Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[Charles Collins]

That's an excellent summary: Katzenbach pushed early on for a special investigation that was independent of the Justice Department and Congress et al. Meaning it would be beyond his possible control. Hoover was leaking the FBI's report - Oswald as lone assassin - because he wanted to assure the public that the FBI, i.e., him, didn't miss a conspiracy. None of this has a thing to do with covering up what they knew. It was protecting their fannies and bureaucratic infighting et cetera. To a conspiracy mindset, of course, it's sinister behind the scenes machinations.

Philip Shenon says (in Cruel and Shocking Act) that Katzenbach approved/signed off as head of DOJ (Bobby Kennedy was still mourning) on the CIA's decision to confine Nosenko without allowing him due process rights or legal appeals. And that he (Katzenbach) was more involved in monitoring the investigations - both the FBI's and WC. But I'm not aware of anything indicating he directed/limited/controlled either investigation.

That Willens book really has some fascinating behind the scenes accounts.

That Willens book really has some fascinating behind the scenes accounts


Yes, it’s a good one. I think that most people who suspect the WC of covering up, etc. don’t really understand how it operated. The Willens book, and the two by David Belin, are good reading for those who want to learn more about it.

[John Iacoletti]

Affirming somebody else’s conclusion is not an “investigation”.


Who are you accusing of doing that?


And, if you are accusing, specifically what would you have them do differently in order for you to believe they made an investigation?

Every one of the “investigations” that Steve refers to (except arguably the HSCA) relies entirely on the same source material from the FBI and the same assumptions from the WC. There was nothing independent or investigatory about them.

[John Iacoletti]

Katzenbach didn't conduct the investigation. Or have anything to do with one. Either the FBI's or the WC or the ones afterwards.

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation. What is the evidence that this memo had any effect or role or influence in the subsequent investigations? And who believes that Hoover would follow the orders of Katzenbach? And the WC too?

And once again, I didn’t cite any Katzenbach memo. You need to alter your script.

[Charles Collins]

Every one of the “investigations” that Steve refers to (except arguably the HSCA) relies entirely on the same source material from the FBI and the same assumptions from the WC. There was nothing independent or investigatory about them.

Ridiculous nonsense….   

[Jon Banks]

If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.

[Charles Collins]

If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.

What specifically would you do differently in order to make it, in your opinion, a “real investigation”?

[Jon Banks]

What specifically would you do differently in order to make it, in your opinion, a “real investigation”?

In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up

[Charles Collins]

In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up

Thank you for the reply. I am going to first present a few paragraphs from pages 23-25 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens. Then I will make some more specific replies to your list as I get time.


The chief justice wanted the commission to hear as many witnesses as possible. He wanted to concentrate initially on witnesses who saw or participated in the events on November 22. Relying on the recommendations of five of the teams (excluding presidential protection), I prepared a draft memo for Rankin proposing a group of key witnesses for the commission and another group to be deposed by our lawyers. As we revised this memo, we assumed the commission should hear witnesses on all phases of this investigation, not just a few central issues, and that this first group should reflect Warren’s preferences. Rankin initially listed forty-nine commission witnesses, and offered this rationale for their selection: “[M]ost of these witnesses will supply testimony pertaining to the actual events on the day of the assassination, the medical treatment of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, the identity of the assassin, the background of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the security precautions taken by the Dallas Police Department after Oswald’s arrest.” Rankin left for future consideration the few “political” witnesses, such as President Johnson and Governor Connolly, because the commission had not decided whether these individuals should appear before it.3

 As I recorded in my journal, I thought that “the adoption of this schedule is perhaps a more significant event in the internal operations of the Commission than is generally realized. It marks the commitment by the Commission to taking a considerable amount of testimony from witnesses with relevant information and to frame conclusions based on this testimony independent of the investigation conducted previously” by the FBI and other agencies. I hoped that this approach would “win for its final report a much greater degree of public support than would otherwise have been the case.”4

Although many changes were made over the next several months to the lists of witnesses, the total number and range of witnesses demonstrated the commission’s commitment to pursue an exhaustive investigation. The facts refute the contention of future critics that our inquiry was seriously defective: Appendix V to the report lists 552 witnesses whose testimony, deposition, or statement we took. Whatever flaws or deficiencies are identified in these evidentiary materials, there can be no serious doubt that the commission fully carried out its mandate to conduct a comprehensive and independent investigation.