Did the Warren Commission cover up the truth about JFK's assassination?

This is not a question of whether the actual assassination was a conspiracy, though I'm sure we all have our opinions regarding that. I'm simply wondering, in light of the reports that Ford admitted a CIA orchestrated cover-up, whether you believe the Warren Commission conducted an untruthful investigation.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pres._Fords_final_words_fuel_JFK_1121.html

If I remember correctly, he was the author of the "magic bullet" part of the cover-up.

President Johnson, by Executive Order 11130 on November 29, 1963, created an investigatory commission to be headed by Earl Warren. He also appointed the following political figures as members of the commission:

* Congressman Hale Boggs (D-LA)
* Senator John Sherman Cooper (R-KY)
* Former CIA Director Allen Dulles
* Congressman Gerald Ford (R-MI), a future Vice President and U.S. President
* Former World Bank president and diplomat John J. McCloy
* Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA)

J. Lee Rankin served as the commission's general counsel. Future Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, Iowa attorney David Belin, and New York University Law Professor Norman Redlich worked as assistant counsel for the commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission

They were not able to get close enough to the truth to cover it up. The FBI pressured at very least two men, Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, to purposely not tell the truth. The intelligence agencies, for a variety of reasons, did not provide the WC with anywhere near the amount of evidence they could have. Thus, the Warren Commission issued a report that didn't so much cover up the truth, as it didn't have access to the information needed to get to the truth.

Very interesting

I've edited the poll to reflect that logic. Thanks!

Thus, the WC went with the 'safe' scenario - one which was the plurality explanation. While it failed to conclusively accommodate SOME information, that information was itself not unquestionable. Lacking a fuller disclosure by secretive agencies (assumedly permitted on the basis of 'trust' in their claim it wasn't relevant), they went with the most supportable - even though "we can't get no satisfaction" is the prevalent truth of the matter, imho.

Even Nixon said it

Someone needs to get Poppy on the record about Ford's deathbed confession. How's Jerry's word now?!

Hunts confession was a bit more interesting, was it on FOX News?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/print

What exactly did Ford know? Did Dulles confirm Oswald's CIA status to him?

Yeah, the Hunt confession was interesting. I doubt we'll ever be able to confirm exactly what was truth and what was fiction, but I have no doubt he had the goods on the truth. I don't think Nixon doubted Hunt's inside role either.

the CIA covered up what for what reason?

I know one guy... someone here knows his name, I'm sure...anyway, he admitted on camera that his boss told him to destroy evidence immediately after Oswald was murdered because there wouldn't be any trial.

The CIA covered up because they were involved in illegal activities and Kennedy was coming down on them for this. As Hunt said...there were lots of groups that wanted Kennedy dead. None of them were left wing.

It has a new introduction from Ford that's causing the controversy.

Does shit stink?

I think the Warren Commission wasn't ever intended to find out the truth,
lived up to their intentions, and therefore didn't report what they didn't find.

I am still waiting for someone who DID find out the truth to report it in public.
What the Warren Commission never found out, SOMEBODY knew, and more than just one
somebody. I'll bet my children find out, even if I never do.

given names have given out the actual truth? I can't name any. They all have hidden and obscured what actually happened.

Have you read The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi? Wonderful account of his time served on the HSCA from 1976-1978. Even though they concluded that there was a second gunman and thus a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, they covered up most of the evidence that proved conspiracy.

an amazing number of Americans do not know this.

The older I get, the more amazed I am at how much the govt and media lies to the American people. I am still too naive. But I'm learning.

:kick:

Earl Warren didn't want anything to do with it, but LBJ twisted his arm (maybe his pal Hoover helped out with a few photos and wiretapped phone conversations?) and the rest is history.

Yes, they were part of a coverup, and evidently knew it, just like the 911 commission.

They shot a chalk-filled skull off a ladder and the plume went backward toward the shooter. The claim was - that Oswald's shot from behind could cause JFK's head to thrust backward. NOT a shot from the grassy noll.


Last time I tuned in.

why weren't the men on the grassy knoll ever investigated?

All the conspiracy theories can't actually find anyone, other than Oswald, who murdered Kennedy.

(At least, that's how it's supposed to work.)

The missing evidence proves the lie. It's hard to cover up all the destruction of evidence.

"got it right". Why is the investigation evidence locked away? And the report is a bunch of garble.

and in fact there is a rather large body of evidence that supports that Oswald was part of a far right-wing group who were also involved with the Bay of Pigs Cubans. The Warren Commission did not receive a lot of different testimony and evidence. The House Committee on Assassinations said, after they had more evidence, that they thought the shooting involved more than one person...but didn't go beyond that.

