JFK Incedentals


Earl Warren was a close friend of Jenner, Gilpatric, General Dynamics intertwined, Conrad Hilton, and there was speculation in 1957 about Virginia Warren marrying Hilton.
After Marina’s first WC testimony, she soon aligned herself with Declan Ford, brother of Gov. Warren appointed Judge, John Ford, and of Joseph Ford, former agent of
a small alien property recovery agency spearheaded by Joseph Carroll, Hoover’s former asst. and founding DIA chief, and FBI’s Leo Laughlin.
See: https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=MHmUVu-oLoOL-gXkzIyYDA#q=leo+laughlin+joseph+carroll

Isaac Don Levine, book agent of the memoirs of George Bouhe’s mother, see: https://books.google.com/books?id=46RZAAAAMAAJ&dq=don+levine+joseph+ford&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=bouhe
used Joseph Ford in an attempt to sign Marina to a book deal.:
See: https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=MHmUVu-oLoOL-gXkzIyYDA#q=don+levine+joseph+ford&tbm=bks

Photo of Marina in AZ in Dec., 1964 with man married to Clark Clifford’s aunt.:


Willy, there is just sooooo much….I need specific questions…. the story here is that Declan Ford worked in Spain nine years in the 50’s he listed his brother, Joseph as his U.S. contact. Their older brother, John was an L.A. county, Cal. court judge, who was appointed by Gov. Warren, who had to know the Ford bros. father, a legendery prosecutor described in Joseph’s obit. Isaac Don Levine wrote that he randomly encountered Joseph Ford at a party at a home in Cal. and Joseph mentioned that his brother Declan had just taken Marina into he and his wife Katerina’s home, and Levine asked Joseph to arrange access through Declan.:


Joseph Brandon Ford
JLS 1943, 1917-2009

Joseph Brandon Ford, Professor Emeritus in Anthropology and Sociology at Cal State University Northridge died on October 12, 2009. He was 92 years old and the last of his generation of 10 Glendale children born 20 January 1917 to Cecily Chambers Ford, Lahinch, Ireland, and W. Joseph Ford, Assistant District Attorney for Los Angeles and founding Dean of Loyola Law School, famous for prosecuting the MacNamara brothers of the 1911 bombing of the Los Angeles Times and exposing the corruption of defense attorney Clarence Darrow.
After a life linked to Los Angeles, Ford died Monday, 12 October, at Villa Alamar in Santa Barbara of complications related to pneumonia. Ford’s life was that of a consummate academician, a brilliant student attending Beverly Hills High School excelling in languages, he went on to get his BA at UCLA in three years. Starting his graduate career with an MA at USC and continuing on at Harvard with Pitirim Sorokin, Ford’s studies were interrupted by WWII. Enlisting in the Navy as an officer and trained in Japanese, he served in Naval Intelligence as an interpreter in the Pacific Theater. After the war he obtained a real estate license, married Marjorie Henshaw, and completed his PhD at UC Berkeley in 1950.
Ford began his professorial life at Cal State LA and in 1956 to become part of a young team of founding scholars for San Fernando Valley State College that later became Cal State University Northridge. Based on interests in urban planning, in 1961, Ford served on the Los Angeles Planning Commission under newly elected Mayor Yorty. Through the course of his 30 years of teaching and research, he accepted Fulbright postings in Europe and the Middle East. Teaching in Rome, Vienna, Madrid, and Beirut with his family in tow, he expanded his vistas and honed his language skills.
After his retirement in 1987, Ford maintained his life-long interest in languages and reading that facilitated his travels in the 50s and 60s, including German, Italian, French, Spanish, Japanese, and Latin. His passion for the historical processes of civilization continued and in 1996 he co-edited the publication Sorokin & Civilization: A Centennial Assessment.
Ford was a complex character. His political involvements at the University and in learned societies are legendary. His vast knowledge disadvantaged his adversaries and charmed his supporters. In his last years of declining health, his language ability and his encyclopedic intellect served him well. A forceful, powerful, personality, he was mentally active and enjoyed lively discussions. He engendered warmth and commitment from those who helped him.
After his retirement in 1987, Ford maintained his life-long interest in languages and reading that facilitated his travels in the 50s and 60s, including German, Italian, French, Spanish, Japanese, and Latin. His passion for the historical processes of civilization continued and in 1996 he co-edited the publication Sorokin & Civilization: A Centennial Assessment.

More on Fords, Marina’s book agent, Knowlton, and Priscilla’s editor at Harpers:

I see no other example of Warren jumping in to ask irrelevant questions like these to a witness. I strongly suspect Declan Ford was reporting on Marina directly or via one of his brothers…. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ford_d.htm
Representative FORD. That is all.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, may I confer briefly with counsel?
The CHAIRMAN. Where were you born?
Mr. FORD. Los Angeles.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you go to the public schools there?
Mr. FORD. I attended both parochial and public schools in Los Angeles and Glendale.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you went to the University of California at Los Angeles?
Mr. FORD. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Where did you go after that. You were in the service, did you say?
Mr. FORD. I was in the service. After I got out of the service I went back to UCLA and finished my education and then went to work in the oil industry first in Bakersfield and in Los Angeles, Ventura, and then went to work for DeGollyer and McNaughton overseas.
The CHAIRMAN. I see……

Declan’s father and all of his brothers, judge John’s connections to Warren:

Priscilla and her dad, Stuart hosted Svetlana in 67 at Stuart’s home, Kaintuck, for this guy, and Priscilla translated Svetlana’s memoirs…..

Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Donald F.B. “Jamie” Jameson, 82, a branch chief in the Central Intelligence Agency’s directorate of operations
From 1962 to 1969, Mr. Jameson headed the branch in charge of Soviet bloc covert action. His branch encouraged dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and helped smuggle banned books to and from the Soviet Union and its satellite countries.

He also helped arrange for the defection of Svetlana Alliluyeva, daughter of former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and the English-language publication of her book “Twenty Letters to a Friend” (1967).

Dulles’s cousin’s connections to Priscilla’s father:

Secrets of Newsweek’s Osborn Elliott & Hugh Aynesworth, & of Priscilla Johnson
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:24:10 PM »

Tom S.
January 5, 2016 at 1:46 am (Edit)
I would not be so sure of that. I’ve participated in such scrutiny.
and http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=274620

In the posts at the two links above, details about “the Pond” posted by researcher Jim Root. Root linked Whitney Shepardson and OSS Stockholm with “the Pond”. Billy Lord’s 1977 letter to Jimmy Carter and details Lord described in resulting FBI interview. Lord claimed Henry Hurt described a Bemiss who headed republican party in the state of VA and owned a string of hotels, a description of Fitzgerald Bemiss. Bemiss’s sister Cynthia married Sandy Stuart and Shepardson’s son John was best man.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142&p=206374
OSS Stockholm was headed by George E. Brewer, Jr.*, father of the wife of Priscilla’s CIA first cousin, David. Priscilla told HSCA one of several excuses for Marina & Lee’s thirteen year delay was her father’s concealed suicide.
Osborne Elliott was de Borchgrave’s best man in 1959.:

*(appointed by OSS Col. Ellery C. Huntington http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a241173.pdf pg. 53)…..

Rochester Friends met with Lee Harvey Oswald’s Friend DeMohrenschildt Two Weeks After Oswald Shot at General Edwin Walker

Submitted by Tom Scully on Fri, 11/01/2013 – 05:28
(This is the fourth post in our series on this topic, Post One is here: http://tomscully.com/forum/index.php?topic=592119.0 )
If you “worship” at this “church,” Marina Oswald is one of the most reliable witnesses on earth and she testified that Lee Harvey Oswald shot at Gen. Walker on 10 April, 1963, in a “wednesdays only,” premeditated plan.:

I am making the point, again, that if the Warren Commission sincerely believed that Marina Oswald was testifying truthfully, there would be documents indicating that Wubriny/1, aka Thomas J. Devine, who also, it turns out, “ran into” DeMohrenschildt and Charles on May 9, in between his known meeting with them on 26 April, 1963 and again a few days later. As you can see, Devine’s reporting of this remained heavily redacted until 1999. Again, Devine’s 1944 graduating class had ten members. Joseph Dryer had attended that school and his brother and Haiti farming partner. Peter had been in the same tiny class as Devine in the same tiny, K-12 private school until the end of ninth grade!

