Post by Rob Caprio on Jun 13, 2022 20:15:59 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.muckrock.com/news_images/2018/04/04/HSCA.jpg.1200x400_q85.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Nicholas_Katzenbach_at_White_House%2C_6_May_1968.jpg/296px-Nicholas_Katzenbach_at_White_House%2C_6_May_1968.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would call people to testify that the Warren Commission (WC) did not back in 1964. One of these people was a former Attorney General (Deputy Attorney General at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) under Robert F. Kennedy (RFK)) of the United States.
The HSCA Says...Nicholas Katzenbach
********************************************
Nichols Katzenbach’s first question deals with the issue of his apparent haste in getting something released to the American people confirming what would become the official theory.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Mr. Attorney General, it is a pleasure to see you again. We really appreciate your coming to help us in these deliberations. I would like to start out by asking the question as to your exerting tremendous pressure right after the assassination to get the FBI report out and to get a report in front of the American people. This is somewhat evidenced by your memorandum to Mr. Moyers of November 25. What was your basic motivation in looking for such speed?
Mr. KATZENBACH – I think my basic motivation was the amount of speculation both here and abroad as to what was going on, whether there was a conspiracy of the right or a conspiracy of the left or a lone assassin or even in its wildest stages, a conspiracy by the then Vice President to achieve the Presidency, the sort of thing you have speculation about in some countries abroad where that kind of condition is normal. It seemed to me that the quicker some information could be made available that went beyond what the press was able to uncover and what the press was able to speculate about was desirable in that state of affairs.
Mr. McKINNEY - In your deposition to the committee on page 8, you suggested that one of your interests was that the facts, all of them, had to be made public and it had to be done in a way that would give the public, both in this country and abroad, the confidence that no facts were being withheld at all. Do you think that pushing for this type of speed might have hurt the accuracy of the report or brought about the fact that some people would question the speed of its issuance its thoroughness its completeness?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I do not think the two notions are connected, Congressman. I think the motivations for getting some kind of report out, some facts out early were the ones that I have stated. The memorandum of Mr. Moyers and a number of other conversations and things that I have said really related to the desirability of a totally thorough, complete investigation by a commission, such as the Warren Commission, which should point out all of the facts available and all of the reasons for their conclusions. I never intended at any point that the investigation done by the FBI would be a substitute for the kind of investigation of President Kennedy's assassination. (HSCA III, p. 643)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.htm
Katzenbach's thinking seems to be backwards as rushing to put out information that has not been thoroughly checked out (and how could it be in a few days?) could, and would, cause even more questions and speculation.
He is being coy here too as the purpose of the memorandum he had issued on November 25, 1963, had a singular purpose and that was to make it appear that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the sole assassin and that he had no compatriots. There was a rush to blame LHO and not set the record straight as he is claiming here.
He mentions getting “some facts out early" so one would have to wonder what these were as nothing that the FBI report or the WC claimed in regards to the shootings were ever supported let alone proven. So what facts did he put out?
This is an interesting comment by him.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Perhaps for the general public and for the committee, you could discuss for us your recollection of when and how the idea of a Presidential Commission came forth. I know you mention it in your memorandum to Mr. Moyers again. How did you feel about it, at first? Were you opposed to it or not, and when it was finally firmed up, how was it finally decided?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I think an idea like that perhaps has several apparents. It was something that very soon after the assassination I thought it was a good idea, that such a Commission should be formed of people of impeccable integrity, people who would search for the truth and who would make that truth public because I did not believe that if it remained entirely within the executive branch that that effect could ever be achieved as far as the general public here or abroad was concerned… (HSCA III, p. 644)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0324b.htm
People of impeccable integrity? People who would search for the truth and make it public? The WC never did this as their own evidence doesn't support the vast majority of their claims. Furthermore, as we have seen in my “Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series, a WC member said this about the WC's efforts and investigation.
