Now, as anyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy knows, hand-written
changes and corrections occur all of the time. However, such changes are always
initialed by the person making the change, in case it requires justification
later in court or an administrative hearing. The lack of initials tells me that
this was not a legitimate correction, and the way it was done--writing over the
two (2) to make it look like a three (3) -- tells me it is not a correction, but an
attempt to hide false information in a legitimate document. A legitimate change
would have drawn a line through the 2, written in the 3, and initialed the
change, QED, it is not legitimate.
Part One ,
Part Two
, and Part Three
of this article may be found via these hyperlinks.
All Roads Lead to
Watergate
One of the great mysteries of JFK's assassination has been why Richard
Nixon just happened to be in Dallas in the days preceding and up to two hours
before President Kennedy's murder.
Carl Oglesby was the first writer of whom I am aware to deal with this
question in any depth in his book The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies
From Dallas to Watergate ; (1976).
Nixon arrived in Dallas on Wednesday, November 20, 1963 supposedly to
speak at a Pepsico bottlers convention at 200PM at the Dallas Trade Mart on the
following afternoon, as well as attending a purported Pepsico Board of Directors
meeting (for which no record has ever been found). He was supposedly also going
to consult with Texas Republican Party leaders. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The
Plot That Killed Kennedy , 1989, p.270.) Nixon left from Dallas's Love Field
two hours before President Kennedy's Air Force One landed at the same
airport.
I believe the primary reason for Nixon's visit was that he was
representing several of the right-wing Eastern (Yankee, as Oglesby calls them)
financial and manufacturing interests outside Wall Street (who were represented
by Mr. McCloy), which were giving financial and other support to the murder of
President Kennedy there in Dallas. He was there to receive reassurances from the
principal conspirators to take to his East Coast clients, before turning over
their part of the money to murder the President. He was also there to insure his
own rewards for his part in the conspiracy, which was lining up contributors who
could be trusted to keep their mouths shut, something that Hunt, Murchison, and
Marcello had far greater difficulty accomplishing. Mr. Nixon's attendance at Mr.
Murchison's party fulfilled those needs.
The Murchison dinner party is not a new development in the history of
researching the assassination of President Kennedy. As I stated in Part 2, this
dinner party was first written about more than forty years ago by liberal Texas
newspaper editor and seminal JFK conspiracy investigator Penn Jones, Jr., in one
of the four volumes of his investigation of JFK"S assassination, Forgive My
Grief. It has been brought up since by several different writers, including
German journalist Joachim Joesten, Ira Wood III, and Barr McClellan (who wrote
Blood, Money, and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK ). Roger Stone and Mike
Colapietro in their new book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against
LBJ , state that the dinner party did take place, but that it was
a smaller affair than Wood, Joesten, and McClellan stated; and that LBJ made the
earlier referenced statement to Madeline Brown on the morning of November 22,
1963, not the night before. The community of assassination investigators is
split as to whether the dinner party took place. As I stated elsewhere, I
believe it did occur, as a last minute means of reassurance for some of the
conspirators, who might have been getting cold feet, as well as a way for those
who were getting cold feet to wring last minute concessions out of the primary
movers and shakers involved in the assassination conspiracy; both to ease their
conscience and maximize their share of the spoils received from President
Kennedy's murder.
It should also be noted that Allen Dulles visited LBJ at his ranch the
week before JFK's assassination, according to a front page story in the Fort
Worth Press newspaper. ( The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and
Deception in the Death of JFK ; James H. Fetzer, PhD., editor, 2003;
"Mysteries of the JFK Assassination: The Photographic Evidence from A to Z," by
Jack White; p. 69.) I do not always agree with Professor Fetzer, nor the other
author's articles he collects in his various books. However, the material
Professor Fetzer edits and publishes does deserve everyone's consideration, even
if only for a minute. It was due to his chapter on "Jesse Curry's JFK
Assassination File : Could Oswald Have Been Convicted," (from the book
Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then About the
Death of JFK; James H. Fetzer PhD., editor) that it occurred to me that the
third empty shell casing presented to the Warren Commission did not meet the
legal requirements for maintaining chain of custody under the rules of evidence,
and a) would have been excluded at Oswald's trial on that basis; b) explained
why the FBI tied so hard to get James Tague to change his testimony about the
wound he received from a bullet fragment when a concrete curb was struck by the
first bullet. Without that third empty cartridge case, there simply were not
enough bullets fired at JFK from the TSBD to account for the wounds "inflicted
by Oswald."
Mark Tracy, in his article titled "Dirty Politics--Nixon, Watergate, and
the JFK Assassination," made the following statement, quoting from former White
House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman's book, The Ends of
Power :
In his book, The Ends of Power , former White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman cites several conversations in which President Nixon expressed concern about the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure might lead. Haldeman writes,
"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told
me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to
the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to
do with this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will
know what I mean,' and dropped the subject. "
Later in his book, Haldeman appears to
answer his own question when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon
references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy
assassination."
(I am increasingly having to use
secondary sources, because trying to find original sources on Watergate and
early JFK assassination material, even through inter-library loan, is becoming
more and more difficult. It is as if someone is trying to erase that period of
American History from public view. Paranoid? As they said in the Sixties, if you
aren't paranoid, especially in matters dealing with JFK's assassination, you
aren't paying attention.)
Lewis Lapham stated
in his book Money and Class in America (Chapter 4, 1988), "Under the
rules of a society that cannot distinguish between profit and profiteering,
between money defined as necessity and money defined as luxury, murder is
occasionally obligatory and always permissible." That alone was motive enough
for every man in that drawing room to murder President Kennedy. Using Holmes
dictum concerning eliminating the impossible, we should not eliminate a piece of
evidence from our consideration simply because it doesn't fit in with our theory
of events. We must eliminate the impossible, not what sounds wrong to
us.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
