Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed five-volume book on the JFK assassination, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, has a new blog post about his recent testimony before Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets. Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Posted today at JFK Facts is an article by Chad Nagle about Horne’s recent testimony.
In his blog post, Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s, addresses the failure of the mainstream media to cover that particular congressional hearing, which also included testimony from (1) federal judge John Tunheim, who served as chairman of the ARRB; (2) Dan Hardway, who served a counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reinvestigated the JFK assassination in the 1970s; and (3) Abraham Bolden, a Secret Service agent assigned to JFK. Complimenting Forbes News, which posted the video of Horne’s testimony on YouTube, Horne also points out the decades-long aversion of the mainstream media to conduct independent investigations of the JFK assassination.
The big question is: Why? Why was the mainstream press so eager to accept the official findings of the Warren Commission, no matter how ludicrous they were (e.g., the infamous “magic-bullet theory”), rather than assign fierce and competent investigative reporters to ferret out the truth behind the assassination?
My answer: Fear.
After all, why have big, powerful law firms capitulated to President Trump’s demands? Why have enormous universities done the same? In my opinion, the reason is fear. They know that with the overwhelming power of the presidency, Trump has the ability to do very bad things to them. Just ask the people running Harvard, which has decided to fight rather than capitulate.
The mainstream press back in 1963 knew that Lyndon Johnson, who automatically became president on the death of JFK, was a vicious man, one who would not hesitate to use the overwhelming power of the presidency and the federal government to smash anyone he wanted, including any national news media outlet.
In his multi-volume biography of Johnson, author Robert Caro describes how Johnson pressured the officials in two different newspapers in Texas to shut down investigations into Johnson’s corruption. Johnson mentioned the possibility of IRS action against one paper and adverse regulatory action against the other. Both newspapers promptly shut down their investigations.
There was also undoubtedly the fear arising not just from Johnson but also from the entire national-security establishment, specifically the military and the CIA. When a person or company is dealing with a governmental entity that wields the power of committing state-sponsored assassinations and the expertise to engage in cover-up, one must obviously proceed with caution when deciding whether to take on that entity.
Consider the people who Johnson appointed to the Warren Commission — a former director of the CIA, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, members of Congress, and a former member of the World Bank. What are the chances that any of those prominent mainstream people would ever target and accuse the military establishment and the CIA of the assassination? None! There was never any chance of that happening at all.
Moreover, to prove guilt would have required a fierce, no-holds-barred investigation of the military and the CIA, both of which would not hesitate to falsely deny and lie about their actions. What are the chances that those particular mainstream members of the Warren Commission would engage in such a fierce investigation of the military-intelligence establishment — and at the height of the Cold War? None! No chance at all.
Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream media outlet would recognize that and make a point about it? Nope. It was all considered to be “normal.”
In the 1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reopened the investigation of the assassination. It brought in a fierce and honest prosecutor from Philadelphia named Richard Sprague. He made it clear that he was going to target and investigate the CIA. Within a very short period of time, he was run out town on a rail and replaced by an attorney named Robert Blakey, who showed the proper deference to the CIA.
How could any self-respecting newspaper not see that something was wrong with this official picture, even with Johnson out of the presidency in 1968? Fear. It just wasn’t worth it to them to take on the most powerful branch of the federal government — the national-security branch — the branch that wields the power of state-sponsored assassination and cover-up — and to which the other three branches dutifully defer.
After the HSCA proceedings, a group of enlisted men, who had been released from vows of official military silence, began coming forward and telling a remarkable and shocking story about one aspect of the autopsy that the military conducted on Kennedy’s body on the very night of the assassination. They were stating that they carried the president’s body into the Bethesda military morgue almost an hour-and-a-half before the official entry time of 8 p.m. They said that the body was in a cheap shipping casket rather than the expensive casket into which the body had been placed in Dallas. Later, in the 1990s, the ARRB discovered the existence of a written report by Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian stating that the earlier casket delivery had taken place at 6:35 p.m.
Why would the mainstream press fail to investigate that? If what these men were saying was true, wouldn’t that be something so dark, auspicious, and suspicious that the mainstream press would deem it worth investigating? Why wouldn’t they be curious about why the president’s body was sneaked into the morgue early? What was done to the body in that hour-and-a-half? Why would military officials have covered that up and lied about it? Why would high military officials have required those enlisted men to sign secrecy oaths about what they had witnessed and also threatened them with court martial or criminal prosecution if they ever talked?
Even if mainstream editors and reporters believed that those enlisted men were lying, wouldn’t that be a story in and of itself? After all, why would they lie about that? Indeed, if they were lying, wouldn’t high military officials accuse them publicly of being liars? Why instead adopt a policy of silence in the face of what these men were claiming? Wouldn’t you think all this would be something worth investigating?
Fear. Fear paralyzes people. It causes them to become submissive, compliant, and obedient. It causes them to fall into line, accept whatever they are told, and not ask questions. In my opinion, that’s what happened — and continues to happen — to the mainstream press in the Kennedy assassination.
Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.