Quote on
The commissioners themselves regarded their commitment to the investigation as a PART-TIME responsibility…There was neither the time nor the POLITICAL will to conduct a thorough investigation. (Kai Bird, The Chairman—John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment, pp. 549-50) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So this was the group of people that Katzenbach thought was a “good idea" to let investigate the assassination of JFK? A group of people who regarded their work on the Commission to be a part-time responsibility, and who lacked the “political will" to conduct a thorough investigation. That was a good idea?
Look at this gem.
Mr. McKINNEY - In other words, it is safe to say that with the mere mention of another investigation or another investigation or an investigative commission, Mr. Hoover would have considered it a somewhat of an insult to the FBI in its activities in this area.
Mr. KATZENBACH – Absolutely. (Ibid.)
So, we couldn't have a real investigation into the murder of JFK because J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) might be insulted? Sure, let's use his conclusion that was arrived at in mere days instead so he won't be insulted. By the way, wasn't Katzenbach JEH's boss? I think so, but we see the power that JEH held. After reading this testimony it is impossible to envisage a conspiracy that didn't involve JEH in it.
Here Katzenbach outlines JEH's dislike of Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) and reasons why he was most likely no fan of JFK either.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0325b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - As essentially, although certainly not officially, acting Attorney General during this period would you describe to the committee what your relationship was with Mr. Hoover at that time?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I had never had a great deal of relationship with Mr. Hoover in terms of personal relationship with him. I suppose I had seen him a half dozen times maybe while I was in the Department of Justice. He had a considerable animosity, I think, toward Robert Kennedy. I think he had never been in a position of having an Attorney General who was closer to the President than he was and that was a new situation for him, and one I do not think he liked. His relationship with Mr. Kennedy was very, I think, cold formal and I suppose as Robert Kennedy's deputy, some of that shed off on me.
Mr. McKINNEY - Wasn't it true or isn't it inferable that Bobby Kennedy's very drive against organized crime was, in effect, a slap in the face to Mr. Hoover in that it implied that the FBI had not been the gangbusters that we were all brought up to think they were?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Yes, I think that is true and, of course, the drive in civil rights was one that kept exposing the Bureau to criticism, right or wrong, and that was resented by Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover resented criticism to a degree greater than any other person that I have ever known. (HSCA III, p. 646)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0325b.htm
This again affirms the already known dislike JEH held for the Kennedys. The mob issue is a serious one too as JEH had said for decades that they was no organized crime in America thanks to his diligent work, and then along come the Kennedys who not only show that there was an organized crime network but were vigorous in prosecuting it. This obviously led to questions about JEH's honesty and judgment skills.
We also see where Katzenbach says that “Mr. Hoover resented criticism to a degree GREATER than any other person…” Katzenbach had ever known. This is a very revealing comment as it shows that JEH was very sensitive to anything that he felt was criticism. Therefore, who could think anyone could tell him that his conclusion on the JFK assassination (a conclusion he reached in a few days) was incorrect? Certainly no one in the FBI or Justice Department with RFK out of the picture.
We have confirmation of this too from Katzenbach.
Mr. McKINNEY - Isn't it also possible that there is a definitive feeling on their part that a leak would not show a deficiency in an investigation as much as a report would be criticized for deficiencies?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I doubt that. It is a speculation one can make. I doubt it for only one reason. I doubt very much that the Federal Bureau of Investigation thought there were any deficiencies whatsoever in their report.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0326b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Or as least they thought there would be no deficiencies.
Mr. KATZENBACH – They thought there were none; yes. (HSCA III, p. 648)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0326b.htm
This says it all. A report that was completed in record time made them, really JEH, feel that it had no deficiencies. Sure. I guess the fact that it lacked any supporting evidence wasn't a deficiency to them, huh? I guess not.
After saying this he then admits the obvious.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0327b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - It is safe to say you found yourself in the uncomfortable position of being pressured to get information out but at the same time realized that speed was certainly not going to make the FBI investigation as accurate as you would like to see it?
