Posted on 08/09/2008 11:11:36 PM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON — Former President Ford secretly advised the FBI that two of his fellow members on the Warren Commission doubted the FBI's conclusion that John F. Kennedy was shot from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, according to newly released records from Ford's FBI files.
Ford, still a congressman at the time, also told a senior FBI official about internal panel disputes over hiring staff, Chief Justice Earl Warren's timetable for completing the final report on the assassination and what panel members said about the FBI.
In turn, Assistant FBI Director Cartha "Deke" DeLoach confidentially advised Ford of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's position on panel disputes; discussed where leaks were coming from; and, with Hoover's personal approval, loaned him a bureau briefcase with a lock so he could securely take the FBI report on the 1963 assassination with him on a ski trip.
The new details were included in 500 pages of the FBI's large file on Ford, released in part this past week in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act that The Associated Press and others made on the day Ford died in December 2006. The FBI intends to release additional documents about Ford in several batches, all with parts censored for law enforcement and privacy reasons.
That Ford served as the FBI's eyes and ears inside the commission has been known for years. Long ago, the government released a 1963 FBI memo that said Ford, then a Republican congressman from Michigan, had volunteered to keep the FBI informed about the panel's private deliberations, but only if that relationship remained confidential. The bureau agreed.
It was also well-known Ford was an outspoken proponent of the bureau's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy acting alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Don’t they still have secret files on the JFK assassination? We’ve all heard about conspiracy theories and others besides Oswald being involved. I’ve heard that there were pressures brought to bear on the Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald acted alone, because the truth would have been hard on the country. Organized crime involvement, and a Cuban/Soviet connection to the assassination are two popular theories. And some say that reporting such involvement to the public back in those days would have been unthinkable. They say it was easier and cleaner to just conclude that a crazed gunman acted alone in killing the president.
Wow, there was actually dissention in the Commission? And here I thought the Commission memebers agreed, by consensus, to perform whitewash at breakneck speed. As for Ford colluding with the FBI, wasn’t the FBI the largest criminal info-gathering organization in the U.S.? Didn’t the FBI aid the Commission, as it would be expected to do? Why not discuss things with Jerry?
Something tells me that this little flake of dubiousness will be shuffled onto the towering pile of non-evidence that conspiracy theorists have ammassed against common sense. There is one thing I wish the buffs would think about—between cursory dismissals of the Commission as “a joke.” No credible evidence (naturally not including uncorroborated witness testimony gathered years after the fact) has ever surfaced pointing to Oswald or anyone else that did not originate with the Commission’s investigation!
Take the article’s mention of Ford’s mistaken placement of the rear-entry wound to Kennedy’s back. Forgetting for a moment that going back to the autopsy report would correct the error immediately, this is not evidence of anyone else’s guilt. It is only a dent in the already overwhelming evidence against Oswald. Same goes for criticism of the Commission in general. Forgetting for a moment that the 26 volumes of evidence gathered was one of the largest criminal investigation in all of history, an absolute corruption of the Commissioners’ ability to use proper discretion in organizing the evidence would not be evidence of anyone else’s guilt. In fact, the opinions of the Commissioners pertaining to all of the hard evidence gathered has been held up by every single reputable body that ever studied them, excepting those who believe (without evidence) that the evidence was tampered with or fabricated.
Put briefly, basically everything you and I ever hear the skeptics raise their doubts about—after 45 years and 1,000’s of books—derives from the very body that they decry embodiments of everything from laziness to evil.
The protection of the public’s sensibilities has always seemed to me an paltry argument. It would be absolutely criminal for LBJ or anyone else in the government to willfully ignore evidence of an international conspiracy. Luckily, no such evidence existed, nor has any ever been found. If that were not enough, common-sense dictates that the Soviets and Cubans had little motive (given that Kennedy’s successor was not theirs to choose) to try so reckless a move.
As to the notion that a foregone conclusion would quiet things down, there is no evidence that LBJ ordered the Commissioners to adopt any particular finding. There is only evidence to the contrary; evidence that everyone who worked for the Commission was advised to seek the truth. Now, I’m not naive enough to ignore that men have their prejudices, and entrenched powers have their mega-prejudices. But the notion that men without any known history of deceit, and no known personal incentive to lie on behalf of anyone would suddnely change tack and start to lie to the public is outrageous. And even if all the Commissioners themselves were in on the con, what motive did the men who did the real investigative work, the hungry young lawyers, have to participate in a cover-up? Revealing a conspiracy would have made their careers, and maybe put them in the history books.
To believe that the Commission rushed to quell the public’s anti-communist fears, one must believe that otherwise decent men lied and lied to hide a theory that was not very plausible in the first place.
I’ve never believed in the lone gunman theory. Oswald wasn’t anything near a crack shot. His rifle wasn’t known for accuracy either. Usually people with Oswald’s temperment get as close as they can and shoot at close range. It was all too lethal, too precise and single-handedly led us into Vietnam with the rise of LBJ.
“And even if all the Commissioners themselves were in on the con, what motive did the men who did the real investigative work, the hungry young lawyers, have to participate in a cover-up?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just making observations here:
- Gerald Ford the only man to serve as president who was never elected to that office nor the vice-presidency.
- One of those “hungry young lawyers”, the originator of the “single bullet theory”, Arlen Specter has been a Senator from Pennsylvania for years now.
“Oswald wasn’t anything near a crack shot?”
Have you ever qualified on a military firing range?
That’s what I thought. LOL
He failed to assassinate General Edwin Walker even though he was at close range and on foot. He was drunk on the day he decided to try to assassinate Nixon but his wife locked him in the house. Bet he wasn’t drunk when he qualified on a military firing range, though.
While I have no doubt that Oswald was up in the book depository taking shots at Kennedy, I’ve watched the Zagruder film numeorus times and can’t help but conclude that the bullet that actually killed Kennedy was fired from a position in front of and to the right of his motorcade, with the bullet striking him in the right part of his forehead and blowing out the back of his skull, just like a watermelon.
nicely played
Ford was the FBI’s stooge on the commission, he was there to report to them....these doubts were a heads up, not a concern....
your comment tells us we should ignore everything you say...Oswald shot no one and that cats out of the bag....
you guys still are around aren’t you....so is the truth, Thank God.
I’ve watched the Zagruder film
Try watching the Zapruder film instead. You might change your mind...
Didn’t Ford come to the ultimate conclusion that Dubya did in JFK.
Sorry, but Oswald was a “Marksman” in the Marines. That is shooting at 200 yards over open sights. The distance Oswald shot Kennedy was at about 70 yards with a scoped rifle. Hell, I hit a beer can at 90 yards the first time I ever shot a rifle.
Any shot from that area would’ve caused the camera to shake violently since he was right there. The muzzle blast would have been seen.. Not to mention reported.
It just didn’t happen that way.
I’ve been to the museum on the 6th floor and you can look out the window. I think I could make the shot with iron sights, it’s really not as far as it looks on TV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.