What did RFK Jr. say about JFK?

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review recently asked Dr. Cyril Wecht of Duquesne University a question:

Q: Where do RFK Jr.’s remarks fit in the Warren Commission conversation?

Wecht responded:

“It strengthens the hand [of commission detractors]. Many intelligent people who are not biased fail to recognize that we, the Warren Commission critics, are not a rogue element. We represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. Six weeks ago, I went to New York City at the request and expense of the History Channel for a big program they are putting together (on the assassination). They had commissioned a survey of 2,200 people (and) they wanted to get my reaction to it. They asked if they thought the Warren Commission Report was correct, valid. Eighty-five percent of the people said no.”

6 comments

  1. John Kirsch says:

    I believe there was some issue at the time about what exactly RFK Jr. said, since, apparently, his talk in Dallas was not recorded. Has that issue been resolved?

    • Folks are working to get the transcript of his remarks released. Apparently Charlie Rose and perhaps a few others have to give permission.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Yhanks. I don’t know what the circumstances were of RFK Jr.’s visit to Dallas but I’m surprised that his appearance/talk was not recorded, given the unusual, almost historic nature of the event: a descendant of JFK visiting Dallas.

  2. Shane McBryde says:

    http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black620a.mp3

    Jim Lesar with an update on Morley v CIA.

    • JSA says:

      Regarding some of the records that the CIA is still trying to keep hidden from the public:
      Forgive my ignorance here, but couldn’t CIA and the National Archives destroy all of the files before they can be released, then say they are “missing”? Or is this an almost impossible task to undertake?

  3. Shane McBryde says:

    In the case of the records Jefferson Morley is seeking to have released they relate to the activity of a specific Agency employee, George Joannides. 

    These would  be typical records that basically justify drawing a paycheck. Like, are you showing up for work every day? What are you doing at work every day?  Are you actually getting the job done you’re being paid to do? That type of stuff.

    Almost any employer keeps these kinds of records, CIA being no exception. They keep such records, like any other employer, on anyone whom they have to cut a paycheck for every week. And, considering CIA is a taxpayer funded, government agency, what the employees are up to is public record. We, theoretically, sign the paycheck.

    So, CIA can’t very well claim with any credibility that of all their employees this one guy happens to be someone on whom they kept no such records, see? Especially considering this one guy happened to be CIA chief of Psychological Warfare in Miami.

    In addition, Morley seeks the release of records for Joannides pertaining to a specific time frame. So again, CIA would look foolish, or worse incompetent, to maintain they just so happened not have his records from that specific time period. Especially considering during that “specific time period” his job was working as the case officer for an anti-Castro organization funded by the CIA. The Cuban Student Directorate, or D.R.E.

    It was a few of the principals in the D.R.E. that tangled with Lee Harvey Oswald on Canal Street in New Orleans when Oswald was handing out pro-Castro leaflets. And, it was the D.R.E. that immediately began propagating the idea that Oswald was a Cuban agent acting on Castro’s behalf in assassinating president Kennedy.

    So the question is, why can’t we see the records on this government employee’s activities managing this group we were paying in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination? To up and destroy them at this stage is too obvious, to say they don’t exist is not credible, so all you’re left with is, ‘because we said so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more