LBJ was behind JFK's assassination, upcoming book contends

GULFPORT, Miss. - (KRT) - The father of the White House press secretary claims in his upcoming book, "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.," that former President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Barr McClellan, father of White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Mark McClellan, is preparing for a Sept. 30 release of a 480-page book by Hannover House that offers photographs, copies of letters, insider interviews and details of fingerprints as proof that Edward A. Clark, the powerful head of Johnson's private and business legal team and a former ambassador to Australia, led the plan and cover-up for the 1963 assassination in Dallas.

Kennedy was shot and killed while throngs watched his motorcade travel through Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Vice President Johnson was sworn in as president shortly after on Air Force One.

"(Johnson) had the motive, opportunity and means," said McClellan, 63, who was a partner in an Austin law firm that served Johnson. The book, McClellan said in an exclusive interview at his Orange Grove home, is about "(Johnson's) role in the assassination. He was behind the assassination, how he was and how it all developed."

McClellan and his wife have lived in Gulfport since 1998, where his wife's family lives. McClellan consults for some businesses on the Coast and writes books.

McClellan said he includes information in the book that alludes to Johnson's role in the assassination. An example is a story that was told to him by the late Martin Harris, former managing partner at the law firm, as told to Harris by Clark.

McClellan writes in his book that in a 1961 meeting on Johnson's ranch outside Johnson City, Texas, Johnson gave Clark a document that may have helped the assassin:

"Johnson suddenly let Clark go. `That envelope in the car,' he said quietly, almost an afterthought, `is yours.' Stepping toward the car, he muttered, `Put it to good use.' He turned, putting his arms across Clark's shoulders, pulling him along, (and) the two walked toward the convertible.

"As they drove back to the ranch, Clark opened the envelope. It contained the policy manual for protection of the president."

Barry Bishop, senior shareholder of Clark's former law firm, defended the attorney.

McClellan's theory is "absurd," Bishop said over the phone. "Mr. Clark was a big supporter of Mr. Kennedy. The day that President Kennedy was assassinated, there was going to a be a dinner that evening in Texas. Mr. Clark was a co-sponsor of that dinner."

McClellan's book is just one of numerous conspiracy theory books that criticize the conclusion of the FBI's investigation of the assassination, that found that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.

According to the Warren Commission's 1964 report, "Examination of the facts of the assassination itself revealed no indication that Oswald was aided in the planning or execution of his scheme."

But that hasn't stopped people from writing books that challenge the Warren Commission's findings. Other ideas about who was behind the assassination include U.S. intelligence agents, the Mafia, Nikita Khrushchev, the military-industrial complex and Cuban exiles.

"The big beauty is, (readers) don't have to believe a word I say," McClellan said. "They can believe the fingerprint examiner. They can believe the exchange of memos and letters."

"The book is the evidence," said Cecile McClellan, McClellan's wife, who has edited much of the book. "When you read that book and look at those exhibits, and say, `Do I believe this?' There it is … It's like (McClellan is) a lawyer presenting this book to the jury. You make your own decision. He's putting it all out there."

The theory that Johnson was involved is "exceedingly unlikely," said John C. McAdams, who is an outspoken supporter of the Warren Commission's findings and teaches a course on the JFK assassination at Marquette University in Milwaukee. "What did he (McClellan) find in the documents, and what does it, in fact, indicate? If he's looking at all the documents everyone else is looking at, I would want to know which documents he's interpreting as L.B.J."

Eric Parkinson, president of Truman Press Inc., the parent company of Hannover House, said the book comes out at a good time.

"Now, 40 years later, it's appropriate that this additional information be brought to light. It (the book) will provide closure for a lot of people."

McClellan began working with Clark in 1966 and said he had no role in the conspiracy. But he did hear rumors about it.

"When I first started work there and was told that Clark was behind the assassination, I didn't believe it. It was, `This guy you really liked, John Kennedy - he was killed by the guy you're working for now.' I think I went into a bad case of denial."

McClellan said he learned of Clark's role several times, from Clark and others in the law firm, including while he was acting as Clark's lawyer. The case involved the 1969 application for Clark to drill an oil well and name it after himself.

At the time, McClellan said he asked Clark about the rumors he had been hearing. He said Clark talked in code, but he said, "He wanted the payoff for it. When you mention Dallas, you were talking about the assassination. We had a discussion about it. That's in the book, pretty much verbatim."

"When you get inside the attorney-client privilege, you find out a whole lot," McClellan said. "At the time I thought everything I learned was privileged. I've since found out that there's no privilege for lawyers who plan crimes," he said, referring to Clark.

McClellan said he left the law firm in 1982 because Clark wanted him to represent a company that would conflict with interests of McClellan's other clients. Then, he said, Clark sued him over a personal loan. McClellan counter-sued. Then the bank holding the loan sued.