Mr. KATZENBACH - The conclusions might be accurate but the investigation couldn't conceivably be as thorough in that period of time as the assassination of a President ought to require. (HSCA III, p. 650)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0327b.htm
It also wasn't proper to focus on one possibility to the exclusion of all others when the evidence showed that this was NOT the correct possibility. A murdered President did deserve better.
They then get into his November 25, 1963, memorandum again.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0328b.gif
Mr. DODD - ..Mr. Katzenbach…I suppose that an awful lot of the speculation that grew out of the Warren Commission, after the completion of its work, over the past 15 years, a lot of it stemmed, and I will ask if you agree or disagree with this—stemmed from the memorandum, the so-called memorandum from Mr. Moyers, the November 25 memorandum that you drafted and sent to Bill Moyers. As I recall, over the past 15 years, on any number of occasions I have either read or heard people refer to that first paragraph in that memorandum, three points, and I will quote it for you…1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. This was November 25, 1963, 3 days after the assassination. Now, unfortunately they don't always quote the other paragraphs in that memorandum, which I think to an extent mellow that single paragraph, but still that paragraph has been quoted extensively as an indication that the Warren Commission was really a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it was not designed to investigate the assassination of the President from a de novo position, but rather to confirm what the FBI had already concluded, what the Dallas police had concluded, and that, therefore, the Warren Commission didn't really fulfill its obligation, the obligation that Chief Justice Warren outlined when he said our responsibility is to get at the truth. I am creating that scenario for you because that is how I think it has been portrayed over the years. I have listened today to you talk about the various motivations, and it is hard, one can only sympathize, not empathize, with your position in those days, what it must have been like to be in the position you were in and have the responsibilities you had. Can you tell this committee, or help us try and straighten out what your motivation was at that moment that you wrote those words--and this is 3 days after the assassination--"the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin." Why was it so important that the public be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Because, very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that that was the correct conclusion. My whole attitude in that memorandum, and I think it is contained or reflected in other paragraphs that you mentioned, I think it was reflected in other conversations, other memorandums that you have, one overwhelming feeling that I had, and that was in the assassination of the President of the United States, all of the facts, all of the evidence, everything that was relevant to that had to be made public. (HSCA III, p. 652)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0328b.htm
So the reason he wrote that the public must be made to believe that LHO was the assassin was because that was the conclusion the FBI was going to come to! After just a few days of “investigation” too!
True, Katzenbach hedged by saying, “…if that was the conclusion the FBI was going to come to…”, but if he thought that they might only come to that conclusion would he have written such a statement on November 25? I highly doubt it.
The subject continued.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.gif
Chairman STOKES - …You say in the first paragraph: It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad all that the facts have been told and a statement to this effect be made now. I think that is fine, but still I am perplexed, absolutely perplexed, on why it was in the public interest to prove that Oswald was the one, and that as reflected in the next sentence, did not have confederates who were still at large. Why was it so important to prove that 3 days after the assassination?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Because for the very simple reason, if that was not a fact, and all the facts were not on the table, then it seemed to me that nobody was going to be satisfied, and I thought that the public was entitled--if there was a conspiracy, then we ought to say there was a conspiracy. If there were confederates at large, it ought to be said there were confederates at large. I knew then already that Oswald had been in Russia, Oswald had been in Mexico. Now, if you are going to conclude, as the Bureau was concluding that this was not part of a conspiracy, that there were no confederates, then you had to make that case, with all of the facts, absolutely persuasive. If you didn't reveal these facts, somebody else was going to reveal them. Now, if there was a conspiracy, there was a conspiracy, and you put those facts out. But if you were persuaded Oswald was a lone killer, you had better put all of the facts out and you better not cover up anything, and you better say now all of the facts are going to be made public. That was the advice I was giving Moyers and that was the advice I was giving the President and that was the motivation for the Warren Commission… (HSCA III, p. 653)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.htm
What a convoluted mess this answer is. If there was a conspiracy? If there were confederates at large? That is what the evidence shows! So why wasn't this stated as he says? Why did they go with a theory that had no supporting evidence?
