'Peg link to JFK murder? Eerie chat in airport

canoe.ca ^ | Sat, November 22, 2003 | TAMMY MARLOWE

[Destro]

Sat, November 22, 2003

'Peg link to JFK murder?

Eerie chat in airport

By TAMMY MARLOWE, STAFF REPORTER

Did a group of men involved in a plot to kill U.S. President John F. Kennedy sit in a cocktail lounge at the Winnipeg International Airport and openly discuss their concerns about a growing knowledge of the conspiracy? The late Richard Giesbrecht, a local businessman, thought so. His discussions with the FBI about the conversation he overheard has made "The Winnipeg Airport Incident" a perplexing mystery.

On Nov. 22, 1963, President Kennedy was shot in the head as he rode in the back seat of an open convertible with his wife, Jacqueline, through the streets of Dallas, Texas.

Though Lee Harvey Oswald was fingered as the man behind the sniper's rifle, many people believed some pieces of the puzzle surrounding Kennedy's death didn't quite fit together -- and the discrepancies spurred the debate that remains hot today.

INCREDIBLE TALE

Giesbrecht's former lawyer, Harry Backlin, said it's not hard for him to remember the day nearly 40 years ago when his client came to him with the incredible Winnipeg airport tale.

"It's still fresh in my mind as to what happened," Backlin said recently from his home in Prince George, B.C. "I can see him sitting in front of me and his facial expressions as he told the story to me. It would be no different if somebody would come in and tell you, 'Look, I just saw a murder take place.' "

Giesbrecht was sitting in the Winnipeg airport's Horizon Room lounge on Feb. 13, 1964, when he began listening to a couple of guys in the next booth chat about the testimony of the late Oswald's wife, Marina, at the Warren Commission.

Giesbrecht later identified one of the men as David Ferrie -- who had connections to the Mafia and who some conspiracy theorists credit for organizing the initial plan to assassinate Kennedy. Giesbrecht said he heard the group say they had more cash at their disposal than ever before and that they planned to meet in Kansas City next month.

JFK researcher Peter Whitmey said Giesbrecht became worried after he heard the men say the Warren Commission wouldn't stop investigating the president's murder -- even if it was decided Oswald acted alone. Giesbrecht quickly left the airport and went to Backlin with what he'd overheard.

"His eyes were bulging -- they were wide open -- and his hands were going as he told the story," Backlin said. "To me, I was like, 'Holy Christ, what the hell am I getting myself into?' "

Backlin said he has never doubted the story told by his client and friend.

But he admitted the pair didn't know what to do with the controversial information. They considered not ever telling anyone about what they'd discussed.

Finally, the men decided to alert authorities and Backlin penned a letter to John Morris, then-U.S. Consul General in Winnipeg. He also contacted RCMP officials, who sent him to the FBI's field office in Minneapolis.

Agents interviewed Giesbrecht and Backlin, and sent a six-page report of the evidence to the Warren Commission.

But it ended there. Whitmey said Giesbrecht was supposed to testify at the trial of alleged JFK conspirator Clay Shaw, but backed out after receiving a threat against his family. Giesbrecht didn't speak of the incident after the 1960s and his three children have never publicly discussed the issue.

[Destro]

creepy.

[mlo]

I assume there is no film or video of this swearing in.

I have an audio recording.

[I_dmc]

I'm not convinced that LBJ was that strong a person. Usually, bullies are not, and he certainly was one. It occurs to me, that if I could get a VP to "go along", I'd own his soul, as President.

[Destro]

I think LBJ was asked to come along - I have to read the book but it seems Hoover and others turned LBJ. I think I read somewhere that Nixon was promised a cake wake election (LBJ would pick a loser to run-and he did) if when president he would also go along with the plot. Something like that. Of course RFK decided to run and ruin this plan and thus his assasination.

According to the theories which are out there.

[leadpenny]

In order to make a coherent argument that LBJ was responsible you have to actually connect LBJ to Oswald.

Through how many degrees of separation and denial would a person be expected to make a connection?

[Fawnn]

I don't:
1) See the slightest indication of the congressman "winking"
2) See the slightest indication of LBJ "smiling."

re 1)
cropped and enlarged about 5X, not retouched:

It certainly appears to me that the left eye is closed and the right one is open.

re 2)
If you look at LBJ's jowls in the first shot and compare them to the second shot, you can see that his frown (somber expression?) pulls the muscles down in the first shot and that his facial muscles show more than just being stretched by the change in position and give the hint of a smile. (Such a smile wouldn't necessarily prove any guilt or innocence; it may have just been a reflex reaction to the congressman's wink, which for all we know may have been meant as an unspoken gesture of support.)