Ancestry of Rufus K. Dryer: with notes on William Dryer of … – Page 29
Joseph Frederic Dryer – 1942 – ‎Snippet view
Peter Rawleigh, born May 19, 1926, who after preparing at the Allendale School, entered the Choate School, Walling- ford, Connecticut. ……

No documents have ever been disclosed indicating that Wubriny- Devine, Joseph F. Dryer, or NM Anikeefe were ever questioned about DeMohrenschildt indicating having foreknowledge and leaving Dallas almost immediately after Edwin Walker was shot at. There is also no record of Devine or Anikeefe being questioned by HSCA investigators who knew much more about what DeMohrenschildt knew in late April and in May, 1963, with regard to Oswald, his rifle, the backyard photo, and the attempt to shoot Walker. Joseph Dryer was called by the HSCA, but only because his CIA friend James Kelsey “Jake” Cogswell had reported Dryer’s interaction with DeMohrenschildt in later years in Haiti. Thomas J. Devine seems to have spent the most tme of any CIA person with DeMohrenschildt so soon after he left Dallas, and CIA’s Anikeefe was a friend of DeMohrenschildt. There is no record that either was ever asked if DeMohrenschildt gave any mention of the attempt on Edwin Walker’s life or made any mention of Oswald, his rifle, or the backyard photo. Devine’s fraternity housemate at M.I.T., Garry Coit. was interviewed by the HSCA, but only because he was Priscilla Johnson’s CIA handler who met with her for two long session in late January, 1964, but did not discuss the Kennedy Assassination with here/ What did they talk about for all those hours? Coit’s second wife and widow, Barbara was also CIA, and some of Devine and Coit’s surviving fraternity roommates from 1944 to 48 still find time to visit with Barbara Coit.
Spring 2009 – Beaver Sig – Sigma Chi Fraternity – MIT
This being the first issue of The Beaver Sig ….. we visited Barbara Coit, the recent widow of another Alpha Theta Sig,. Garry Coit

Beaver Sig Vol. 1946, No. 1 – Sigma Chi Fraternity – MIT
school; Brother Coit enlisted in the Naval Radio Training Pro- gram. Fall Term, 1944. Shortly after the inception of the fall term of 1944, Brothers. Devine and….

Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music
‎Daily Boston Globe – Aug 14, 1947
Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music MIT students who … one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi fraternity house said the use of … and shut windows so he could study or sleep Other student were Thomas Devine ..


105 thoughts on “JFK Incedentals


      “The thesis of this work holds that the CIA had a keen operational interest in Lee Harvey Oswald from the day he defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 until the day he was murdered in the basement of the Dallas city jail. From this thesis flow two conclusions: first, that the Agency used sensitive sources and methods to acquire intelligence on Oswald. Secondly, whether witting or not, Oswald became involved in CIA operations. The scope of this project is as follows: We will follow the trails in Oswald’s CIA, FBI, DOD, Navy, Army, and American Embassy files from the time of his defection up to the assassination; and we will follow segments of his files from the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and selected Navy and FBI field offices. This work also seeks to address that part of American Cuban policy and covert operations that are either fundamentally or reasonably relevant to the Oswald who emerges in these files.”
      The official CIA position on its relationship with Oswald has always been that there was no relationship of “any kind.” That is what the Agency told the Warren Commission in 1964, and it is what they told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1978. CIA director John A. McCone stated this in his 1964 testimony to the Warren Commission: Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Agency never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or solicited any reports or information from him, or communicated with him indirectly or in any other manner. Oswald was never associated or connected directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with the Agency.2 According to the HSCA Report, “The record reflects that once these assurances had been received, no further efforts were made by the Warren Commission to pursue the matter.”3

      A diametrically opposing view of Oswald and the CIA came from James Wilcott, who served as a CIA finance officer in Japan at the time Oswald served there in the Marines. Wilcott claimed that a CIA case officer told told the HSCA that “Oswald was a CIA agent who had received financial disbursements under an assigned cryptonym.” Wilcott could only cite informal conversations as evidence, and after talking with Wilcott’s coworkers, the HSCA “concluded that Wilcott’s allegation was not worthy of belief.”4
      The record suggests that neither the Agency’s official story nor Wilcott’s characterization is accurate. The truth lies in between. The Agency appears to have had serious operational interest in Oswald and there probably was a relationship, though not that of an “agent” or “informant.” While Oswald wasn’t James Bond, it is increasingly apparent that the Agency’s operational interest may have led to his use or manipulation.

      Newman, John. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK (Kindle Locations 216-223). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

      • EPILOGUE, 2008 The Plot to Murder President Kennedy: A New Interpretation The Plot and the National Security Cover-up
        –John Newman

        My views on the assassination of President Kennedy have evolved in the thirteen years since the publication of Oswald and the CIA. While the six million records made available as a result of the 1993 congressional passage of the JFK Records Act have not made it possible to identify those who were ultimately responsible for the Kennedy assassination, these records do shed light on the nature and design of the plot and the national security cover-up that followed. It is now clear that most of the U.S. leaders and officials who participated in the national security cover-up had nothing to do with the plot that was hatched before the president’s murder. Many of them—including leading legislators and Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren—were motivated by the perceived threat of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. Inside the executive branch of government, many others were motivated by the desire to protect their jobs and their institutions. Their collective actions, however, were not the result of an accident; rather, they were the forced checkmate in the endgame of an ingenious plan. The plan was designed to force official Washington to bury a radioactive story in Oswald’s files in order for America to survive. The plan worked. No matter how sloppy the performance of the shooters in Dallas was, no matter how bungled the autopsy and the handling of the evidence was, all would be trumped by the threat of WWIII and 40 million dead Americans. From the beginning, the plot was based upon the assumption that, when presented with this horrific possibility, everyone would fall into line. This assumption was correct.

        In Mexico: Linking Oswald to Castro and Khrushchev to WWIII

        I do not know who directly handled Oswald in 1963, but someone involved in the murder of the president did. Many researchers think they know who this person was and perhaps they do. Some think it might have been David Atlee Phillips who, at the time of Oswald’s visit to Mexico City, was head of Cuban operations at the CIA station there. Another candidate might be William Gaudet, a CIA Latin American operative who happened to be standing in line in front of Oswald the day the two men got their tourist permits from the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans. It might have been someone else. Whether or not Oswald’s handler or handlers understood that their activities would lead to the death of the president, they were nevertheless taking cues from someone in CIA counterintelligence who was harnessed to the plot. If there were some CIA officers who saw Oswald’s trip to Mexico as part of a legitimate counter-Castro operation, someone, somewhere in the Agency’s counterintelligence operations understood that what happened on that trip was designed to force a national security cover-up after the president’s murder.

        When asked to head a presidential commission of inquiry, Chief Justice Earl Warren turned down Robert Kennedy twice and then turned down Lyndon Johnson until the president played the Mexico City trump card. “And I just pulled out what Hoover told me,” Johnson later bragged in a call with Senator Russell, “about a little incident in Mexico City.” Johnson recalled how he explained to Warren that this “little incident” made it look like Castro and Khrushchev were behind the president’s murder.
        “And I think you put on your uniform in World War I, fat as you are,” Johnson claimed he had told Warren, “and would do anything to save one American life.” Johnson explained that, when confronted with this, Warren started crying and agreed to take the assignment.f In a 1972 documentary for public television Warren himself told the same story—except for the tears—about how Johnson feared a “nuclear war.”g

        On the surface, Oswald’s trip to Mexico City made no sense at all. Whoever was handling him was able to get him to do and say things that were not in his interest. The story was that he had decided to return again to the Soviet Union—this time by way of Cuba. That story was a ruse. In the summer of 1963, the State Department had approved his passport for travel to the USSR but also stamped it with a warning that a person traveling to Cuba would be liable for prosecution.h If he really intended to go back to the Soviet Union he could have gone through the same European countries he had during his first defection in 1959. Thus, to travel to the Soviet Union via Cuba made no sense. There was a darker purpose for Oswald’s visit to Mexico City. He was sent there to seek visas from the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy. The Cuban transit visa could be used to get him to Cuba or to make it appear he had gone to Cuba. It is now apparent that the planners did not expect that he would get the Soviet visa, for they likely knew that U.S. citizens could only get such a visa from the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Rather, the objective was simply incidental contact between Oswald and the man who issued Soviet visas in Mexico City: Valery Kostikov. The value of this contact derived from what only a handful of counterintelligence officers in Washington knew: Kostikov was an important operative of KGB assassinations in the Americas. In my view, it is likely that among this small group of officers was a bad apple, a person involved in designing the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. The Mexico City plan had a defect: the Cubans required a Soviet visa in order to issue the Cuban transit visa. The planners had not anticipated this and it nearly ruined the plan and all of the work that had been done to prepare Oswald’s Cuban legend in 1963. By the time Oswald reached Mexico City in late September he had an impressive portfolio of pro-Castro fliers and Fair Play for Cuba literature featuring himself and his Cuban escapades in New Orleans that summer. When, on Friday, September 27, he presented them to the Cuban Consulate visa officer, Sylvia Duran, they were not enough to convince her to issue the transit visa. He must first, she said, have a Soviet visa. That same Friday afternoon Oswald went to the Soviet Embassy in an unsuccessful attempt to get a Soviet visa from Kostikov. Then he did something unusual: he returned to the Cuban Consulate and told Duran that he had received his Soviet visa. If he really still hoped Duran would issue him a transit visa, then telling this lie was not in Oswald’s interest. A possible explanation is that his handler had concluded Oswald would not get the Cuban visa and, as a result, told Oswald to tell this bald lie. The handler’s likely motive was to prompt Duran to phone Kostikov to find out if Oswald’s claim was true. This worked and the two visa officers both discussed why neither would give Oswald a visa. Kostikov stated, “we have received no answer from Washington, and it will probably take four to five months. We cannot give him a visa here without asking Washington.”i

