“Lies Continue 50 Years After JFK’s Death,” writes Ray Hanania.
There has to be someone out there in American politics who isn’t corrupt who might demand that the U.S. begin a fresh, new investigation of the Kennedy assassination and not focus on the so-called “Magic Bullet” and instead focus on the less magical and more corrupt political alliances that existed in America at that time.
31 thoughts on “From the South Side of Chicago”
Hanania should do a bit of fact checking. He writes:
Chicago was the only place that the Kennedys gave the Mafia a pass because, under then Mayor Richard J. Daley, the mafia worked to steal votes and get Kennedy elected.
In reality the precincts under organized crime control including Cicero voted exactly as they had in 1956 for Adlai Stevenson. Not much substance in any area of this reporters article.
Paul, I agree, and I wondered why this article justified its own thread.
Good point Leslie.
“In reality the precincts under organized crime control including Cicero voted exactly as they had in 1956 for Adlai Stevenson.”
I imagine your source for this is John Binder’s “The Chicago Outfit.” No?
I have not read The Chicago Outfit. However the information is courtesy of Professor Binder.
“Jack Ruby, the man who murdered Oswald so publicly and conveniently on live television just walking through the Dallas police security around Oswald, had close ties to the Dallas Mafia.”
I believe that a wider definition of the term mafia would benefit this discussion. There was another “mafia” operating in Dallas that might best be described as the “white mafia” for lack of a better term. They functioned in the limelight but they also operated in the shadows.
“There has to be someone out there in American politics who isn’t corrupt who might demand that the U.S. begin a fresh, new investigation of the Kennedy assassination and not focus on the so-called “Magic Bullet” and instead focus on the less magical and more corrupt political alliances that existed in America at that time.”
No, there is not some such someone.
Take a hike.
Just finished reading Will Fritz’s typed notes of the DPD interrogations of LHO on 22-24 November in Fritz’s office.
Amazing text. Fritz is an excellent writer. His writing is clear, descriptive, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors. The picture he paints of Oswald is exquisite.
Oswald answers all questions immediately, without hesitation. Oswald’s answers are responsive except as to one matter: his attitude toward religion. On this matter, he ducks and weaves.
He maintains his innocence both as to JFK’s and as to Tippit’s murders. He pooh poohs the backyard photos as being forgeries. He says he doesn’t own a rifle. He says he doesn’t know Alek Hidell. He says he wants John Abt as his lawyer. It’s clear to this reader LHO knew how to deal with interrogators (that’s something taught to certain army intel officers) and how to maintain a cover story.
Oswald quite clearly is confident, relaxed, and in control of himself. His only arrogance surfaces when James Hosty questions him. It’s clear he has contempt for Hosty. Not at all the LHO portrayed by LN-ers and the Warren Commission.
Here is the web link to the Will Fritz notes:
2:25-4:04 p.m. Friday, Nov. 22, 1963 – Oswald interrogation in Office of Captian Will Fritz.
There is an extremely important passage in Noel Twymann’s Bloody Treason; it is on pages 792 to 803 of the hardback version. Twymann details and confirms Lyndon Johnson PERSONALLY calling Will Fritz late on Saturday 11/23/63 and telling him to QUIT interrogating Oswald.
Author Noel Twymann spoke to 2 people: Frank B. Harrell and Jim Leavelle. Here is what Twymann says about his meeting with Harrell:
“He was very cooperative. He remembered the lunch and confirmed that Captain Fritz told that story, that Lyndon Johnson had called and ordered Captain Fritz to pull off questioning Oswald.” (p. 794, Bloody Treason).
“Harrell says that Fritz was ‘pulled off because he was getting too close.’ He said that in ‘a couple of more hours he’d have broken Oswald, but they pulled Oswald out.'” (Twymann, “Bloody Treason,” p. 794)
The next day the 24th, of course, Oswald is shot in the late morning. Then LBJ personally calls Dr. Charles Crenshaw at Parkland Hospital and tells him:
“I want a death-bed confession from the accused assassin. There’s a man in the operating room who will take a statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter.” LBJ was not asking who sent you or did you (Oswald) have confederates, he just wanted a tidy “confession” from the dying Oswald.
Then on the next day Monday, Nov. 25th, LBJ tells Hoover, as he was then opposing the creation of the Warren Commission, quote, “we can’t be checking up on every shooting scrape in the country”. LBJ wanted a completely controlled Texas Court of Inquiry to cover it up.
For those in the JFK research community who think LBJ was some sort of innocent in the JFK assassination, but was only later a key part of the cover up … I just have to laugh at them.
And that is the problem with James Douglass’ otherwise fine “JFK & the Unspeakable” – he leaves Johnson out of the mix in the assassination.
I should mention the whole time LBJ is doing all these things, he is telling many key players behind the scenes that Fidel Castro did it, as he did with Ted Sorenson on Saturday 11/23.
If LBJ called Fritz Saturday night and told him to QUIT interrogating Oswald, why is Fritz still interrogating him on Sunday morning?
Who am I to believe, author Twymann or the record?
That is a good point, Jean.