Kennedy pissed off a lot of powerful people, a lot of racists and fascists, and they killed him. And they got the big Vietnam War they wanted, courtesy of LBJ.

Sort of like the 9/11 Commission Report.

eom

I have come to the conclusion that the Warren Commission did not knowingly cover up any conspiracy. In fact, I'm beginning to accept the fact that Oswald most likely acted alone. The conspiracy theories were so overblown and exaggerated beyond all sense of reality, that when one returns to the Warren report, it seems strangely rational and factual.

I don't expect anything but flames for holding this opinion, but if you lack the time to read the Warren Commision's report I would delve into Bugliosi's twenty year effort "Reclaiming History".

Some questions. This is no flame. these are questions.

1. Does he talk about the Oswald, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie trip to Clinton, LA? How does he, in general, explain the association b/t Oswald and Shaw and Ferrie?

2. Does he talk about Roger Craig's testimony, and the things that happened to Craig over the years? (not talking about his suicide or murder. I mean the car bomb thing and the shot at him, not to mention the shunning from the dallas pd.)

3. Does he talk about LBJ's mistress, the one who has corraboration from LBJ's attns about her relationship with him b/c of financial dealings... what does Bugliosi have to say about her testimony about LBJ, Murchison, etc.?

4. Does he address the complaints from eyewitnesses that their WC testimony was altered -- these people are on film both giving their experience and noting that they weren't correctly represented.

5. Was his book published before E. Howard Hunt's talk with his son about the people involved in the assassination? If not, what has he said about that?

6. Does he address Don Hewitt, producer of 60 Minutes, claims that Oswald couldn't have acted alone? (And, btw, Hewitt says he thinks Jackie's paper contain some information about JFK... I don't know when they'll be made available to the public.) Hewitt spoke about this for The Archives of American Television.

7. Does he address Robert MacNeil, from the McNeil/Lehrer report, who was on the scene that day and has a picture of himself looking over into the parking lot because of the people who went there to see if the shooter they heard was still around? And beyond these two, how does Bugliosi dismiss the eyewitness accounts from numerous people who indicate a very similiar experience immediately after the assassination?

(this also reminds me.. have you ever heard the tape of Hernandez interrogating Serrano after her claims of what she saw when RFK was assassinated? They are very instructive because Hernandez basically brow beats her into denying what she said for over an hour...and that's when he gave her the lie detector test that she failed.... interesting, huh? - you can hear it online via part 4 at about 1:45 and part 5 at the beginning of a seriously flawed but very, very interesting compilation of archival footage and editorial imput called Evidence of Revision.)

8. Does Bugliosi address the bulllet that was in the ground by the sewer cover, as well as the bullet at the overpass (and the guy who was nicked by concrete chipped from the shot?) Does he address the police officer who was directly behind and to the left of the Kennedy car who was splattered with brain matter from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head?

9. Does he address the many early accounts that noted Kennedy was shot in the head, including his press secretary's announcement? - or does he say, how silly, it doesn't mean anything that the guy said the president was killed by a bullet to the head and pointed to his right temple because, of course, that's how everyone would explain a shot to the back of the head?

I really do want to know what Bugliosi has to say, but at this point I do not have time to read the book, but I also want to ask those who have read it how these things are addressed.

It has a new introduction from Ford that is causing the controversy.

http://flatsigned.com/JFK-FORD2.shtml

The authentication statement signed by Ford in these books states flatly that President Ford continued to agree with the findings of the Warren Commission in that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter and that there was no evidence of a conspiracy foreign or domestic.

Then these quotes are reprinted from the introduction:



Since Ford still so strongly underscored that he accepted Oswald as lone shooter and no conspiracy involving Kennedy's death, is he in this introduction suggesting that Oswald's death was a conspiracy? I am assuming that all the words above are from Ford's introduction.

What some forget Is 3 members(Russell,Cooper,Baggs) later admitted before their deaths they didn't
agree with the Commission's findings.Richard Russell admitted to researcher harold Weisberg he
believed the Commission was mislead on the ballistics report,and on Oswald's background.Not to
mention Hale Baggs Is among the mysterious death list.And why was ALlen Dulles who was fired by
Kennedy put on the COmmission.That would be like Bush being Killed and Michael Moore among those
Investigating.