The evidence shows that LHO was not in Mexico as he says. Perhaps the real LHO was, but the evidence to show that has never been presented to us. This means that Katzenbach was either just going along with what he was told or he knew the truth and ignored it. Neither option is good for the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
Katzenbach even admitted all the so-called evidence against LHO was “too pat", and yet, he still went with it.
Mr. DODD - You seemed in the next paragraph--I quote you again here--you say: Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, et cetera). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced. Am I off base there in detecting a feeling that you had on November 25, 1963, that there was something more to this, that you felt, in fact, whether intuitively or based on other information, that this guy had been set up, Oswald was not alone?...
Mr. KATZENBACH - I don't think I had a view one way or the other, other than what I was being told the FBI investigation had, but I was saying you have got a lot of facts here, if you say Oswald was the lone killer, he wasn't in conspiracy with anyone, had nothing to do with any foreign government, you have got a lot of awkward facts that you are going to have to explain, and you had better explain them satisfactorily. You had better put it all out on the table. (HSCA III, pp. 653-654)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.htm
First of all, the FBI had NO facts. Awkward or otherwise. Secondly, the WC didn't explain their conclusion in a coherent manner as much of the official narrative makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, they failed totally to support their claims as well. So why was there such a rush to blame LHO, and LHO alone, again?
This is an interesting comment.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0329b.gif
Mr. SAWYER - I just have a single question. Mr. Hart, who was a spokesman for CIA here in connection with their having taken into custody for some 3 years Yuri Nosenko, the Russian defector, said that their authority for putting this man in a specially built isolation cell for 3 years, was you, that Helms had gone to you and gotten an OK for this. Is that true?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I have no recollection of any conversation involving Mr. Nosenko with Mr. Helms. There may have been such a conversation. I don't think that I authorized putting anybody in jail for 3 years. I simply have no recollection of any such conversation occurring, but there may have been a conversation about a defector. I don't know.
Mr. SAWYER - But you don't believe that you would have authorized that kind of thing, if you had been asked?
Mr. KATZENBACH - No, I think I would have--I think if somebody said we have a defector, we don't know whether he is a true defector or not, we have got him under some questioning, I wouldn't have--I don't suppose that would have bothered me that much. But when you talk about incarceration for 3 years, and so forth, that seems to me a different proposition. One would expect a defector to be questioned by CIA. (HSCA III, pp. 654-655)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329b.htm
Unless they are LHO of course! Katzenbach said that one would expect a defector to be questioned by the CIA, but supposedly this never happened to LHO when he returned from Russia. Why not? Possibly because he was not a real defector is the obvious answer.
Here's Katzenbach's final comment before the HSCA.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0342a.gif
Mr. KATZENBACH - …I regret that the Warren Commission report was inadequate, if it was inadequate in any respects, and that as a consequence this committee has felt, the Congress has felt through this committee, the necessity to reexamine the assassination. I am sure that you, sir, and all the members regret that equally. I have confidence that what this committee is doing and will do in its report, will reflect the wisdom and integrity of its members. (HSCA III, p. 679)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0342a.htm
Inadequate is putting it politely. The Warren Commission Report was a deliberately misleading report that contained a bunch of claims that were NOT supported by the WC’s own evidence found in the twenty-six volumes and Commission Documents.
It provided us with a false conclusion that has kept people mislead for fifty-eight years. The HSCA was very soft on Katzenbach and let him wiggle out of his comments made in the November 25, 1963, memorandum. That memorandum is pretty clear in its purpose – put the blame for the JFK assassination squarely on LHO and LHO alone.
