy leads.
We can thank Mr. Hoover, and Mr. Katzenbach for all that, John. The
"blueprint" as you put it, for this coverup, was indeed laid out
clearly by these two.
Robert Harris
>
>
>>Closing a political murder case of that magnitude so early, is beyond
>>outrageous. It would be utterly unbelievable if we didn't have the docs
>>to prove it. Can you imagine the FBI doing that in the McVeigh case or
>>any other crime in modern history????
>>
>>How can you NOT express outrage, John? How can this not bother you?
>>
>
>Nothing the the Katzenbach memo said investigation had to stop, and
>indeed it didn't stop.
>
>
>>We both know very well, about Hoover's aversion to going after organized
>>crime. Do you doubt for a second, that this was his motive for undermining
>>the investigation of the assassination??
>>
>
>I think you are wrong on two counts, Bob.
>
>.John
>
>
>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gil Jesus
testified to ? Was he beyond lying to save his own ass ?
John Hill
.net...
<SNIP>
> Ted, the reason your argument is so bad, is that it is a terrible fallacy.
>
> You seem to be arguing that we should excuse the content of that document,
> which was hidden from the public for fiifteen years, because its creators
> did not think to destroy it. Of course, if they had, we would not be
> talking about it today.
>
> Officer John: Come over here, Officer Ted, I think we have proof that this
> guy is a terrorist.
>
> Officer Ted: What did you find, Officer John?
>
> Officer John: Well, I have this letter, dated 9/10/2001 that says,
> "Tommorow we are doing to blow up the twin towers!".
>
> Officer Ted: Oh, forget about it Officer John. He's innocent.
>
> Officer John: What?? How could that be?
>
> Officer Ted: Well, if he was guilty, he would have destroyed the letter,
> wouldn't he? Let the man go and get back to his flying lessons.
Definitely a Top Ten Best Responses. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
>
> Robert Harris