        The handler wanted this call to occur because he knew that it would be intercepted by the CIA’s LI/ENVOY program—its telephone tap operation in Mexico City. In this manner, the fact that Oswald had met a KGB assassin would end up in the CIA’s records. However, while Oswald’s lie led Duran to call Kostikov, neither Duran nor Kostikov used Oswald’s name when they spoke about him, referring to him only as “the American.” Furthermore, once Duran found out that Oswald had lied to her, it was the end of the road: she turned him down again. He then made a scene and had to be physically escorted from the premises. From the perspective of Oswald’s handler on that Friday evening, the plan to firmly link Oswald to Castro and the Kremlin had not succeeded. On Saturday morning Oswald went to the Soviet Embassy again in a final attempt to get a Soviet visa. During his second visit with Kostikov, Oswald produced a loaded revolver and explained that it was necessary to protect himself from the FBI. This antic, too, was likely something his handler told him to do. This visit again failed to produce a Soviet visa, and Oswald declined, as he had done the previous day, to fill out the papers that could be sent to the consulate in Washington, D.C., requesting a visa.j Oswald was again told that such a process would take many months to complete and so, after a teary-eyed scene, he gave up altogether and had no further contact—in person or by phone—with either diplomatic post.
        This was not good news for whoever was handling Oswald in Mexico. What happened next tells us something about the relationship between Oswald and his handler(s) there. They made phone calls to the Soviet Embassy—allegedly from the Cuban Consulate and elsewhere—on Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday impersonating Oswald. As I established in Oswald and the CIA in 1995,k the script of these impersonations did a poor job of matching Oswald’s experiences inside these buildings. For example, in the Tuesday call the Oswald character asks if there is anything new on the telegram sent to Washington. While Oswald’s handler knew of, and possibly watched, Oswald’s trips in and out of these Cuban and Soviet diplomatic buildings, he did not know all of the details of what had happened inside. He did manage to learn—either from Oswald or from a mole in either building—that Oswald had not received a Cuban visa. The impersonator’s request for news on a “cable to Washington” sheds light on the possible identity of Oswald’s handler. On the date of this call (Tuesday, 1 October) Oswald had no motive to ask for news about a visa request he had twice declined to fill out the paperwork for. It is apparent that the handler—and therefore the impersonator—did not know Oswald had pushed back these forms twice. Moreover, Kostikov told Duran—not Oswald—that they had not received an answer from Washington. Kostikov had only told Oswald that it would take many months to process a visa request through the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. What was the source of the impersonator’s knowledge that Kostikov had said something about waiting for an “answer from Washington”? There were only three ways to know this: from Duran, from Kostikov, or from access to the Friday (27 September) call between Kostikov and Duran in which it was discussed. The third possibility is the most likely and it suggests that the impersonator’s script was based upon access to the Friday intercept by Tuesday morning.

        Newman, John. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK
        (Kindle Locations 11958-11965). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.


      • If true, the handler was either a member of the CIA station or was working with someone in the station or at the telephone tap center. The call from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy on Saturday was likely done to make it look like the Cubans and Soviets were collaborating in managing Oswald. In that call, however, the impersonator did not use Oswald’s name. For that reason, during the Tuesday, 1 October call, the impersonator used Oswald’s name twice. The station chief remembers that the Oswald character spelled Oswald’s name slowly and succinctly into the phone. When the impersonator also said he could not remember the name of the counsel with whom he had spoken, the voice on the other end said “Kostikov,” and the impersonator said “yes.” In fact when Oswald did, a few weeks later, refer to him in a letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, the best he could do was to write that he had met with “comrade Kostin.”

        The handler’s purpose in having both Oswald’s and Kostikov’s names mentioned was to place evidence into the CIA’s records that, on 22 November, would link KGB assassinations to the murder of President Kennedy. The activities of this impersonator are what made it possible for President Johnson to tell Senator Russell on 29 November that those investigating the case were “testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this.” Johnson insisted that this must be prevented “from kicking us into a war that can kill forty million Americans in an hour.”m By 1 October, then, Oswald’s handler had succeeded in planting the WWIII virus into the CIA station’s records. Due to the unanticipated turn of events, however, Oswald had been impersonated to carry out the Mexico City plan. This last minute tactic was risky. The problem that could crop up down the road was this: the voice on the tapes would not be Oswald’s. Evidently, from the handler’s perspective, this risk was necessary and how to deal with the consequences would have to be decided after the assassination.

        At CIA HQS: The File That Lied

        It took several days for the tape of the call linking Oswald to Kostikov to find its way to the translator at the CIA station. With the translation in hand, the station checked its photographic coverage of the Soviet Embassy and, on 8 October, reported the Tuesday Mexico City call about Oswald’s contact with Kostikov to CIA

        Newman, John. Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK (Kindle Locations 11972-11979). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

  1. Joannides, now deceased, was an undercover CIA officer, whose actions provides strong evidence that certain Agency personnel manipulated Lee Harvey Oswald for propaganda purposes before and after President Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

    George Joannides, chief of CIA covert operations in Miami in 1963, also had a residence in New Orleans.
    Declassified CIA records show that Joannides obstructed two official JFK investigations by not disclosing what he knew about contacts between his Cuban agents and Kennedy’s accused killer. Most records of his activities in the summer of 1963 are still classified.

    Conspiratorial speculation aside, his story demonstrates the CIA is capable of keeping JFK assassination secrets, even 50 years later.
    There is no evidence Joannides was involved in a plot to kill the president. He was not a “rogue officer.” As recipient of the agency’s Career Intelligence Medal, he retired from the CIA in 1981 with the esteem of colleagues, family, and friends. Whatever he did in 1963, he did at the behest of his superiors.
    His story continues to emerge. In a federal court filing earlier this month, the CIA acknowledged for the first time that Joannides maintained a residence in New Orleans during his tenure running secret anti-Castro operations in Miami 1962-64. Oswald lived in New Orleans from April to September 1963.
    To this day, the CIA will not disclose the nature or purpose of Joannides’s residence in New Orleans — for reasons of “national security.”
    Not a theory: The George Joannides story
    Present at the cover-up: investigator recounts how a CIA man stonewalled Congress. (JFK Facts, Nov. 13)
    5 Decades Later Some JFK FIles Still Sealed (Associated Press, Aug. 18. 2013)

    Justice Dept. denies CIA officer was honored for coverup,(JFK Facts,Dec. 17, 2012)

    Court uphold public benefit of disclosure about CIA officer in JFK story (JFK Facts, June 19, 2013)

    CIA Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery (New York Times, October 17, 2009)

    “Morley v. CIA: Why I sued the CIA for JFK assassination records” (JFK Facts, Feb. 23, 2013)


    The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F.
    George Joannides was the liaison between the committee and CIA.
    . . . .
    Joannides joined the CIA in 1952, and by 1963 was the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the Central Intelligence Agency’s JM/WAVE station in Miami, in which position he had a staff of 24 and a budget of $1.5m.[1] In that role, he was also known as ‘Howard,’ Mr. Howard’ and ‘Walter Newby.” [2][3] Joannides directed and financed Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), or Student Revolutionary Directorate, a group of Cuban exiles whose officers had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.[4][5][6] By some accounts, fashioned with the “plausible deniability” typical of CIA operations, the plan was designed to link Oswald to Castro’s government, without disclosing the CIA’s role.

    In 1978 the CIA summoned Joannides out of retirement to serve as the Agency’s liaison to the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, in specific regard to the death of President Kennedy. Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley writes “the spy withheld information about his own actions in 1963 from the congressional investigators he was supposed to be assisting. It wasn’t until 2001, 38 years after Kennedy’s death, that Joannides’ support for the Cuban exiles, who clashed with Oswald and monitored him, came to light.” [7]

    In July 1981 Joannides was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal.[8]

    In 2013 the Boston Globe wrote “There is a body of documents that the CIA is still protecting, which should be released. Relying on inaccurate representations made by the CIA in the mid-1990s, the Review Board decided that records related to a deceased CIA agent named George Joannides were not relevant to the Kennedy assassination. Subsequent work by researchers, using other records that were released by the board, demonstrates that these records should be made public.”


    • To Quote James Angleton

      “You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph or require detailed background checks on Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends… They were afraid that their own business dealings with Hitler’s pals would come out. They were too arrogant to believe that the Russians would discover it all. . . . You know, the CIA got tens of thousands of brave people killed. . . We played with lives as if we owned them. We gave false hope. We – I – so misjudged what happened.”

      I asked the dying man(Angleton) how it all went so wrong.

      With no emotion in his voice, but with his hand trembling, Angleton replied: “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and I loved being in it… Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton slowly sipped his tea and then said, “I guess I will see them there soon

      Joseph Trento 1985 interview with James Angleton


  2. In a new sworn declaration filed in federal court, former JFK investigator Dan Hardway tells the story of how the CIA stonewalled him and other investigators for the House Select Committee of Assassinations in 1978.

