What did the Washington political elite think of JFK’s death?

More than a few members of the Washington political elite in the 1960s privately suspected that President Kennedy had been killed by his enemies. They ranged from the JFK’s brother and widow to members of the Warren Commission to established news reporters.

As Rex Bradford notes in this 2008 speech in Dallas, “this group shared with the rest of us disbelief in the lone disgruntled gunman story, What we don’t find [in their comments] for the most part are strong indications that they really knew the answer to ‘Who killed JFK?’ beyond intelligent hunches. But some of their statements offer interesting clues and point the way toward information they had which has since gone missing.”

More original reporting from JFK Facts:

“Top 5 JFK Files Brennan Should Make Public” (JFK Facts, Feb. 5, 2013)

“Two More JFK Files for Brennan’s Review.” (JFK Facts, Feb 12, 2013)

“Why I sued the CIA for JFK Records”  (JFK FActs, February 23, 2013)

7 comments

  1. Arthur Schlesinger on Robert Kennedy being convinced at one point that Lyndon Johnson had murdered John Kennedy

    “We tried to perpetuate the myth by convincing ourselves that we were good and that LBJ was evil. I remember one time Bobby telling me he was convinced that Lyndon was behind his brother’s death. ‘Come on Bob. Get real.’ I said. His other theory had it that Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes were somehow involved. He hated them both. ‘Nixon’s a true slimebucket,’ he said. ‘And I should have investigated Hughes years ago.’”

    [C. David Heymann, "RFK," p. 365]

    • Jimmy says:

      Robert Morrow. I am a big fan of your work, and your making such great literary resources available, and for putting for such a passionate case towards the LBJ did it scenario. It is truly like you are a one man lobbying group in that sense.

      However, there is one place where I disagree with you at times as a scholar and a gentlemen — that is, respectfully disagree. And to show what I mean, I must use a spectrum, a polarity of thought ranging from one scholarly sensibility in evaluating evidence, witnesses, and estimating their reliability, and so forth.

      So, by place familiar JFK scholars on this spectrum, it will give you a sense of where I did agree.

      So, posit if you will said spectrum: one one extreme end is represented the likes of Jim DiEugennio, who seldom meets a new book he likes, or finds a witness credible, if you know what I mean. I exaggerate, but I think he is overly harsh in how he invalidates perfectly fine witnesses or theories because of some personal peccadillo, or its disjointed fit with his grand scenario.

      Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum would be that scholar who basically digests everything, and sort of gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry who comes around the bend with a tale about JFK the ultimate in credence, and thus he has the most complicated jigsaw puzzle of
      all

      Now Jim D. famously discredits this author you quoted, for being a flakey, unreliable type. But for my money, that does not mean that he did not get many of the quotes he did.

      I know you have recently bought into the Dr. Feel Good stuff — which interprets western civilization almost entirely through the lens of one meth doctor, and it is very entertaining and credible in how it is laid out. My problem there is I I think some of those stories may be exaggerated, giving them a tabloid quality. Was the Vienna disaster really a power play by the Soviets who waited out JFK so his meth would crash? That is pushing it in my book.

      Anyway, I tend to believe many more of the witnesses and controversial theories long ago thrown away by people like Jim, and yet I feel you are more likely to embrace many more than I would. Does that make sense?

      I think you could add another sifting or two, but on the whole, I think you are more right than most of the other guys in the field.

      I think it is a farce that Jim D. doesn’t think there is a strong case for Lyndon being behind the assassination, as stated frequently by him and his attack dogs on CTKA. Thus I think we would should do a Lettermen-esque Top Ten List.

      Top Ten Reasons Why Jim Is Insane to Not Think Lyndon is not at least a principle sponsor of the assassination, if not the fountainhead. Good enough for Ruby to think so, it’s good for me.

      Peace.

      Jimmy

    • Jonathan says:

      Robert,

      Two persons, one a “Washington elite,” who believed LBJ pulled the strings on November 22 were Jack Ruby and Richard Nixon.

      Ruby said JFK would be alive if he had chosen Adlai Stevenson as V.P. Nixon said that while he and LBJ both wanted badly to be president, the difference was that he (Nixon) wouldn’t have killed to achieve the office.

      LBJ told confidants he believed JFK had been killed by conspiracy. I take this to be the deflection of guilt, because he alternatively blamed the Cubans and the Soviets.

      What persuades me most of LBJ’s likely foreknowledge (at the least) is his utter ruthlessness coupled with his Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes problems, which surely would have taken him down and landed him in jail if fully aired.

  2. Steven Berry says:

    One other person that unfortunately was found dead shortly after she had a one on one interview with Jack Ruby was Dorothy Kilgallen who said shortly after her interview with Ruby..that she now has the story “that will blow the lid off of the Oswald acted alone nonsense”..By the way how many people know that Earl Warren’s son in law was none other then Jon Daley..Host of the T.V. show ..”Whats My Line” where Kilgallen was one of the panelist….

  3. John McAdams says:

    Jeff,

    None of this is new And none of it proves anything.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm

    • John Kirsch says:

      “none of it proves anything.” I believe you are correct. Interesting stuff to know but that’s about it.

    • Meaculpavous says:

      “None of it proves anything” ???
      But, fore facts lead to proof, if at all there is one who strives to prove.

      But, sitting down like you, and claiming that nothing is proven is mere louse.

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