04-11-2012, 12:40 PM
Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked devotes a chapter to the Echevarria comment. It's yet another loose end which hasn't been adequately accounted for. The fact that it appears to be a genuine slip of the tongue which the FBI promptly smothered is suspicious in itself.
Another thing I like about Larry's book is the way he puts the microscope on LBJ in the months leading to the assassination. The Congressional investigations into the Bobby Baker scandal were closing in on LBJ. By October 1963 Baker had resigned from his position with the DNC. Baker's legal counsel was Abe Fortas, who Larry describes as a longtime associate of Johnson, but not Johnson's business or professional counsel. The telephone record of calls reveals a flurry of calls between LBJ and Fortas in October 1963, some lasting an hour. That may not be suspicious in itself, but for the fact that they abruptly end on October 29.
On November 1, the Senate votes to expand the investigation and schedules the next hearing for November 22. I know this is old news to some, but, as Larry writes, "Johnson's interest and concern over the Baker scandal seems to have vanished, at least as measured against his earlier routine and lengthy contacts with Fortas". Did something happen in October to allay his concerns? We are left with a dramatic change in behaviour and no obvious explanation for Johnson's apparent loss of interest in neither the scandal, nor his cessation of contact with Fortas at the end of October
Between October 29 and November 22, Johnson is either at the the ranch boating, camping, attending ball games in Texas or travelling to LA, Belgium and Dallas. Why would LBJ go to Belgium?
Another thing I like about Larry's book is the way he puts the microscope on LBJ in the months leading to the assassination. The Congressional investigations into the Bobby Baker scandal were closing in on LBJ. By October 1963 Baker had resigned from his position with the DNC. Baker's legal counsel was Abe Fortas, who Larry describes as a longtime associate of Johnson, but not Johnson's business or professional counsel. The telephone record of calls reveals a flurry of calls between LBJ and Fortas in October 1963, some lasting an hour. That may not be suspicious in itself, but for the fact that they abruptly end on October 29.
On November 1, the Senate votes to expand the investigation and schedules the next hearing for November 22. I know this is old news to some, but, as Larry writes, "Johnson's interest and concern over the Baker scandal seems to have vanished, at least as measured against his earlier routine and lengthy contacts with Fortas". Did something happen in October to allay his concerns? We are left with a dramatic change in behaviour and no obvious explanation for Johnson's apparent loss of interest in neither the scandal, nor his cessation of contact with Fortas at the end of October
Between October 29 and November 22, Johnson is either at the the ranch boating, camping, attending ball games in Texas or travelling to LA, Belgium and Dallas. Why would LBJ go to Belgium?