    Hardway’s first-person account is perhaps the clearest accounts of how the CIA obstructed Congress’s attempt to investigate JFK’s assassination in 1978 since Gaeton Fonzi’s book, The Last Investigation. Hardway adds new detail to the story Fonzi told by detailing the obstructionist tactics of George Joannides that he personally experienced.

    Hardway also documents the “public benefit” of disclosures forced by my Freedom of Information Action lawsuit, Morley v. CIA, now in its 13th year. The court is now considering the issue of whether the government has to pay the legal fees of my attorney James Lesar, who prevailed over government attorney’s three times during the course of the litigation.

    Hardway’s declaration highlights how Joannides prevented the HSCA from clarifying the relationship between the CIA and the Cuban Student Directorate, an agency-funded anti-Castro group whose members had contact with Lee Oswald in the summer of 1963.

    Hardway notes that the HSCA didn’t probe the issue in 1978 because CIA “had firmly represented to the HSCA that all ties between the DRE and the CIA had been terminated prior to1963.”

    That representation was false, as the records from Joannides’ personnel file, which I obtained in the lawsuit, demonstrate. In fact, Joannides served as case office for the DRE from April 1962 to May 1964.

    Hardway also highlights one of the key documents that the CIA is withholding: a job evaluation, written September 20, 1978, “not long after Mr. Joannides began his job undercover as liaison with the HSCA. “(p. 29).



    College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996
    . . .
    The astute reader will note that Humes gets quite testy under cross examination by Mr. Cornwell, he bristles and is very defensive in his responses:

    Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell- I’ll read this into the record. It’s from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
    “Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?”
    “Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn’t write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o’clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.”

    “Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –

    “Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.”

    Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?

    A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes….

    Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

    A. Right.

    Q. Is that correct?

    A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.

    Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

    A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason-see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn’t burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don’t know. There was nothing left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have, period.

    Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances-

    A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?

    Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.

    A. Right.

    Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of-

    A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.

    “McA totally ignores the military meddling in JFK’s autopsy and the reporting about it.

    For example, ARRB disclosures suggest high-level, military complicity in the destruction of, and dissimulation about, primary autopsy evidence.

    In addition, the extant autopsy evidence itself is under a cloud since the release of non-sensitive, yet suppressed, HSCA interviews dating to the late 1970s, and since the ARRB released interviews it conducted in the 1990s.

    On August 2, 1998, the Associated Press reported an important ARRB finding: “Under oath [before the ARRB], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.”

    The Review Board had finally extracted Humes’ admission of something long suspected: he had burned both a preliminary draft of the autopsy report, which he had admitted before, as well as original autopsy notes prepared on the night of the autopsy, an admission that contradicted his Warren Commission testimony.
    Besides his ARRB admission conflicting with his 1964 testimony, it also contradicted two affidavits he had signed shortly after the assassination, a fact even the ARRB did not acknowledge. On November 24, 1963 Humes “certified” over his signature that he had “destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to” JFK’s autopsy,” but that otherwise, “all working papers associated with [JFK’s autopsy] have remained in my personal custody at all times. Autopsy notes and the holograph draft of the final report were handed to Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, at 1700, 24 November 1963.”

    Thus Humes was admitting to destroying “draft notes” that were written up while he worked at home drafting his autopsy report. But this affidavit, the substance of which he repeated to the Warren Commission, does not mention the destruction of original autopsy notes from the night of the autopsy. (Such an act, of course, would have been medicolegally frowned upon had it occurred in a civilian autopsy of even the most undistinguished murder victim.) Humes’ affidavit, however, was not precisely true. All the “working papers” and “autopsy notes” had not remained with him until he turned them over to his superior. He destroyed some of them, including notes he took himself on the night of the autopsy, and perhaps also those of his consultant, Finck.”~Dr. Garry Aguilar



  4. “I’d like to know who you have offered that to.”~Anderson

    WTF are you talking about?!?! I offered you the docs on the Morley case against the CIA, the affidavit and the exhibits that back that up.


    This has got to be one of the most incredible exchanges I have ever had on this topic!

    The attitude of “Why prove it to me? I’m just a dumb Internet troll” — as if I thought he had the authority to do something with the information, besides understand it.

    This has gone beyond preposterous, to levels of absurdity not even Kafka could have imagined.

    The crows are disappearing, going extinct these goofballs have eaten so many.

  5. Inouye said something that probably still rings in the ears of every conspiracy theorist:

    “[There exists] a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”Daniel Inouye — Iran-Contra Hearings


  6. Oswald’s Marine Rifle Marksmanship Scores

    In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:
    Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
    Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
    Marksman: 190 to 209.

    According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was *tested twice:

    In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
    In May 1959, he scored 191: *one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.

    Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

    The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

    Folsom agreed with his questioner that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311).



  7. Willy Whitten Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
    “And I think it looked like an entry wound to Perry no matter what the reporters said.

    However, I think he was clearly wrong because it makes more sense (fits the evidence better) that it was an exit.”~Jean Davison

    What evidence does it fit better with that it was an exit wound?

    Are you back to denying that the back wound was actually at T-3? Despite Dr Burkley’s death certificate.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy face sheet.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in that photograph.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his shirt.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his coat.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

    Despite Dr Baden’s testimony that the wound corresponded to the holes in Kennedy’s clothing?

    Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel

    Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

    Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

    Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

    Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
    This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
    [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

    The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck.
    . . .

    Willy Whitten Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 5, 2016 at 4:13 am
    [Continued from above]

    Adding to that the revelations from the ARRB that Commander Humes is a liar:

    College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996
    . . .
    Despite the fact that it is proven conclusively that the Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet than CE399?

    The break in the chain of custody being shown too many times on this forum to repeat yet again…

    The first 4 to have the Parkland Bullet being:
    1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
    2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
    3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
    4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).
    NONE of which could identify the bullet as CE399.

    . . .
    The pathologists who conducted President Kennedy’s autopsy were presented with the CE 399 bullet by representatives of the Warren Commission and were asked whether they thought it could have caused Connally’s injuries. Dr James Humes, the chief pathologist, replied:

    “I think that is most unlikely. … This missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of those locations. … I doubt if this missile would have left behind it any metallic fragments from its physical appearance at this time. … Metallic fragments were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.374–76)

    The other two pathologists, Dr J. Thornton Boswell (ibid., p.377) and Dr Pierre Finck (“there are too many fragments”: ibid., pp.381f), agreed with Dr Humes.


  8. President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992

    Assassination Records Review Board[edit]
    The Act established, as an independent agency, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) to consider and render decisions when a U.S. government office sought to postpone the disclosure of assassination records. The Board met for four years, from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1998. When the Act was passed in 1992, 98 percent of all Warren Commission documents had been released to the public. By the time the Board disbanded, all Warren Commission documents, except income tax returns, had been released to the public, with only minor redactions.[5]

    The ARRB collected evidence starting in 1992, then produced its final report in 1998.[4] The ARRB was not enacted to determine why or by whom the murder was committed but to collect and preserve the evidence for public scrutiny. After the enactment of the federal law that created the ARRB, the Board collected a large amount of documents and took testimony of those who had relevant information of the events. The Committee finished its work in 1998 and in its final report, the ARRB outlined the problems that government secrecy created regarding the murder of President Kennedy.[6] During the 1990s it collected the assassination documents which have been slowly released for public scrutiny.[7]

    Some of the information was gathered by way of testimony from witnesses that had eyewitness knowledge of the events. For example, the Board interviewed the physicians who treated the president’s massive head wound at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.[8] This was a highly trained team of emergency care physicians, some of whom testified in secret before the Warren Commission. These transcripts have now also been made public.[9] Other information consists of a large number of documents from the FBI and CIA that were required to cooperate with the turnover of relevant records held secret by these agencies.



    New York Times article gives Gerald Posner last word in this article:

    Mr. Posner, the anti-conspiracy author, said that if there really were something explosive involving the C.I.A. and President Kennedy, it would not be in the files — not even in the documents the C.I.A. has fought to keep secret.

    “Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this,” Mr. Posner said. “But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    My commentary:

    What most coincidence theorists don’t understand is that the C.I.A. trusted and still trusts it’s deep and complex classification system. And it never anticipated the unprecedented legislation of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. Nor how the tenacious some highly qualified researchers would be in digging up the real dirt on the JFK assassination.

    With a skilled analyst like John Newman breaking the inner codes of the way the files were named and managed, the real story is beginning to emerge… right from the horse’s mouth.

  9. Tom S.
    June 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm
    Willy, can you point to an example of a deceased person’s prosecution and conviction? If not, are all accused who die before prosecution immune to determinations of investigations of crimes they were accused of? Did Booth assassinate Lincoln? Your argument related to Oswald’s perpetual innocence, if consistently applied, leaves many murders unsolved and accused murderers as unconnected to the crime they were accused of, as you argue about Oswald. Was Torresola at all culpable at Blair House in 1950? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselio_Torresola ) How do you evenly apply your argument to Jack Ruby? Did he murder Oswald by gunshot? Is there an exemption from your “not guilty unless tried and convicted,” if the crime is broadcast on live TV?