"When I found out what they were going to do to me, I got mad. The gloves came off. I said, `Forget it. They're not going to get away with this anymore.'"

But it took years before McClellan was able to publish the book that he said supports his assassination theory.

Finally in 1994, the 14-year legal battle with the lawsuits ended with dismissals. By that time, Clark had been dead for two years.

McClellan said he was trying to get a book out in 1984, while Clark was alive. "He knew I was going public - from the affidavits in one of those three lawsuits," McClellan said. And he said a book agent he approached in 1984 told him to "do an investigation."

"I wanted to be comfortable with what I knew," McClellan said. He said it took a long time to verify fingerprints with several experts and to find a publisher.

"A lot of it wouldn't have been available except that old Clark's records" were bequeathed to Southwestern University, McClellan said, making them available for research. Previously "they were stored in his private records. I'm sure if he had thought about it before he died, he would have probably thrown away a few."

McClellan had been writing bits and pieces of the book since he left the law firm. He logged numerous hours of research and 10 researchers helped him, he said.

Supporters and detractors have talked to McClellan about possible repercussions from the book, McClellan said, but he's not losing any sleep.

McClellan said he hasn't had any overt threats. He said people imply retributions, like suggesting that "I'm not going to make it in Austin. `You're going to be out of here.'"

But he said he has not had the chance to ask sons Scott and Mark for their reactions.

"I assume that they know about it," McClellan said. "They know what I'm doing. They're not going to comment on it. The oldest, Mark, was then maybe 15 when I left the law firm."

When asked if he was concerned for the safety of his twin sons, Dudley, an Austin lawyer in private practice, and Bradley, a Texas state associate attorney general, McClellan said: "The Democrats are pretty much out of power, really, in the state of Texas. So as far as Republicans go, they're in good shape. My ex-wife (Carole Keeton Strayhorn) - she's the comptroller of the state of Texas. There's really none of this influence or anything like that."

Don't have time to read all the comments -- has anyone mentioned yet that Dallas is on the 33rd Degree latitude and that Dealy Plaza is the site of Dallas' first Masonic Temple? In effect, Kennedy was ritually killed midway between the pillars of Boaz and Jachin.

Of course MacBird was complicit in it, and near the center, but I suspect he wasn't the prime mover.

The definition of a "Pristine Bullet" is one that follows it's axis in flight. It has nothing to do with it's appearance.

Those who used the term "pristine" were referring to the bullet's appearance.

The bullet was damaged at the nose and the lead was squeezed out of the flattened rear. Look at the rear view.

The bullet was damaged at the nose because the FBI caught off the tip for examination. If you read the link from post #343, few of the witnesses at the Warren Commission hearings believed it was responsible for Connelly's wounds. Fragments were left in his wrist, yet the jacket of the missle was intact. Fewer still believe the "magic bullet" theory any longer, even the US government concluded there was a second shooter, perhaps on the Grassy Knoll.

The doctors who saw the initial wounds at Parksdale were not lying. The others who were under control of military authorities are suspect at best. Lifton's work on the autopsy make it clear it was a botched job, twisted to fit the conclusion which Lyndon and others had already determined, "there was no conspiracy".

YOur other red herrings are irrelevent to the issue of the autopsy. I understand that a rifle carried in the manner alledged would have left at least a trace of oil on the "bag." NONE was found. I understand the parafin tests showed Oswald did not fire a rifle that day and that he was a patsy without reason to shoot a man he admired. I can also see that the Z film clearly shows the impossibility of the fatal shot coming from the above right of JFK. Particularly if the shot was from only 88 ft away (which is virtually impossible mathematically.)

And I understand that the actions of LHO are NOT those of a man operating on his own. Why were there three wallets attributed to him? Why would anyone in Texas in 1963 order a rifle of dubious value through the mails guaranteeing its traceability when he could have gotten better ones cheaper without a chance of a trace from hundreds of locations in Dallas? IF he ordered it at all and not Alek Hiddel.

Am still waiting for the source of the evidence that he bought the ammo with the gun.

Also in on the conspiracy would have to be the people who turned Oswald down at other places he sought to get jobs at. At a printing company, the owner was going to hire Oswald until he started checking references. A former boss of Oswald told the owner that Oswald was no good. Too many people would have to be in the conspiracy. The stretch is beyond possibility, in my opinion. And, remember, this is but one piece of the puzzle. At many steps along the way, there would have to be several or dozens of people in on any conspiracy for things to have occured as they did.