You know my view of LBJ. But I think Jean has a point — according to Fritz’s typed notes, questioning of LHO continued in Fritz’s office on the morning of November 24 until Leavelle (sp?) came to get Oswald.
I’ve read “Bloody Treason” and think Twyman’s a good guy.
Don’t know how to reconcile the apparent facts, unless the November 24th interrogation was made in Fritz’s presence without his participation.
Jonathan: in-depth critique of Tywmann here (bonus analysis of Fetzer, too)
I think it is justifiable to attack Twymann on Zapruder Film alteration. Having said that there is a lot of really good stuff in “Bloody Treason:” interviews with Robert McNamara, Gerry Hemming (not that I believe everything Hemming says), Madeleine Brown.
Weisberg also unjustifiably trashes “The Dark Side of Camelot” which I think is an extremely important book, especially on the JFK/LBJ hostile relationship.
As I scan Weisberg’s angry review of Twymann, it looks pretty calorie empty. Overall, I rate Harold Weisberg as a pretty pathetic JFK researcher & person. He was good at filing lawsuits, though.
I’ve had a similar problem with Douglass’s book.
His lens on the assassination is that of a theologian and pacifist. He sees the assassination as the result of warhawks being incensed over JFK’s peace overtures.
I do believe he’s grasped sinews of the motive. But in my estimation, the warhawks had to be sure LBJ was on board and wouldn’t turn on them. What I don’t know is this: Was that not a given?
“When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice-president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy.” –Jack Ruby’s comment to reporters while being transferred to his prison cell. When asked to explain what he meant, Ruby (Oswald’s killer and a probable conspirator in the JFK assassination) replied, “Well the answer is the man in office now [Lyndon Johnson].” Note: Adlai Stevenson advocated a conciliatory approach to international affairs in stark contrast to Democratic Party hawks like Lyndon Johnson. Johnson assumed the presidency following JFK’s murder and escalated the Vietnam War exponentially. With his comment, it seems that Ruby was dropping a hint about the assassination — that the JFK conspirators could not have achieved their goal of putting a hawk in the White House had Stevenson been Kennedy’s vice-president instead of Johnson.
Does the law require that an attorney on behalf of the accused be present during interrogation ? Can the accused simply refuse the services of a public defender and choose to be without legal representation?
The best answer I can give is this: In late 1963, in Texas, Oswald had the right to an attorney, although during the interrogation phase of his custody, he would have had to pay for a lawyer out of his own pocket. He chose expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily to answer questions without an attorney present; i.e., he waived his right to counsel.
In 1964, in Escobedo v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held every person arrested or a crime has the right to counsel during the interrogation phase of custody. Meaning, at the lowest level, the state must offer to provide at no cost the services of a public defender.
And yes, the right to counsel can be waived; but from a prosecutor’s standpoint today, that’s a risky proposition, because a judge along the line might find the waiver was not made knowingly and voluntarily.
A sharper point:
In 1964, in Escobedo v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held every person arrested FOR a crime has the right to counsel TO BE PRESENT during the interrogation phase of custody. Meaning, at the lowest level, the state must offer to provide at no cost the services of a public defender BEFORE INTERROGATION BEGINS.
Thanks very much Jonathan. I now wonder if the Escobedo v. Illinois case had made it into the law journals by late 1963, given that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court in 1964?
My question pertains to Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar at the time. It appears on the surface that Nichols did not proceed with extreme caution in spite of knowing that when Oswald went to trial, these issues could possibly arise. Instead, it appears that he and the authorities involved at that point acted imprudently at best.
Maybe they were amateurs, overwhelmed by the circumstances, or perhaps some of them knew that Oswald would not make it to trial.
I realize that is a provocative statement, but as one who believes there was a conspiracy behind the assassination, I think that Oswald’s arrest, interrogation, and his murder would have been considered very early on.
I would propose that Nichols was called in to present the face of legal propriety.
I’ll cut to the chase.
Nichols was an insider. Whatever his role, he failed. Oswald was trained to resist interrogation. By professional intel.
That would be my assessment as well.
I can’t help but compare: the FBI caught suspect 2 in Boston bombings alive and now speculation is already swirling that the two bombers may have been “mentored” by others and are part of a larger plot. I imagine this will be investigated and people will take the idea of “conspiracy” seriously in the bombing and the young man being alive opens the doors compared to Oswald who was conveniently murdered.
Proof that the Boston Marathon bombers weren’t part of a false flag operation.
Politicians won’t champion a re-opening of the case unless there’s a public outcry of the sort following the release of “JFK” or Geraldo’s mid-1970s showing of the Z film.
A 2002 Village Voice article on the media and the assassination reported 77 percent of Americans disbelieved the Warren Report (i.e., that LHO acting alone did it). The politicians know this. They also know the people hate the tax law; don’t trust members of congress; and largely don’t vote.
All any politician wants is to get re-elected. The JFK assassination is not good fodder for a political campaign.
Private efforts to dispel the lies and deflect the propaganda have led, for example, to fantastic disclosures of previously hidden material. Your suit, Jeff, is one example here. IMO, this is the way to go. I applaud your efforts and your blog.