My Tripod Page

If the CIA wasn't involved in the assassination, then what were they doing putting out a memo like "Countering Criticism Of The Warren Report," dated April 1, 1967? (CIA Document #1035-960). This memo, from CIA headquarters to CIA station chiefs, concerned itself with a curious subject matter for an agency with no supposed domestic function. At one point, the memo states: "We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place." In the event that comment on the subject cannot be avoided, the agency suggests it would be good "To discuss the publicity problem with (?) and friendly elite contacts (especially politicans and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation...." and more specifially "To employ propaganda assets to (negate) and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose....Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher (?) article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details." In light of what transpired decades later with Oliver Stone's JFK, the next passages are particularly chilling: "...in attacking publications which may yet be forthcoming, the following arguements should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commisison did not consider." There are other suggestions which have a decided ring of familiarity to them: "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal a conspiracy." Then: "Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a 'loner,' mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service." The memo tackles the mysterious deaths tabulated by Penn Jones: "Such vague accusations as that 'more than 10 people have died mysteriously' can always be explained in some rational way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the (Warren) Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses-the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews-and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected." The memo closes with some practical advice for our "independent" press: "Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics." Now how does one innocently explain a memo like this?

If there was no conspiracy or coverup, then what are we to make of the numerous instances of official threats and/or intimidation reported by disparate witnesses? If Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and not connected to any powerful forces, then why have so many witnesses reported similar instances of various law enforcement agents instructing them about what they saw or even urging them to remain silent? Richard Randolph Carr was a steelworker watching the motorcade in Dealy Plaza from a lofty perch on the courthouse building. He told researchers Gary Shaw and Larry Harris that the FBI paid a threatening visit to him after he'd reported seeing a heavy-set man on the sixth floor of the Book Depository just before the shooting, and also testifed about two men running from the back of the Depository minutes after the assassination, then getting into a Nash Rambler station wagon, which pulled off so quickly one of its doors was left open. Carr had also seen the same heavy set man, once he'd gone down to ground level, walking quickly away on Commerce Street, looking back over his shoulder as he went. Carr told Shaw and Harris: "The FBI came to my house-there were two of them-and they said they heard I witnessed the assassination and I said I did. They told me, 'If you didn't see Lee Harvey Oswald up in the School Book Depository with a rifle, you didn't witness it.'" I said, 'Well, the man I saw on television that they tell me is Lee Harvey Oswald was not in the window of the School Book Depository. That's not the man.' And (one of the agents) said I better keep my mouth shut. He did not ask me what I saw, he told me what I saw." Shortly after this interview, Carr's home was raided by Dallas Police in an attempt to find "stolen articles." The officers ransacked Carr's home while holding him and his wife at gunpoint. The next day, Carr received an anonymous call warning him to "get out of Texas." Carr eventually moved to Montana to avoid further harrassment, but even there he once found dynamite in his car and was shot at on another occasion. Carr testified for Jim Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans, and afterwards was attacked by two men in Atlanta, who stabbed him in the back and left arm. Carr killed one of his attackers but was not indicted after turning himself in. Acquilla Clemons reported seeing two men, neither of them Oswald, at the scene of the Tippit murder. She alleged that a man with a gun came to her home afterwards and told her to keep quiet. Ed Hoffman, the deaf mute who belatedly came forward and claimed to have seen two men with a rifle behind the pickett fence on the grassy knoll, stated that he'd been warned by an FBI agent to keep quiet "or you might get killed." Book Depository superintendent Roy Truly was evidently fearful until his death because of intimidation from authorities. Truly's wife, Mildred, has steadfastly refused to discuss the case, even with relatives. Sandy Speaker, who was Commission star witness Howard Brennan's supervisor, refused to discuss the assassination for many years, but finally granted an interview to Jim Marrs in 1987. In that interview, he revealed that he'd received a frightening phone call from co-worker and friend A.J. Millican in 1964, in which Millican advised him never to talk about the case. Millican told Speaker about just receiving an anonymous phone call threatening his life, as well as the lives of his wife and her sister. He said the caller had mentioned Speaker's name and urged him to remain quiet as well. As Speaker told Marrs, "That call really shook me up because Millican was a former boxing champ of the Pacific fleet. He was a scrapper, a fighter. But he was obviously scared to death. And I still don't know how they got my name because I was never interviewed by the FBI, the Secret Service, the police or anyone. They must be pretty powerful to have found out about me." Mrs. Wilma Tice, like reporter Seth Kantor, claimed to have seen Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. Mrs. Tice reported receiving a phone call on April 12, 1964, shortly after informing the FBI that she'd seen Ruby at Parkland, from someone identifying himself as a reporter who questioned her about the encounter and advised her to keep quiet about it. On July 20, 1964, the day after getting a letter from the Warren Commission asking her to testify, Mrs. Tice received another phone call, from an anonymous individual who warned her "It would pay you to keep your mouth shut." Two days later, Mrs. Tice reported to the police that someone had attempted to break into her home. More phone calls followed, but by this time Mrs. Tice had a young niece answer and the caller invariably hung up without saying anything. Attorney Carroll Jarnagin reported witnessing a meeting between Jack Ruby and a man he identified as Lee Harvey Oswald on October 4, 1963, at Ruby's Carousel Club. At one point in their conversation, he heard the man he identified as Oswald say "Don't use my real name. I'm going by the name of O.H. Lee." He also heard them discussing killing John Connally and Robert Kennedy, with "Oswald" demanding money in advance. Jarnagin told author Jim Marrs, in a 1988 interview, that FBI agents, instead of investigating his potentially explosive testimony, had tried to accuse him of hallucinating. Jarnagin termed their conduct "clearly abuse of a witness." Senator Ralph Yarborough was aghast at the conduct of the Warren Commission staff, who ..."walked in like they were a couple of deputy sheriffs and and I was a bank robber." They tried to pressure him to sign a statement that closed with "This is all I know about the assassination" and when he refused, they kept pressuring him, saying "you're holding this up," and demanded he sign the statement. As Yarborough told Jim Marrs in 1986, "...I typed one up myself and put basically what I told you about how the cars all stopped. I put in there, 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future presidents, they should be trained to take off when a shot is fired.'" If a United States Senator can be treated this way, imagine the lack or respect those "investigating" the assassination accorded the average citizen. Jean Hill, who admittedly has some credibility problems, reported a horrible experience at the hands of Commission counsel Arlen Specter. Hill claimed that at one point, while taking her deposition, Specter threatened her by saying: "Look, we can make you look as crazy as Margueritte Oswald and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don't cooperate with us."

The Commission members themselves cannot be absolved from responsiblity for bungling the "investigation" of the Crime of the Century. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Their own words, in one of their "in-house" discussions, reveal this clearly. Examine this exchange between Commission member Allen Dulles-ex CIA director fired by JFK- and counsel Albert Jenner, later to play a role in the Watergate hearings:
DULLES: But nobody reads. Don't believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors who will read the record...
JENNER: And a few newspaper reporters who will read parts of it.
DULLES: The public will read very little.
Is this why they felt confident about leaving such an abysmal record behind them?