Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes. It’s clear that the WC omitted from the record or didn’t seriously investigate leads that could point to the involvement of others in Kennedy’s assassination. Their objective was to prove that Oswald acted alone.

They also were kept in the dark about relevant stuff related to CIA collaboration with the Mob and important details about Oswald’s Mexico City trip.

Given everything we know today about the Warren Commission, how gullible do you have to be to still believe the Warren Report was a serious attempt to investigate all possible explanations for why and how JFK was killed?

And all of the key figures in the investigation - that is, the staffers who did almost all of the work - lived for decades after its release. Norman Redlich, the chief author of the report, died in 2011. Willens is still alive. None of them, not a one, has admitted or intimated what you claimed they did. Yes, Slawson thinks that Oswald may have been encouraged to shoot JFK by people he met in MC (this is the Shenon claim). But how is that indicating a conspiracy? Encouraged by who? How? It's a reach.

You really think the staffers like Redlich would do this? Continue to the 2000s with this supposed coverup? And again, covering what up?

What do we know now about Oswald and MC and the CIA/Mob collaboration that leads us away from the Oswald as lone assassin explanation? To put it differently, what did the WC fail to look into that we now know that would have lead them to a different conclusion?

Too many conspiracy believers appear to act like it's still 1963 or 1964 and everything we've learned since then can be dismissed.

[John Iacoletti]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

Why would I include something Katzenbach wrote in a quote from Hoover?

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

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

[John Iacoletti]

And there were perfectly valid reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt that have nothing to do with preconceived bias.  Most importantly, the evidence confirms that Oswald was guilty!

LOL

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that the conspirators had to convince one another in memos to frame Oswald.  And they thought of this only after the fact.  HA HA HA.  Contrarians of the world unite.

[Charles Collins]

Why would I include something Katzenbach wrote in a quote from Hoover?

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

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?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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?

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?

This is taking a piece of information and weaving a conspiracy out of it. I am shocked, shocked that it's coming from a skeptic and not a conspiracy believer.

[Charles Collins]

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?

This is taking a piece of information and weaving a conspiracy out of it. I am shocked, shocked that it's coming from a skeptic and not a conspiracy believer.

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation.

Willens has quite a bit to say about Katzenbach (there is a lot more in the book). He was present at the first few WC meetings (until Willens arrived). And yes, you are correct, Katzenbach let the WC do it’s thing as they saw fit.


From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens (pages 36 - 37):


By now a veteran of the department’s difficult relations with Hoover, Katzenbach thought the FBI’s leaking the story to favored reporters resulted from their resentment about the appointment of the Warren Commission. In later years, he said, “They very much wanted the report to be made public. They very much wanted to get all the credit for it. They very much wanted the center stage. When that was frustrated, I think they took steps of leaking the information. They have done that in many lesser contexts many, many times when I was in the department.” Katzenbach offered the commission any Justice Department assistance it wanted, but noted that the commission was now fully in charge of the investigation as directed by the president.36 I never thought that the Justice Department abdicated its responsibilities with respect to the investigation of the assassination, as some have suggested. The department certainly had enormous resources—its specialized investigative sections and attorneys, as well as the powers and capabilities of a federal grand jury and the granting of immunity—but I thought that Katzenbach had it right. Initiation of a public investigation by the Department of Justice in the days following the assassination would have destroyed the political accommodation that had been reached with the Texas authorities and congressional committees by the creation of the commission. Any such investigation before the FBI completed its work would have clashed with established department practice and with President Johnson’s decision to rely on a commission, rather than the customary federal agencies, to investigate the assassination.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

He writes a memo, several, and that was from what I've read the end of his involvement in the investigation.

Willens has quite a bit to say about Katzenbach (there is a lot more in the book). He was present at the first few WC meetings (until Willens arrived). And yes, you are correct, Katzenbach let the WC do it’s thing as they saw fit.


From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens (pages 36 - 37):


By now a veteran of the department’s difficult relations with Hoover, Katzenbach thought the FBI’s leaking the story to favored reporters resulted from their resentment about the appointment of the Warren Commission. In later years, he said, “They very much wanted the report to be made public. They very much wanted to get all the credit for it. They very much wanted the center stage. When that was frustrated, I think they took steps of leaking the information. They have done that in many lesser contexts many, many times when I was in the department.” Katzenbach offered the commission any Justice Department assistance it wanted, but noted that the commission was now fully in charge of the investigation as directed by the president.36 I never thought that the Justice Department abdicated its responsibilities with respect to the investigation of the assassination, as some have suggested. The department certainly had enormous resources—its specialized investigative sections and attorneys, as well as the powers and capabilities of a federal grand jury and the granting of immunity—but I thought that Katzenbach had it right. Initiation of a public investigation by the Department of Justice in the days following the assassination would have destroyed the political accommodation that had been reached with the Texas authorities and congressional committees by the creation of the commission. Any such investigation before the FBI completed its work would have clashed with established department practice and with President Johnson’s decision to rely on a commission, rather than the customary federal agencies, to investigate the assassination.

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.