This conclusion was reached within days by JEH and no one dared to say that he got it wrong. I think Katzenbach's comments make it clear that JEH was either involved or forced to go along. Katzenbach said that he thought it was odd that JEH didn't take the opportunity to embarrass the CIA about the CIA-Mafia plots against Fidel Castro. Most likely he couldn't. What do you think?
cdn.muckrock.com/news_images/2018/04/04/HSCA.jpg.1200x400_q85.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Nicholas_Katzenbach_at_White_House%2C_6_May_1968.jpg/296px-Nicholas_Katzenbach_at_White_House%2C_6_May_1968.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would call people to testify that the Warren Commission (WC) did not back in 1964. One of these people was a former Attorney General (Deputy Attorney General at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) under Robert F. Kennedy (RFK)) of the United States.
The HSCA Says...Nicholas Katzenbach
********************************************
Nichols Katzenbach’s first question deals with the issue of his apparent haste in getting something released to the American people confirming what would become the official theory.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Mr. Attorney General, it is a pleasure to see you again. We really appreciate your coming to help us in these deliberations. I would like to start out by asking the question as to your exerting tremendous pressure right after the assassination to get the FBI report out and to get a report in front of the American people. This is somewhat evidenced by your memorandum to Mr. Moyers of November 25. What was your basic motivation in looking for such speed?
Mr. KATZENBACH – I think my basic motivation was the amount of speculation both here and abroad as to what was going on, whether there was a conspiracy of the right or a conspiracy of the left or a lone assassin or even in its wildest stages, a conspiracy by the then Vice President to achieve the Presidency, the sort of thing you have speculation about in some countries abroad where that kind of condition is normal. It seemed to me that the quicker some information could be made available that went beyond what the press was able to uncover and what the press was able to speculate about was desirable in that state of affairs.
Mr. McKINNEY - In your deposition to the committee on page 8, you suggested that one of your interests was that the facts, all of them, had to be made public and it had to be done in a way that would give the public, both in this country and abroad, the confidence that no facts were being withheld at all. Do you think that pushing for this type of speed might have hurt the accuracy of the report or brought about the fact that some people would question the speed of its issuance its thoroughness its completeness?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I do not think the two notions are connected, Congressman. I think the motivations for getting some kind of report out, some facts out early were the ones that I have stated. The memorandum of Mr. Moyers and a number of other conversations and things that I have said really related to the desirability of a totally thorough, complete investigation by a commission, such as the Warren Commission, which should point out all of the facts available and all of the reasons for their conclusions. I never intended at any point that the investigation done by the FBI would be a substitute for the kind of investigation of President Kennedy's assassination. (HSCA III, p. 643)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0324a.htm
Katzenbach's thinking seems to be backwards as rushing to put out information that has not been thoroughly checked out (and how could it be in a few days?) could, and would, cause even more questions and speculation.
He is being coy here too as the purpose of the memorandum he had issued on November 25, 1963, had a singular purpose and that was to make it appear that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the sole assassin and that he had no compatriots. There was a rush to blame LHO and not set the record straight as he is claiming here.
He mentions getting “some facts out early" so one would have to wonder what these were as nothing that the FBI report or the WC claimed in regards to the shootings were ever supported let alone proven. So what facts did he put out?
This is an interesting comment by him.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0324b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Perhaps for the general public and for the committee, you could discuss for us your recollection of when and how the idea of a Presidential Commission came forth. I know you mention it in your memorandum to Mr. Moyers again. How did you feel about it, at first? Were you opposed to it or not, and when it was finally firmed up, how was it finally decided?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I think an idea like that perhaps has several apparents. It was something that very soon after the assassination I thought it was a good idea, that such a Commission should be formed of people of impeccable integrity, people who would search for the truth and who would make that truth public because I did not believe that if it remained entirely within the executive branch that that effect could ever be achieved as far as the general public here or abroad was concerned… (HSCA III, p. 644)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0324b.htm
People of impeccable integrity? People who would search for the truth and make it public? The WC never did this as their own evidence doesn't support the vast majority of their claims. Furthermore, as we have seen in my “Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series, a WC member said this about the WC's efforts and investigation.