Oswald was a nut, plain and simple. The Marines knew it, the Russians knew it, his wife knew it, the FBI and CIA knew it, the Communist Party USA knew it. They all wanted as little to do with him as possible. The various agencies covering up Oswald's contacts with them post assassination is explained by the simple fact that they didn't want to be associated with a nut who shot the president. They knew people with agendas would go ape trying to tie them to the assassination. Unfortunately, this just feeds the conspiracy theories.

There is dissention on that point.

The only dissention is on the part of those who wish to believe a conspiracy. Oswald had approximately 90 seconds to cross the floor and go down the stairs to the second floor. Plenty of time. How long does it take a 24 year old that just shot the president to cross a floor, dump a rifle between some boxes and go down 4 flights of stairs?

You have no idea what you're writing.

The lead came from the rear of the bullet and the definition of "Pristine" is from the Warren Report.

Just because you don't know how a Carcano bullet is constucted is no reason to make stuff up. Military bullets have the lead exposed at the base and that's where the material came from. Just like toothpaste out of tube. Look at it.

It was a 161 Grain bullet based on the remainder of the box and all the lead was accounted for with the addition of the lead smear in the wrist.

If there was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll, how did he shoot Kennedy without damaging the left side of the skull as evident of the Zapruder film?

One can only believe in no conspiracy by ignoring all these strange and unbelievable coincidencies. It this was not a conspiracy someone is doing their level best to convince us there was.

There are strange and unbelievable coincidences surrounding every event if you dig deep enough. Plenty of people have been digging aroung the assassination. The problem is one or two or three coincidences support one conspiracy theory, two or three others support another, and some others support a third. The coincidences contradict each other, and no conspiracy theory is remotely convincing when all the facts are looked at. Were Ozzie and Mohrenschieldt and Rosselli and Giancana and the police all in on it? Who was part of the conspiracy and who wasn't? There are plenty of reasons other than covering up a conspiracy to kill the President for knocking off a mob boss. Every coincidence has a mundane explanation. Remember, Oswald was a NUT. He was attracted to and drew the attemtion of other NUTS. That explains alot of his wacky associations.

Are you seriously arguing that Oswald wasn't involved in the assassination at all? That even if there was a conspiracy, Oswald didn't fire any shots? Can you put together some coherent theory to explain away the ovewhelming evidence that he fired three shots, no matter who else may or may not have been invloved?

He had to do this in less than two minutes.

See post 369.

After killing a man he, from all accounts, admired.

Oswald was pro Castro. Why would he admire Kennedy?

.............and get a coke and catch his breath, and appear calm. One of the books in which the author tested this said 1 min and 14 seconds and the cops appearance 1:15. Said Oswald was calm and collected. Tough to figure which side is right on this item.

When you say "bu those who want to believe a conspiracy" a similar statement could precede your view "by those who want to belive one shooter." Of course you're objective and the others are not.

I was in my heart rehab class this morning. I finished my exercises with a 130 pulse and 90/59 blood pressure. Earlier we had a short lecture on the benefits of exercise and they recommended we take the stairs as much as possible. I asked how high the hospital was and they said it was five stories.

After I was released, still with a 90 pulse and 90/60 pressure I took the elevator to the top floor. After finding out where the stairs were, I crossed the waiting room and headed down.

I hesitated on the third floor because I didn't know where the floor signs were. I arrived at the bottom floor after 67 seconds. I headed back up one flight and timed myself down. 12 seconds. Total time was 79 seconds for six floors and crossing the maternity ward waiting room. I didn't even raise my breath rate. I didn't even run down the stairs. It was more of a brisk walk. The height between floors was such that two staircases were needed for each flight. I forgot to count stairs.

This was copying a guy in his twenties and completely familiar with going to a breakroom.

You have no idea what you're writing.

Don't take my word for it, read the expert testimony from post #343. They were there, I'm assuming they knew what they were talking about.

If there was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll, how did he shoot Kennedy without damaging the left side of the skull as evident of the Zapruder film?

"Where did the Dallas doctors remember seeing this large head wound.
(from P.B.S. "Who Shot J.F.K." (1988)"

Were all the Dallas doctors lying? If there was a large gaping wound on the back of the head as the doctors said there was, that's consistent with a hit to the right side of the head as the bullet would have fractured the skull forcing brain matter out from its left and right. That's exactly what happened. A part of Kennedy's occipital bone was recovered and examined, that's in the back of the head.

"Also thanks to the work of Robert Groden (co-author of "HIGH TREASON") and his enhancement of the Zapruder film, in a few frames after the headshot you can actually see what appears to be the defect in the back of the head."

Tough to figure which side is right on this item.

See post 375.

Of course you're objective and the others are not.

This is only one detail among hundreds. No one set of details, no matter how ones looks at it, can support any of the conspiracy theories, they contradict each other. See post 372. Which conspiracy theory do you believe?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.