    I don’t find your argument as reasonable as Tunheim’s. It seems an exemption instead of an argument because you infer that it is not possible Oswald fired at and hit JFK because no trial took place resulting in an unchallenged verdict. It seems you cannot make your Oswald argument also fit Ruby. Is TV footage evidence but not BYP? Has an official inquiry ever disqualified either?

    Willy Whitten
    June 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    I repeat this again. As there will be no trial of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    It is up to each of us, according to our own lights to study the case and come to our own conclusions. That is what free thought is all about; individual rights and responsibilities.


    Each of us are the jury. We must assess the evidence to the best of our abilities and come to our own judgement

    I have been studying this case for more than 40 years.

    I have reached my verdict: Not Guilty.

    You are free to reach your own, or wait indefinitely. That is up to you, and everybody else.

    Tom S.
    June 5, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    You are saying you have no response to my questions and examples? I assume you are saying it is fair to reply to you by ignoring what you ask and present, and simply respond to you with repetitive declaration? Okay then.

    Willy Whitten
    June 5, 2016 at 4:11 pm
    A few more comments for you Tom:

    You say;
    “you infer that it is not possible Oswald fired at and hit JFK because no trial took place resulting in an unchallenged verdict.”

    No I don’t infer anything of the sort. I state, that I have studied the evidence and come to a conclusion as determined by what I find therein.

    You ask this;
    ” How do you evenly apply your argument to Jack Ruby? Did he murder Oswald by gunshot? Is there an exemption from your “not guilty unless tried and convicted,”

    Obviously Ruby is guilty of murder, no exemption applies universally because the accused is deceased.

    As per Ruby, it should also be, and has been investigated if there were others involved in putting Ruby up to it.
    I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Ruby was given an “offer he couldn’t refuse”.

    I have no idea of who Torresola was. And frankly I don’t care.

    Willy Whitten
    June 5, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    “To be fair to you, I included a link describing who Torresola was and what he was accused of.”

    I simply think it is irrelevant to the Kennedy case.

    “Consider that I have no adversarial history with you, and yet I find it not worth the bother of engaging you.”~Ibid

    Your “adversarial history” is only hours old here Tom. I did not pick this argument with you, you picked it with me.

    I have merely stated my case as I see it, as openly and as as up front as I can.

    If you choose not to engage me, that is your choice. But I do not understand the reason for it.

    You have made it clear that you find me “unreasonable” – I don’t think you have proven that here in this exchange.

    However like all of us, you can choose to engage or not to engage anyone you wish.

    I have not replied with any animosity whatsoever here. If you have interpreted it that way, I guarantee you that it has not been my intent.

    Tom S.
    June 5, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Leslie, I took no notice of motive in the quote I presented of Judge Tunheim. I thought Willy’s argument was that Oswald was innocent until proven guilty. I believe Tunheim is better informed than I am about the assassination investigations and evidence, and about the law. I asked if Tunheim’s opinion was more reasonable than Willy’s. You raised motive, but you don’t want to examine whether a requirement of it also applies to Ruby.

    It seems both you and Willy are making arguments that reasonably would be broadly applicable, but for the sake of discussion here, should be confined to determination of Oswald’s culpability.

    I believe it is unreasonable to declare that Oswald did not fire a rifle. I think what Tunheim said was more reasonable. I don’t think motive is a requirement to suspect either Oswald or Ruby. My argument is that Oswald should not be a special pleading, and I compared his unconvicted state with two other accused who died without being convicted.

    You moved the question from is it reasonable to declare Oswald fired no rifle at JFK, to the WC admitting they could not determine a motive. I’m only saying I think it is reasonable to suspect Oswald fired shots at JFK, considering the evidence. I’m not saying anyone is innocent or guilty.

    It seems some arguments only apply to Oswald?


  10. From http://www.history-matters.com/siteguide/siteguide_archivequotes.htm

    This page lists all of the quotes which have appeared in the banner at the top of the home page. They are presented in order from most-recent to least-recent:

    “Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shots come into the car.”
    – Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front of the Presidential limousine during JFK’s assassination, describing what the Warren Commission would later describe as a single fatal shot.

    “It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
    – President Richard M. Nixon, discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.
    CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society. Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. My apologies for passing along the BBC’s bizarre mistake. As an interesting aside, among those who did allude to the involvement of the John Birch Society is none other than Jack Ruby, murderer of Lee Harvey Oswald., in his jail cell testimony to the Commission- see 5WH198.

    “…..most likely the belt was intentionally erased by the bar magnet included in most models of the magnetic belt machines but a small portion was missed.”
    – excerpted from a memo provided to the LBJ Library from the Cutting Corporation, describing the erasure of the LBJ-Hoover 11-23-63 phone call.

    – CIA cable 1018 from the Mexico City CIA station, urging that the Warren Commission be prevailed upon to alter photographic evidence.”

    “And he started crying and said, well I won’t turn you down, I’ll just do whatever you say.” – Lyndon Johnson telling Senator Richard Russell how he overcame Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reluctance to serve on the President’s Commission, by telling him “what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.”

    “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he had no confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” – Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katenbach to Presidential Assistant Bill Moyers, November 25, 1963.

    “He looked far ahead and he wanted to change a great deal. Perhaps it is this that is the key to the mystery of the death of President John F. Kennedy.” – Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in Dallas in 1998 (quoted in RearView Mirror by William Turner, Penmarin Books, 2001, p.301).

    “Phase-out of US forces. SECDEF advised that the phase-out program presented during 6 May conference appeared too slow. In consonance with Part III request you develop a revised plan to accomplish more rapid phase-out of U.S. forces.” – From the Proceedings of the 8th SecDef Conference on Vietnam in May of 1963.

    “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance.” – FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, informing President Johnson of an Oswald impersonation. This phone call itself appears to have been erased..

    Q. “Can you identify that in any reasonable way as appearing to be the-what the brain looked like of President Kennedy?”
    A. “No……………….It appears to be too much.”
    – FBI agent and autopsy witness Francis O’Neill, Jr., reacting to the National Archives photographs purported to be JFK’s brain.

  11. .Lemann and Lewis were attacking simultaneously, Lemann in GQ, Lewis in the Times:

    Anthony Lewis ’48, Pulitzer Winner and Crimson Mentor, Dies at 85
    By Nicholas P. Fandos, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER March 26, 2013
    Pg 1 of 2…….
    …But even as The Crimson shaped Lewis, he, in turn, shaped the organization. Over decades as an active member of the paper’s graduate board and one of its three trustees, he was the champion of quality journalism and the model for every young Crimson editor that hoped one day to make it in the world of print.
    “You were in a situation where everyone’s parents were begging them not to go into journalism, and you wanted to have some visible role model,” said Nicholas B. Lemann ’76, the dean of Columbia University School of Journalism. “A lot of his influence was just modeling for us what a happy and an honored career in journalism could look like, and it looked pretty good.”

    …….“At a liberal moment in American history, he was one of the defining liberal voices,” Lemann said.

    (…In 1964, Mr. Lewis wrote of the Warren Report: “Few who loved John Kennedy, or this country, will be able to read it without emotion.” For some, like myself, the emotion is outrage. For Mr. Lewis and The Times, it’s complacency. OLIVER STONE Los Angeles, Jan. 9, 1992 )

    (When I mentioned that I was working on a book about Garrison to the late New York Times columnist, Anthony Lewis, at a conference at NYU on the subject of 9/11, Lewis literally turned white. CIA’s friends in the media continued in their efforts to discredit Jim Garrison long after his death).

    Oliver Stone protested :
    Published: February 3, 1992

    To the Editor:

    Anthony Lewis’s Jan. 9 column is only one in a series of attacks in The Times on me and the movie “J.F.K.” and, in fact, on anything that questions the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President Kennedy. New York Times writers have done no investigation of their own; why do they continue to defend tooth and nail the commission’s findings more than a decade after the House Select Committee on Assassinations sharply criticized and documented the deficiencies in the commission’s investigation?

    Mr. Lewis tells us, for instance, that medical experts told the commission the backward snap of the President’s head as seen in the Zapruder film was the result of a “seizure-like neuromuscular reaction” in response to damage to major nerve centers in the brain and not inconsistent with a shot from behind. This is entirely misleading and false.

    Mr. Lewis is quoting from the House Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1973. Nowhere in the Warren Commission material is there an explanation of the backward movement of the President’s head. Moreover, a Federal Bureau of Investigation “printing error” of crucial Zapruder film frames in the commission volumes gave the impression that the President fell forward — exactly the opposite of what the running film shows. The autopsy photos and X-rays show no damage to the major nerve centers of Kennedy’s brain, making such a neuromuscular reaction impossible.

    Mr. Lewis champions David W. Belin, former Warren Commission counsel, as “the man who knows more about the assassination than anyone else.” According to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Belin has seen “every document, every Central Intelligence Agency file” relating to the assassination. But this is impossible. As Senate and House committees documented, the C.I.A. and other agencies deliberately withheld vital information from the Warren Commission.