Quote on
The commissioners themselves regarded their commitment to the investigation as a PART-TIME responsibility…There was neither the time nor the POLITICAL will to conduct a thorough investigation. (Kai Bird, The Chairman—John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment, pp. 549-50) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So this was the group of people that Katzenbach thought was a “good idea" to let investigate the assassination of JFK? A group of people who regarded their work on the Commission to be a part-time responsibility, and who lacked the “political will" to conduct a thorough investigation. That was a good idea?
Look at this gem.
Mr. McKINNEY - In other words, it is safe to say that with the mere mention of another investigation or another investigation or an investigative commission, Mr. Hoover would have considered it a somewhat of an insult to the FBI in its activities in this area.
Mr. KATZENBACH – Absolutely. (Ibid.)
So, we couldn't have a real investigation into the murder of JFK because J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) might be insulted? Sure, let's use his conclusion that was arrived at in mere days instead so he won't be insulted. By the way, wasn't Katzenbach JEH's boss? I think so, but we see the power that JEH held. After reading this testimony it is impossible to envisage a conspiracy that didn't involve JEH in it.
Here Katzenbach outlines JEH's dislike of Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) and reasons why he was most likely no fan of JFK either.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0325b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - As essentially, although certainly not officially, acting Attorney General during this period would you describe to the committee what your relationship was with Mr. Hoover at that time?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I had never had a great deal of relationship with Mr. Hoover in terms of personal relationship with him. I suppose I had seen him a half dozen times maybe while I was in the Department of Justice. He had a considerable animosity, I think, toward Robert Kennedy. I think he had never been in a position of having an Attorney General who was closer to the President than he was and that was a new situation for him, and one I do not think he liked. His relationship with Mr. Kennedy was very, I think, cold formal and I suppose as Robert Kennedy's deputy, some of that shed off on me.
Mr. McKINNEY - Wasn't it true or isn't it inferable that Bobby Kennedy's very drive against organized crime was, in effect, a slap in the face to Mr. Hoover in that it implied that the FBI had not been the gangbusters that we were all brought up to think they were?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Yes, I think that is true and, of course, the drive in civil rights was one that kept exposing the Bureau to criticism, right or wrong, and that was resented by Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover resented criticism to a degree greater than any other person that I have ever known. (HSCA III, p. 646)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0325b.htm
This again affirms the already known dislike JEH held for the Kennedys. The mob issue is a serious one too as JEH had said for decades that they was no organized crime in America thanks to his diligent work, and then along come the Kennedys who not only show that there was an organized crime network but were vigorous in prosecuting it. This obviously led to questions about JEH's honesty and judgment skills.
We also see where Katzenbach says that “Mr. Hoover resented criticism to a degree GREATER than any other person…” Katzenbach had ever known. This is a very revealing comment as it shows that JEH was very sensitive to anything that he felt was criticism. Therefore, who could think anyone could tell him that his conclusion on the JFK assassination (a conclusion he reached in a few days) was incorrect? Certainly no one in the FBI or Justice Department with RFK out of the picture.
We have confirmation of this too from Katzenbach.
Mr. McKINNEY - Isn't it also possible that there is a definitive feeling on their part that a leak would not show a deficiency in an investigation as much as a report would be criticized for deficiencies?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I doubt that. It is a speculation one can make. I doubt it for only one reason. I doubt very much that the Federal Bureau of Investigation thought there were any deficiencies whatsoever in their report.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0326b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - Or as least they thought there would be no deficiencies.
Mr. KATZENBACH – They thought there were none; yes. (HSCA III, p. 648)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0326b.htm
This says it all. A report that was completed in record time made them, really JEH, feel that it had no deficiencies. Sure. I guess the fact that it lacked any supporting evidence wasn't a deficiency to them, huh? I guess not.
After saying this he then admits the obvious.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0327b.gif
Mr. McKINNEY - It is safe to say you found yourself in the uncomfortable position of being pressured to get information out but at the same time realized that speed was certainly not going to make the FBI investigation as accurate as you would like to see it?