Additional: I would describe Jackie's expressions in the photographs as a reflection of someone in shock.

[DoctorMichael]

"....really unfair...."

The subject of my comments were the ARROW.......NOT Jackie.

[DoctorMichael]

The subject of my postwas the gentleman with the arrow......NOT Jackie.

[Maria S]

Bingo! I blink almost every time somebody takes my picture; the flash always startles me. This was 1963, the picture was taken inside a plane, and flashbulbs were NOT the subtle little lights that they are now. I’m surprised that there weren’t MORE ‘winks’ from those standing around. Anyone caught ‘smiling’ was probably doing so in the nervousness of the moment.

The 2-hour Peter Jennings special debunked many of the conspiracy theories, and concluded that Oswald was the lone shooter. I personally do not care for Peter Jennings, but the presentation was well done, I thought. Especially the computer segments showing various positions along the roadway, etc.

An interesting segment, IMO, discussed the 1991 Oliver Stone movie starring Kevin Costner. In the words of Robert Goldberg, who wrote 'Enemies Within':

"No book or program has done more to promote the JFK conspiracy theory...[than the Oliver Stone movie]. Stone has convinced me that the most powerful historians of the 20th century are filmmakers. It is these images [from the movie] that we remember. Most Americans know of the Kennedy assassination through Oliver Stone's mind and Oliver Stone's images."

Jack Valenti, aide to LBJ said, similarly: "[The movie] was a package of unfathomable lies packaged together with a cinematic artist's great skill that was a blending and a mélange of real photographs and fictional scenes merged together with such skill that you were unable to tell the difference." He was very disdainful of Stone's claims of "dramatic license."

I would hope Barbra Streisand would begin to understand WHY so many people were upset at the "dramatic license" taken with the Reagan movie. And SOMEBODY might suggest to that fat slob, Moore, that he return his oscar for 'Bowling for Columbine.'

One further comment; I think Goldberg’s comment of "Stone has convinced me that the most powerful historians of the 20th century are filmmakers" is right on target. Liberal movie makers are making the majority of historical stuff now...and THEIR twist and delivery of historical figures are all that young people are judging to be the truth.

LHO acted alone; as Peter Jennings said on the ABC special Wednesday night, Oswald was a nobody. A crazed nonentity. JFK was the powerful, popular leader of the most powerful country in the world. On the scales of life, we want to think that there’s more than just a little nobody that killed JFK…to balance things out. It just doesn’t seem quite fair that JFK died at the hand of a nobody.

[Spirited]

Maybe he can tell us why the motorcade was formed in such a way as to violate 32 different rules for protection of JFK?

Anyone who lives here knows Secret Service people and they talk. Perhaps your in-law kin is straight, but as in all professions all are not as all others.

[eno_]

I don't:

1) See the slightest indication of the congressman "winking"

2) See the slightest indication of LBJ "smiling."

You also didn't see anything wrong with Lon Horiouchi. Scum. Blind scum.

[xp38]

Does the audio shed any light on this discussion of these photos?

[bonesmccoy]

the audio of the actual oath itself is available on the internet...but I haven't been able to locate these photos on the internet in any further detail.

some here are assuming that the "wink" photo is taken after the oath. Can we really make that assumption?

Until we see the actual roll of film and the photos in sequence on the negatives... we won't know.

[jackbill]

Just how did it come to happen that Jackie Kennedy stood next to Johnson while he was being sworn in?

According to Jack Valenti, who I believe is the guy in the lower left of the swearing in photo (he said this on Imus the other day), Johnson wanted her in the photo for foreign consumption, i.e. continuity and transition.

[montag813]

Maybe he can tell us why the motorcade was formed in such a way as to violate 32 different rules for protection of JFK?

He didn't tell me that there was no conspiracy. Just that what McClellan says is B.S.

[Terridan]

Exactly... they had a willing participant with a mutually profitable future in working together. No way the mafia would lose millions of the Teamster's money used to build their casino's. It is quite simple really.

[Free Vulcan]

self-ping

[Leatherneck_MT]

It absolutely amazes me the venom that the "nay sayers" use to debunk this story.

Anytime someone is that vehemently against something, it makes me personally want to know more about the story.

You know no more about these pictures than anyone else.

So chill on the condescending attitudes.