From: howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells)
Subject: J.Edgar Hoover's motivations
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:55:57 GMT



bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams) writes:

> howells@bird.mitre.org (Timothy P. Howells) writes:
> ; John McAdams wrote:
> ;
> ; >> I'd like to know what evidence there is that Warren was told a
> ; >> priori what the conclusions had to be.
> ;
> ; I replied with (among other things) quotes from J.Edgar Hoover and
> ; Nicholas D. Katzenbach which were issued the day of the assassination,
> ; and the day after, stating that "The public must be satisfied that
> ; Oswald was assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still
> ; at large; that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted
> ; at a trial."  (That particular quote was from Katzenbach, but clearly
> ; reflected Hoover's point of view.)
> 
> Are you SURE this was issued the day of, and after, the assassination?
> "that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at a trial"
> Why "would have"?  It sounds like Katzenbach is talking about the situation
> after Oswald had been murdered, which was Sunday, two days after Kennedy's
> assassination, wasn't it?

Whoops, I should have said that the Hoover and Katzenbach memos were
issued within 48 hours of Kennedy's assassination, and within 24 hours
of Oswald's.  Still, the original point holds - this was far too early
for any credible investigation to have identified Oswald as the
assassin, and to have ruled out conspiracy.

The memos were both issued on November 24th.  Thanks for the
correction.


6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

> By the day after the assassination the evidence against Oswald was
> overwhelming.  As to his having confederates, no one can ever actually prove he
> didn't.  But the FBI would probably have known he was a leftist (his pro-Cuba
> activities, for example), and known it didn't *know* that he was any sort of
> agent.  They doubtless knew enough about his history (defecting to Russia and
> returning) to know that he looked at lot like a nut and not at all like a savy
> intelligence operative.

This falls far short of an adequate expanation of J. Edgar Hoover's
behavior on November 24, 1963 in urging the formation of a commission
with an explicit mandate to publish a finding that there had been no
conspiracy.  Again, this was within 48 hours of Kennedy's
assassination, and 24 hours of Oswald's murder by Jack Ruby; there is
simply no way that by this point in time that a credible investigation
into these men's backgrounds could even have begun.

The "leftist nut" interpretation you suggest is far too simplistic to
have been accepted by an experienced investigator without the most
rigorous confirmation.  To give just one example of the problems with
this theory, consider more closely Oswald's pro-Castro activities.
Oswald was the founding and only member of the New Orleans branch of
the Fair Play for Cuba committee, a pro-Castro organization.  However,
he also was involved with at least one anti-Castro group.  This
anomalous behaviour culminated in a confrontation between Oswald and
an anti-Castro activist who noticed Oswald handing out pro-Castro
literature.  Both men were arrested.  While in jail, Oswald called an
FBI agent who promptly came over and talked with him alone for over an
hour.

Let me emphasize that for now I'm ONLY making the point that there are
deep and difficult questions regarding Oswald's political activities.
To suggest that by the first and second day following the
assassination these could lightly be written off is extremely naive,
especially considering the circumstances of his death.

Tim Howells <howells@linus.mitre.org>
From: brian@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Wood)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:41:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Conl. Prouty's book
Organization: HP Mfg. Test Div., Loveland, CO