    There are many more inaccuracies in Mr. Lewis’s column. The bullet fragments, allegedly from the head shot, lack any firm chain of possession or evidence; nevertheless, Mr. Lewis claims they are conclusively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle. Despite the opinions of 19 medical experts based on autopsy photos and X-rays that all shots came from the rear, there are still more than 20 doctors, nurses and technicians in Dallas who examined the President’s body and saw a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the skull.

    If there was a plan to kill Oswald during the jail transfer, the plotters would have waited to get Jack Ruby into place before bringing Oswald down, regardless of the surprise visit from Harry Holmes, a postal inspector. And so on. What we’re looking at are discrepancies and contradictions in the Warren Commission’s own evidence — problems the Government has never satisfactorily resolved.

    Where was The Times when it should have been raising these questions? The day after the unindexed 26 volumes of the Warren Commission’s hearings and exhibits were published, Mr. Lewis stated on the front page that the volumes “overwhelmingly supported” the commission report, implying he had read and analyzed all 20,000 pages overnight, a speed-reading feat that would make Evelyn Wood woozy.

    Your editorial board, less intrepid, took two days to digest the volumes before announcing that the evidence within “brings to a close the inquiry.” This is inexcusable on the part of Mr. Lewis and The Times, which claims to be a newspaper of record.

    Inaccuracies aside, I find Mr. Lewis’s charade of civil libertarian concern far more disturbing. Mr. Lewis asserts that Jim Garrison “bribed witnesses to prosecute an innocent man.” The “bribed” witnesses all signed affidavits denying the allegations, and Clay Shaw — the “innocent man” — won an acquittal. I do not question that verdict. While Mr. Lewis and you excoriate Jim Garrison for taking a man to trial (after several hearings on the evidence), neither shows remorse in calling Oswald “Kennedy’s assassin,” though he was never tried, convicted or even allowed legal representation in Dallas.

    In 1964, Mr. Lewis wrote of the Warren Report: “Few who loved John Kennedy, or this country, will be able to read it without emotion.” For some, like myself, the emotion is outrage. For Mr. Lewis and The Times, it’s complacency. OLIVER STONE Los Angeles, Jan. 9, 1992

  12. Who Was George Joannides?

    George Efthyron Joannides (1922–1990) was a CIA officer who had two significant links to the JFK assassination:
    He oversaw a group of anti–Castro Cubans with whom Lee Harvey Oswald came into contact in New Orleans three months before the assassination.
    In 1978, he was the CIA’s liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
    Joannides’s employers kept his role in the assassination story secret from every official body which had anything to do with the assassination, in particular:
    the Warren Commission in 1964,
    the HSCA in 1977–79,
    and the Assassination Records Review Board in 1994–98.
    At the time of writing, the CIA is still withholding documents relating to Joannides.


  13. C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery
    WASHINGTON — Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

    For six years, the agency has fought in federal court to keep secret hundreds of documents from 1963, when an anti-Castro Cuban group it paid clashed publicly with the soon-to-be assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets. But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance.

    The files in question, some released under direction of the court and hundreds more that are still secret, involve the curious career of George E. Joannides, the case officer who oversaw the dissident Cubans in 1963. In 1978, the agency made Mr. Joannides the liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations — but never told the committee of his earlier role.

    That concealment has fueled suspicion that Mr. Joannides’s real assignment was to limit what the House committee could learn about C.I.A. activities. The agency’s deception was first reported in 2001 by Jefferson Morley, who has doggedly pursued the files ever since, represented by James H. Lesar, a Washington lawyer specializing in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

    “The C.I.A.’s conduct is maddening,” said Mr. Morley, 51, a former Washington Post reporter and the author of a 2008 biography of a former C.I.A. station chief in Mexico.

    After years of meticulous reporting on Mr. Joannides, who died at age 68 in 1990, he is convinced that there is more to learn.

    “I know there’s a story here,” Mr. Morley said. “The confirmation is that the C.I.A. treats these documents as extremely sensitive.”

    Continue reading the main story
    Mr. Morley’s quest has gained prominent supporters, including John R. Tunheim, a federal judge in Minnesota who served in 1994 and 1995 as chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board, created by Congress to unearth documents related to the case.

    “I think we were probably misled by the agency,” Judge Tunheim said, referring to the Joannides records. “This material should be released.”

  14. https://books.google.com/books?id=qARNBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT245&lpg=PT245&dq=william+earl+nelson+fluor&source=bl&ots=TkDbEz08SP&sig=ldEAV6K1BPqM3NcYgiBgydW255I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNvovYtO7MAhXGlx4KHegRC24Q6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=william%20earl%20nelson%20fluor&f=false
    Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Cocaine Explosion
    By Gary Webb
    William Earl Nelson was the best man in the wedding of Philip Fendig, who was an usher in Nelson’s wedding.:

    CIA Who’s Where in Europe

    Ted Shackley introduces Philip F. Fendig as CIA liason to the SSC (Church Committee) concerning WC inquiries…. :

    New York Times – Apr 28, 1976
    William E. Nelson, deputy director for operations, confirmed that he announced h( s plans to retire at a staff meeting on Monday, the same day the committee report was made public. … “It’s a coincidence,” Mr. Nelson, 5b years old, said.

    rW. E. NELSON WEDS MISS 11/[. P. O’OIALLEN; Graduate of …
    New York Times – May 15, 1949
    … brothel-s of the bride; Philip A. Fendig of Washington, Gardner Cunningham of Princeton, NJ, David Schirmer of in New York and Andrew E. Rice of Milwaukee.

    Nick Schou – 2009 – ‎Biography & Autobiography
    The fact that Lister—just a“con artist” in the words of the LA Times—was on speaking … All I know is that this supposed contact of his was working at the Fluor Corp., … David Corn of the Nation magazine had interviewed William E.Nelson for his …
    But the most intriguing name on Lister’s list was at the very top of it: Bill Nelson. “Lister said that Bill Nelson was a A.S.I.S. member, which he said stands for the American Society of Industrial Security. Lister said that Nelson was security director for the Fleur [sic] Corporation,” the detectives’ report said.
    William Earl Nelson was far more than that, but Lister didn’t elaborate, and the detectives didn’t push him. Had they done so, they might have gotten a better idea about why the FBI’s files on Lister would still be classified eleven years later.

    Before becoming Fluor Corporation’s vice president for security and adminisgtration, Bill Nelson had been CIA’s deputy director of operations–the head spook–the man in charge of all CIA covert operations around the world from 1973 to 1976. A Fluor spokeswoman initially denied to journalist Nick Schou that Nelson had been affiliated with Fluor until Schou confronted her with documentary evidence of the employment there.

    Only then did she admit it, saying Nelson had worked at Fluor from 1977 to 1985. A former CIA officer, John Vandeworker, confirmed to Schou that Nelson and Lister knew each other. Apparently, when Lister was running out to Fluor’s headquarters in 1982 and 1983, it was Bill Nelson with whom he was meeting–“Ron’s big CIA contact,” as Lister’s former office director, Chris Moore, described him. They didn’t get much bigger than Nelson, a protege of former CIA director William Colby. A native of New York, Nelson had been a CIA officer since 1948, serving under a variety of military and State Department covers, mostly in the Far East. Japanese newspapers exposed him as CIA after they learned he was asking travelers to the Soviet Union to literally dig up dirt around Russian missile bases. As head of covert operations, Nelson oversaw the CIA’s controversial destabalization program in Chile, which resulted in the overthrow and murder of Chile’s elected president, socialist Salvador Allende. Later, Nelson commanded ‘Operation Feature,’…..

  15. Garry Puffer says:
    “Some of this is accurate, some may not be. Nevertheless it is a scenario:”

    **- the 7.65 Mauser fired by Cain from the Oswald frame window
    – the 30.06 Mauser displayed by Nicoletti
    – the side-sling-swivel Carcano in evidence now
    – the .22 rifle in Caster’s office
    These 4 rifles were available to the conspirators inside the Texas
    School Book Depository (TSBD) on 11-22-63. The following is a timeline
    of what happened with the rifles.
    The 30.06 Mauser and the .22 caliber rifle were brought into the TSBD
    on 11-20-63 by Caster and Oswald was given an opportunity to hold the
    30.06 rifle but didn’t.
    **[I exclude the reference of Oswald bringing the rifle in a sack]
    These 4 rifles gave the conspirators the ability to plant rifles
    firing 4 different size bullets:
    – 7.65mm Mauser
    – 30.06
    – 6.5mm Carcano
    – .22 caliber”
    I know the above to be correct as I have read the testimony establishing it. Other than the 6.5mm Carcano, which was planted by members of DPD the day of the assassination. I doubt there were any shots from the 6th floor window of the staged so-called “snipers nest”

    The Carcano was provided to the conspirators within DPD by Harry Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector [Postal Inspectors are federal law enforcement agents] Holmes was ex-FBI as well, like Guy Bannister.

