Posted on 08/20/2003 6:18:44 PM PDT by new cruelty
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.
So why should people believe McClellan? What makes his book different?
"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."
But why didn't McClellan go public with the information back then?
"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."
So he began.
"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.'"
McClellan said at least some in his family accept his work on the book.
"They said, `OK, I guess that's what Dad's doing now,'" McClellan said.
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."
What lies did the Warren Commission catch Marina making?
She admitted lying about certain things...
What did she admit to lying about? Please post a link quoting her admission.
justshutupandtakeit: Any "evidence" in this case is suspect. I believe very little of it can be relied upon.
Did the Dallas police plant false evidence on Oswald to make it look like he killed Officer Tippit?
So you admit the blood, brains etc. appear at neck level to Jackie in frame 313?
A simple Yes or no answer will suffice.
There is no record of the Dallas police finding Oswald's wallet at the murder scene. The Dallas police claim they found Oswald's wallet on Oswald while they were transporting him from the movie theater to police headquarters. Were the Dallas police lying when they said they found the wallet on Oswald on the way to headquarters?
I do believe he was in the movie theater to meet someone and his actions led other patrons to believe he was searching for someone. He sits next to one guy, gets up, sits next to another guy, gets up and moves again. Who was he looking for?
According to these other patrons, what time did Oswald enter the theater?
Since the FBI, even before the assassination, had issued warnings about someone using LHO's identification...
What evidence is there that this is true?
From the letter:
When I came to this country I came as a friend. I was then and am now. When the assassination happened I believed it was my obligation--anybody's obligation--to abide by the law of this land. I testified to the Warren Commission and I obliged any request the government made of me.I agreed with the findings of the Warren Commission not because I really understood everything about it, but because I had enough trust that they investigated honestly and that the conclusions they came to were based on the highest form of investigation. So, with my blind faith, I accepted their conclusions. Of course, at that time lots of people in this country who knew more about what was going on questioned the findings of the commission. And I defended the commission against those people, and I wanted all those so-called conspiracy people to just go away. Then there was a second investigation because the people demanded it. This was the investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee. And I testified for them. And their conclusion was possible conspiracy, meaning that the assassination involved more than one person, and they stopped it at that. Even then, I wasn't very pleased. I wasn't very pleased because when I was testifying for them and I thought they were honest--after so many years, and because the people demanded it--I asked them questions that would be answered just for me, and I was told that I was there only to answer questions, not to ask them. So I knew that that investigation was doomed.Do you contend the above is an admission by Marina that her testimony was false?And how can I respect the conclusions of the House Select Committee, when they locked up their records?
I gave the two investigations everything I had. Then later I found out that the FBI knew more about me than I knew about myself.
Literally, even my underwear was investigated. And I have no problem--they didn't have to trust me, why should they? I don't hold anything against that. But my private matters were investigated--even when they had all the proof that I was nobody's "spy"--and I feel that this was FOR BLACKMAIL--my house was bugged, and I saw pictures of me which I knew nobody but the FBI could have done. I've seen with my own eyes that any kind of gossip from people even re motely related to me by name in Russia -- any kind of nonsense -- is in the record. You cannot be more thorough than that. And even so, I don't object. But now I think, it's my turn to ask the questions and for the FBI to clean their own laundry. I don't want to know everything about the FBI, but since they claim that I am wife of the assassin, and I have to defend myself , only in that regard am I sticking my nose in their business. And I'm not begging for answers. I think I've earned them, and I think they should give them to me.
Evidence of Marina's ability to write English before the assassination is abundant in the National Archives, dozens of examples, on photo backs, recipes, a notebook. Thus, she lied when she told the WC that she spoke little English because Oswald did not want her speaking English so he could practice his Russian. Jim Martin (her "manager") claimed she spoke English "quite well" as did Muhamed Reggab ( a student she dated in USSR) and Robert Webster (another "defector" she managed somehow to meet) thus it would appear that her claim to the WC of not being to speak much English was false.
WC staff attorney Bert Griffin called her a liar. Analysts compared her testimony before the WC, FBI agents and the HSCA and created a 29 page report listing dozens of unexplained contradictions from her.
So, based on the above, you believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she testified (post 489) about Oswald trying to kill General Walker?
So her opinion changed, big whoop. Her opinion changed, but she did not retract her testimony about factual events, including Oswald's attempted murder of General Walker.
Yes, I think she was lying when she claimed Lee shot at Walker.
If she did, she continues to lie about it to this day. Why does she continue to lie about this? Is she a willing or unwilling participant in the lying about Oswald's attempt to kill General Walker?
Ruth Paine's testimony about the incriminating note from "Oswald" raises the suspicion that it was planted. Her house had been throughly searched and nothing like it was found.
From the WC Report:
On December 2, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine turned over to the police some of the Oswalds' belongings, including a Russian volume entitled "Book of Useful Advice." 704, In this book was an undated note written in Russian. In translation, the note read as follows...Marina Oswald testified she remembers the note. So if the note was planted, whoever planted the note was also able to get Marina Oswald to lie about the note. Did Ruth Paine play a role in the planting of this note? If so, how do you know?Text of note omitted for brevity.
James C. Cadigan, FBI handwriting expert, testified that this note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald. Prior to the Walker shooting on April 10, Oswald had been attending typing classes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings. He had quit these classes at least a week before the shooting, which occurred on a Wednesday night. According to Marina Oswald's testimony, on the night of the Walker shooting, her husband left their apartment on Neely Street shortly after dinner. She thought he was attending a class or was on his own business." When he failed to return by 10 or 10:30 p.m., Marina Oswald went to his room and discovered the note. She testified: "When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me he had shot at General Walker." Oswald told his wife that he did not know whether he had hit Walker; according to Marina Oswald when he learned on the radio and in the newspapers the next day that he had missed, he said that he "was very sorry that he had not hit him." Marina Oswald's testimony was fully supported by the note itself which appeared to be the work of a man expecting to be killed, or imprisoned, or to disappear.
However, the most damaging evidence against this tale is that the bullet found at Walker's was a 30-06 not a 6.5 millimeter for the MC.
What evidence supports this statement?
If this wallet was found at the scene, why is it not found among the items of evidence?
Later at the Theater police removed a wallet from LHO's pocket with same IDs. He entered the Theater about 1 o'clock, before Tippet was shot. But there is considerable doubt about this since he got home about 1 according to some. Are we speaking AGAIN of more than one Oswald?
Which is it? Was Oswald at his rooming house at 1pm, or was he at the theater? Or were there two "Oswalds" at the theater, an imposter at 1pm, talking to patrons, and the real Oswald, who was at his rooming house at 1pm and entered the theater without paying at about 1:45pm and arrested by Dallas Police? Or was the taxi driver lying and was the housekeeper at Oswald's rooming house lying when she said she saw Oswald at 1pm?
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.