Mr. KATZENBACH - The conclusions might be accurate but the investigation couldn't conceivably be as thorough in that period of time as the assassination of a President ought to require. (HSCA III, p. 650)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0327b.htm
It also wasn't proper to focus on one possibility to the exclusion of all others when the evidence showed that this was NOT the correct possibility. A murdered President did deserve better.
They then get into his November 25, 1963, memorandum again.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0328b.gif
Mr. DODD - ..Mr. Katzenbach…I suppose that an awful lot of the speculation that grew out of the Warren Commission, after the completion of its work, over the past 15 years, a lot of it stemmed, and I will ask if you agree or disagree with this—stemmed from the memorandum, the so-called memorandum from Mr. Moyers, the November 25 memorandum that you drafted and sent to Bill Moyers. As I recall, over the past 15 years, on any number of occasions I have either read or heard people refer to that first paragraph in that memorandum, three points, and I will quote it for you…1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. This was November 25, 1963, 3 days after the assassination. Now, unfortunately they don't always quote the other paragraphs in that memorandum, which I think to an extent mellow that single paragraph, but still that paragraph has been quoted extensively as an indication that the Warren Commission was really a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it was not designed to investigate the assassination of the President from a de novo position, but rather to confirm what the FBI had already concluded, what the Dallas police had concluded, and that, therefore, the Warren Commission didn't really fulfill its obligation, the obligation that Chief Justice Warren outlined when he said our responsibility is to get at the truth. I am creating that scenario for you because that is how I think it has been portrayed over the years. I have listened today to you talk about the various motivations, and it is hard, one can only sympathize, not empathize, with your position in those days, what it must have been like to be in the position you were in and have the responsibilities you had. Can you tell this committee, or help us try and straighten out what your motivation was at that moment that you wrote those words--and this is 3 days after the assassination--"the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin." Why was it so important that the public be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Because, very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that that was the correct conclusion. My whole attitude in that memorandum, and I think it is contained or reflected in other paragraphs that you mentioned, I think it was reflected in other conversations, other memorandums that you have, one overwhelming feeling that I had, and that was in the assassination of the President of the United States, all of the facts, all of the evidence, everything that was relevant to that had to be made public. (HSCA III, p. 652)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0328b.htm
So the reason he wrote that the public must be made to believe that LHO was the assassin was because that was the conclusion the FBI was going to come to! After just a few days of “investigation” too!
True, Katzenbach hedged by saying, “…if that was the conclusion the FBI was going to come to…”, but if he thought that they might only come to that conclusion would he have written such a statement on November 25? I highly doubt it.
The subject continued.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.gif
Chairman STOKES - …You say in the first paragraph: It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad all that the facts have been told and a statement to this effect be made now. I think that is fine, but still I am perplexed, absolutely perplexed, on why it was in the public interest to prove that Oswald was the one, and that as reflected in the next sentence, did not have confederates who were still at large. Why was it so important to prove that 3 days after the assassination?
Mr. KATZENBACH - Because for the very simple reason, if that was not a fact, and all the facts were not on the table, then it seemed to me that nobody was going to be satisfied, and I thought that the public was entitled--if there was a conspiracy, then we ought to say there was a conspiracy. If there were confederates at large, it ought to be said there were confederates at large. I knew then already that Oswald had been in Russia, Oswald had been in Mexico. Now, if you are going to conclude, as the Bureau was concluding that this was not part of a conspiracy, that there were no confederates, then you had to make that case, with all of the facts, absolutely persuasive. If you didn't reveal these facts, somebody else was going to reveal them. Now, if there was a conspiracy, there was a conspiracy, and you put those facts out. But if you were persuaded Oswald was a lone killer, you had better put all of the facts out and you better not cover up anything, and you better say now all of the facts are going to be made public. That was the advice I was giving Moyers and that was the advice I was giving the President and that was the motivation for the Warren Commission… (HSCA III, p. 653)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.htm
What a convoluted mess this answer is. If there was a conspiracy? If there were confederates at large? That is what the evidence shows! So why wasn't this stated as he says? Why did they go with a theory that had no supporting evidence?