  16. David Reitzes Meets Michael Shermer:
    Send In the Clowns

    By James DiEugenio

    Apparently, Dave Reitzes has an uncontrollable urge to make a fool out of himself. During those distant, far off years when he did not buy the Warren Commission fairy tale, he was in the Barr McClellan/Craig Zirbel camp i.e. Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy. When he inexplicably switched sides, he then became allied with John McAdams and began writing on a variety of subjects, including Jack Ruby. But he began to concentrate on the New Orleans scene and became McAdams’ water carrier on Jim Garrison. The problem was, he was about as good in this area as he was when he was backing his LBJ Texas conspiracy theorem. Which means, he was not very convincing, because the quality of his scholarship and insights is quite shoddy.

    But that did not matter to John McAdams. Because the professor isn’t really interested in scholarship or accuracy. Therefore, Reitzes fit the bill. One of the silliest and stupidest projects that the Dynamic Duo worked on was something called “One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone’s JFK.” What clearly happened here was that McAdams and his gang (which included Tracy Parnell at the time) were upset at the web site exposing one hundred errors of fact in Gerald Posner’s pitiful book Case Closed. A book they championed even before it came out. So they decided to put together a web site to counter this humiliation. The problem was two fold. In the Posner instance, the authors collaborated with experts in each area of the JFK field and therefore the exposed errors are actually accurate. On the Reitzes creation there is no evidence that the author consulted professionally with anyone. Secondly, Posner was writing a non-fiction book. Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar were writing a dramatic film. In the latter, one is allowed the use of dramatic license. One is not in the former. Yet Posner’s book looks so bad today that it does look like he used dramatic license in the volume. (http://www.assassinationweb.com/audio1.htm.) Which is not what non-fiction writers are allowed to do. But which the Warren Report did all the time.

    Stung by the exposure of a book they valued, McAdams and Reitzes decided to put together this moronic JFK web site. But even though they were working with a film that was allowed to use dramatic license, they had a difficult time getting up even close to a hundred. So they padded out their list with filler, the way a mover does by stuffing popcorn while boxing items. For instance, Reitzes tries to say that Guy Banister actually beat up Jack Martin over long distance phone calls, which is what the perpetrators told the police. And this is why Banister beat Martin so badly that Martin thought he was going to kill him? And this is why Delphine Roberts, Banister’s personal secretary, had to intervene in order to save Martin’s life? (HSCA, Volume X, p. 130) I don’t think so Dave. In an ARRB declassified interview done by the HSCA, Roberts said that she thought Martin was trying to get at Guy Banister’s file on Oswald. Since it was the day of the assassination, this is why Banister erupted. (HSCA interview of Roberts by Bob Buras, 8/27/78) This makes perfect sense in light of what Martin said to Banister when he accosted him: “What are you going to do, kill me like you all did Kennedy?” (op cit HSCA Volume X) Did Reitzes think that those involved were really going to tell the cops, “Well, see, we helped set up Oswald and this guy got a little too curious about seeing what we had on him while he was serving as an agent provocateur for us about the FPCC. But please don’t tell anyone officer!” In the light of the ARRB, Stone and Sklar were being kind of conservative.

    Or take another instance of Reitzian scholarship and logic: David Ferrie’s interviews with Jim Garrison and the FBI on the weekend of the assassination. Garrison was suspicious of Ferrie since he took a trip to Texas on the day of the assassination and said he was going to go ice-skating and goose hunting. He did neither. Further he drove to Houston and Galveston to do neither one of those things through a driving rainstorm. Wouldn’t this sound just a wee bit odd to anyone interested in inquiring into the Kennedy assassination?

    How does Reitzes find a way around this? He quotes Ferrie who said to the FBI that he was interested in buying a rink for himself and that he laced up skates and skated there. Reitzes leaves out the fact that the owner of the rink said that Ferrie did not skate. He stayed beside a pay phone from which he made and received calls. (William Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 46). Apparently, to Reitzes, it was no big deal that Ferrie and his friends went to Texas to go goose hunting and didn’t bring any shotguns. Happens all the time right?

    But, as noted above, it’s even worse than that. Reitzes does not include two other very relevant facts we know about today. First, Ferrie was deathly afraid of anyone connecting him to Oswald in the immediate aftermath of Kennedy’s murder. Ferrie called a former Civil Air Patrol member to see if he retained any photographs showing himself with Oswald in the CAP. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 81-82) He then approached a neighbor of Oswald’s who had seen Oswald at the library. Ferrie wanted to know if he recalled Oswald using Ferrie’s library card at the time. He then went to see Oswald’s landlady to check if Oswald had left Ferrie’s card behind. (ibid) As William Davy points out, that particular visit occurred before Ferrie left for Texas.

    The second point Reitzes does not include is this: in the FBI interview that he utilizes, Ferrie lied his head off. For instance, he said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or even used one. But further, he would not know how to use one. This from a man who the CIA used to train Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 177) He lied further by saying that he did not know Oswald and Oswald was not a member of his New Orleans CAP squadron. (ibid) This from a guy who is now going to be obsessed with eliminating any pictures depicting himself with Oswald in the CAP! As former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi would say, this kind of behavior – lying and covering up – denotes “consciousness of guilt.” The fact that Reitzes surgically removed this evidence shows that the Bugliosian term also applies to him.

    Again, all this shows that, in light of today’s declassified files, the film JFK is actually conservative in its depiction of this incident. But the whole phony “hundred” list Reitzes has assembled is like this, in each and every regard: you can slice it and dice it with the new files. That is in relation to what Reitzes writes on the Paines, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, Kennedy and Vietnam, and even in regards to Lyndon Johnson. He is that bad. For example, it’s incredible in light of what we know today, but Reitzes tries to imply that Johnson really did not want to go to war in Vietnam. Well Dave, can you answer this question: How did the USA eventually commit 535, 000 combat troops over there? Did someone forge Johnson’s signature on all of those orders?

    The newly declassified record – something which Reitzes avoids with the rigor of a vampire avoiding sunlight-reveals that not only did Johnson knowingly reverse Kennedy’s policies in Vietnam, but that he then tried to cover up this fact afterwards. In other words, he tried to feign that he was not really doing so. (Transcripts of phone calls between Johnson and Robert McNamara of February 20 and March 2, 1964 contained in the book Virtual JFK by James Blight.) But beyond that, Johnson completely reversed Kennedy’s overall policy in Vietnam after he took office. Kennedy’s withdrawal memorandum was replaced by NSAM 288, which now drew up battle plans for a land war in Vietnam. In other words, something that Kennedy would not countenance in three years, Johnson had now done in three months. (Gordon Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster, p. 108) The reader is somehow supposed to think that Reitzes missed all this? If so what does this say about his scholarship? If he did not miss all this, then what does this say about his honesty? Either way, Reitzes is simply not credible.



  17. The following is the final chapter in the new ebook CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley.

    So, who killed President Kennedy?

    The CIA’s last assassination-related files might help us answer that question. These files constitute a significant body of material — more than 1,100 files containing up to 50,000 pages of material. As we have seen, these are the files of senior is that this trove of long-secret intelligence files — if declassified in its entirety — will support the notion that the president was ambushed by enemies within his own government But that is only a hunch. New information might point us toward another conclusion. We have to see the documents to decide, and that won’t happen until October 2017.

    The qualifier is important — if declassified in its entirety — because it raises a tougher question: Can online civil society force top CIA officials to make public information they obviously would prefer to keep a secret?
    That is the fundamental question raised — but not answered — by this book. “Who killed JFK?” is a fascinating and significant question, but I have to admit it can sound like so much banter in a Baby Boomer bar room. The JFK story has no particular urgency in millennial America. I’m talking about a single homicide that happened before most of you were born. But the CIA’s last JFK files raise a contemporary political issue that couldn’t be more timely and relevant for the millennial generation: the role of extreme secrecy in a democratic society.

    Extreme Secrecy

    We can debate the causes of November 22, 1963, until the bartenders turn up the lights but no one can dispute its effects on our American government today. JFK’s assassination inspired and justified the extreme and extraordinary secrecy measures that remain in effect today.

    This veil of secrecy descended on the day Kennedy died, as senior agency officials concealed their ongoing conspiracies to kill Cuban president Fidel Castro and their pre-assassination knowledge of suspected JFK assassin Lee Oswald. This veil of secrecy impeded the investigations of the assassination by the Warren Commission in 1964, by New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison in 1967–1989, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1975–1976, by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976–79, and by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1994–98. In every investigation relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA concealed information relevant to the JFK story that could have and should have been made public.

    In 2016, this veil of secrecy continues to conceal 1,100 files concerning the likes of CIA officials Bill Harvey, Howard Hunt, David Phillips, David Morales, Ann Goodpasture, and George Joannides, as well as the surveillance operations that picked up on Lee Harvey Oswald as he made his way from Moscow to Minsk to Fort Worth to New Orleans to Mexico City to Dallas.

    Rule of Law

    The rule of law has not proven entirely ineffectual in piercing the veil of secrecy around the JFK story.

    Public skepticism about the findings of the Warren Commission contributed to the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in the 1960s. JFK researchers used the FOIA in the 1970s to open the records of the Warren Commission. The investigations of Jim Garrison, the Church Committee, and the HSCA forced more of the story into public view, but CIA stonewalling still kept much of it under lock and key.

