Reply #22: Reading Katzenbach's memo....

[SDuderstadt]

it's hard to reach the conclusion that Katzenbach (or anyone else involved) was, in any way, out to frame Oswald. The evidence, at that point, overwhelmingly pointed to Oswald as the assassin. In fact, he begins with "It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now." Does that sound like a frame-up to you? The next statement can really only be viewed suspiciously when interpreted in a way that hardly matches Katzenbach's intent when drafting the memo:

"1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

What, if anything, is all that suspicious about what Katzenbach wrote, especially given Katzenbach's choice of the word "satified"? Again, the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to Oswald and Katzenbach is merely stating (after the preamble) that the public will not settle for anything less than all the facts, that no evidence existed of other assassins or conspirators and that the evidence would had to have been conclusive enough to result in conviction, had Oswald lived to be tried. Put simply, there are plenty of innocent reasons for Katzenbach to have written this and, as is the case with most, if not all, tenets of the various conspiracy theories, the proverbial "smoking gun" (no pun intended) promised by the CT's simply fails to be presented.