The evidence shows that LHO was not in Mexico as he says. Perhaps the real LHO was, but the evidence to show that has never been presented to us. This means that Katzenbach was either just going along with what he was told or he knew the truth and ignored it. Neither option is good for the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
Katzenbach even admitted all the so-called evidence against LHO was “too pat", and yet, he still went with it.
Mr. DODD - You seemed in the next paragraph--I quote you again here--you say: Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, et cetera). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced. Am I off base there in detecting a feeling that you had on November 25, 1963, that there was something more to this, that you felt, in fact, whether intuitively or based on other information, that this guy had been set up, Oswald was not alone?...
Mr. KATZENBACH - I don't think I had a view one way or the other, other than what I was being told the FBI investigation had, but I was saying you have got a lot of facts here, if you say Oswald was the lone killer, he wasn't in conspiracy with anyone, had nothing to do with any foreign government, you have got a lot of awkward facts that you are going to have to explain, and you had better explain them satisfactorily. You had better put it all out on the table. (HSCA III, pp. 653-654)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329a.htm
First of all, the FBI had NO facts. Awkward or otherwise. Secondly, the WC didn't explain their conclusion in a coherent manner as much of the official narrative makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, they failed totally to support their claims as well. So why was there such a rush to blame LHO, and LHO alone, again?
This is an interesting comment.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0329b.gif
Mr. SAWYER - I just have a single question. Mr. Hart, who was a spokesman for CIA here in connection with their having taken into custody for some 3 years Yuri Nosenko, the Russian defector, said that their authority for putting this man in a specially built isolation cell for 3 years, was you, that Helms had gone to you and gotten an OK for this. Is that true?
Mr. KATZENBACH - I have no recollection of any conversation involving Mr. Nosenko with Mr. Helms. There may have been such a conversation. I don't think that I authorized putting anybody in jail for 3 years. I simply have no recollection of any such conversation occurring, but there may have been a conversation about a defector. I don't know.
Mr. SAWYER - But you don't believe that you would have authorized that kind of thing, if you had been asked?
Mr. KATZENBACH - No, I think I would have--I think if somebody said we have a defector, we don't know whether he is a true defector or not, we have got him under some questioning, I wouldn't have--I don't suppose that would have bothered me that much. But when you talk about incarceration for 3 years, and so forth, that seems to me a different proposition. One would expect a defector to be questioned by CIA. (HSCA III, pp. 654-655)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0329b.htm
Unless they are LHO of course! Katzenbach said that one would expect a defector to be questioned by the CIA, but supposedly this never happened to LHO when he returned from Russia. Why not? Possibly because he was not a real defector is the obvious answer.
Here's Katzenbach's final comment before the HSCA.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/pages/HSCA_Vol3_0342a.gif
Mr. KATZENBACH - …I regret that the Warren Commission report was inadequate, if it was inadequate in any respects, and that as a consequence this committee has felt, the Congress has felt through this committee, the necessity to reexamine the assassination. I am sure that you, sir, and all the members regret that equally. I have confidence that what this committee is doing and will do in its report, will reflect the wisdom and integrity of its members. (HSCA III, p. 679)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0342a.htm
Inadequate is putting it politely. The Warren Commission Report was a deliberately misleading report that contained a bunch of claims that were NOT supported by the WC’s own evidence found in the twenty-six volumes and Commission Documents.
It provided us with a false conclusion that has kept people mislead for fifty-eight years. The HSCA was very soft on Katzenbach and let him wiggle out of his comments made in the November 25, 1963, memorandum. That memorandum is pretty clear in its purpose – put the blame for the JFK assassination squarely on LHO and LHO alone.
This conclusion was reached within days by JEH and no one dared to say that he got it wrong. I think Katzenbach's comments make it clear that JEH was either involved or forced to go along. Katzenbach said that he thought it was odd that JEH didn't take the opportunity to embarrass the CIA about the CIA-Mafia plots against Fidel Castro. Most likely he couldn't. What do you think?