    Hollywood has played a role. In 1992, the box office and critical success of Oliver Stone’s JFK shamed the Congress into passing the JFK Records Act. The law required government agencies to make public any and all records related to JFK’s assassination. The will of the people could not have been clearer. The law was approved unanimously by a Democratic Congress in a vote of 435 to zero. President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law and President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, implemented it.

    The CIA and other federal agencies were given the right to postpone the release of material for reasons of privacy and national security for up to 25 years. The law was passed in October 1992. Twenty-three and half years have passed since Congress acted. In October 2017, the last JFK files are supposed to become public.

    Can the rule of law prevail? Unfortunately, the JFK Records Act has a proverbial loophole, which could prove fatal to the near-universal desire for full JFK disclosure. A provision of the law allows for federal agencies to petition the White House to delay the release of JFK material beyond October 2017. CIA officials quietly insisted on this provision in 1992 and I am personally convinced that they full intend to exploit it in 2017….
    I think that speculation about what might be in the files is a big mistake. The overriding question is, Why would the CIA insist on continued secrecy with respect to its JFK assassination-related files? The secondary question is, Can the CIA be shamed or coerced or persuaded to obey the law and release all of the remaining JFK assassination files by October 2017 without exception?

    The answer to the second question is yes — if you share this book with a friend and insist, via social media, that the CIA obey the law. (Hashtags #CIAObey and #JFK2017). If we, the American people, fail to take a firm public stand against the CIA’s continued secrecy, the JFK cover-up will continue indefinitely. The October 2017 deadline for the release of the JFK assassination-related files looms as a test of American democracy. You can duck it or face it, but it is not going away.



  18. Analogous to JFK, and acting with the same MO:


    Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guiltfor the person who destroyed the evidence.

    So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?


    For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.

    (The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)


    The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

    9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

    Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
    Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

    If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

    The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.


    The FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found.


    The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.


    The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this).

    In other words, the minders obstructed witnesses from openly and candidly talking about what they knew.


    President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures.”

    The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced (by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims) to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the “pre-emptive war” doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this and this).

    The administration then starved the commission of funds. The government spent $175 million – over$300 million in today’s dollars – investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster. It spent $152 millionon the the Columbia disaster investigation. It spent $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But the government only authorized $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.

    The government also failed to provide crucial documents to the 9/11 investigators. And see this.

    The government refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to force high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

    Moreover, as reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission againstprobing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    The 9-11 Commission took this warning to heart, and refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism – who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration – “there were things the [9/11] commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.“


    Investigation into Saudi government aid to 9/11 conspirators was also obstructed.

    For example, Philip Shenon – the 20-year New York Times reporter who wrote a book on the 9/11 Commission – reports:

    The [911] commissioner said the renewed public debate could force a spotlight on a mostly unknown chapter of the history of the 9/11 commission: behind closed doors, members of the panel’s staff fiercely protested the way the material about the Saudis was presented in the final report, saying it underplayed or ignored evidence that Saudi officials – especially at lower levels of the government – were part of an al-Qaida support network that had been tasked to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the US.In fact, there were repeated showdowns, especially over the Saudis, between the staff and the commission’s hard-charging executive director, University of Virginia historian Philip Zelikow, who joined the Bush administration as a senior adviser to the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, after leaving the commission. The staff included experienced investigators from the FBI, the Department of Justice and the CIA, as well as the congressional staffer who was the principal author of the 28 pages.

    Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission’s offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the mostcompelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.


    But Kean, Hamilton and Zelikow clearly do not speak for a number of the other commissioners, who have repeatedly suggested they are uncomfortable with the perception that the commission exonerated Saudi Arabia and who have joined in calling for public release of the 28 pages.
    Indeed, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

    As the New York Times notes:

    Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

    A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis — has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated”?


    The former head of fire science and engineering for the agency responsible for finding out why the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 collapsed on 9/11 (the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) – who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering – wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed. And see this.

    In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

    The government has also refused to release the computer models showing how the trade centers fell, making it impossible for anyone to double-check its assumptions.

    Whether you believe the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 were brought down with explosives or by airplanes and fires, destroying evidence prevented engineers and scientists from figuring out what went wrong … to prevent skyscrapers from collapsing in the future.


    The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:

    The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said“At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman says that a new investigation should be “vigorously pursued“

    Planting false evidence is another act which creates presumption of guilt.

    The type of torture used by the U.S. on alleged surviving 9/11 co-conspirators is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creatingFALSE confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

    According to NBC News:

    Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
    At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
    One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
    The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
    Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the Iraq torture and Vietnam massacre stories – writes:

    Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately — for the F.B.I. to chase“.



  19. Theodor W. Adorno (/əˈdɔːrnoʊ/;[7] German: [aˈdɔʀno]; born Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund; September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969) was a German philosopher, sociologist, and composer known for his critical theory of society.

    He was a leading member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, whose work has come to be associated with thinkers such as Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, for whom the work of Freud, Marx, and Hegel were essential to a critique of modern society. He is widely regarded as one of the 20th century’s foremost thinkers on aesthetics and philosophy, as well as one of its preeminent essayists. As a critic of both fascism and what he called the culture industry, his writings—such as Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), Minima Moralia (1951) and Negative Dialectics (1966)—strongly influenced the European New Left.

    Amidst the vogue enjoyed by existentialism and positivism in early 20th-century Europe, Adorno advanced a dialectical conception of natural history that critiqued the twin temptations of ontology and empiricism through studies of Kierkegaard and Husserl. As a classically trained pianist whose sympathies with the twelve-tone technique of Arnold Schoenberg resulted in his studying composition with Alban Berg of the Second Viennese School, Adorno’s commitment to avant-garde music formed the backdrop of his subsequent writings and led to his collaboration with Thomas Mann on the latter’s novel Doctor Faustus, while the two men lived in California as exiles during the Second World War. Working for the newly relocated Institute for Social Research, Adorno collaborated on influential studies of authoritarianism, antisemitism and propaganda that would later serve as models for sociological studies the Institute carried out in post-war Germany.

    Upon his return to Frankfurt, Adorno was involved with the reconstitution of German intellectual life through debates with Karl Popper on the limitations of positivist science, critiques of Heidegger’s language of authenticity, writings on German responsibility for the Holocaust, and continued interventions into matters of public policy. As a writer of polemics in the tradition of Nietzsche and Karl Kraus, Adorno delivered scathing critiques of contemporary Western culture. Adorno’s posthumously published Aesthetic Theory, which he planned to dedicate to Samuel Beckett, is the culmination of a lifelong commitment to modern art which attempts to revoke the “fatal separation” of feeling and understanding long demanded by the history of philosophy and explode the privilege aesthetics accords to content over form and contemplation over immersion.


    For over thirty years a transcript of one of those “top secret” executive session meetings (January
    22, 1964) has been in existence. This particular transcript dealt principally with an alleged “dirty rumor”
    that Oswald had been an agent of some federal agency, notably the FBI. It was at the January
    22nd executive meeting that Allen Dulles opined: “I think this record ought to be destroyed.” Another
    Commission member, Hale Boggs, nervously restated the case when he said plaintively, “I don’t even
    like to see this taken down.”
    Five days after these jarring sentiments were expressed another meeting was held (Jan. 27, 1964)
    expanding on the earlier meeting.

    The Commission convened in secret that January 22 to discuss the rumor that Oswald had been a paid informant for the FBI. As chapter 2 of this book documents, the FBI had already preempted the Commission by publicly claiming to have solved the assassination within three weeks of the event. At the January 22 session, an unidentified speaker, probably General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, explained the basic problem to the Commission: “That is that the FBI is very explicit that Oswald is the assassin . . . and they are very explicit that there was no conspiracy.” However, the speaker noted, “they have not run out all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia. . . . But they are concluding that there can’t be a conspiracy without those being run out.” The inevitable question was raised: “Why are they so eager to make both of those conclusions . . . ?” Mr. Dulles claimed to be confused as to why the FBI would want to dispose of the case by finding Oswald guilty if, at the same time, Oswald was rumored to have been in the FBI’s employ. Dulles’s question was quickly answered by Rankin:
    A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.
    Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don’t you see?
    Dulles: Yes, I see that.
    Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it.[2]
    The Commission engaged in a more explicit discussion of the problem at its secret session five days later, on January 27. John J. McCloy noted “we are so dependent upon them [the FBI] for our facts that it might be a useful thing to have him [Hoover] before us” for the purpose of requesting further investigation “of the things that are still troubling us.” The following discussion ensued:

    Mr. Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problems. They have decided that it is Oswald who committed the assassination, they have decided that no one else was involved, they have decided —
    Sen. Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
    Rep. Boggs: You have put your finger on it. . . .
    Mr. Rankin: . . . They have decided the case, and we are going to have maybe a thousand further inquiries that we say the Commission has to know all these things before it can pass on this.
    And I think their reaction probably would be, “Why do you want all that. It is clear.”
    Sen. Russell: “You have our statement, what else do you need?”
    Mr. McCloy: Yes, “We know who killed cock robin.”[3]

    Thus, the Commission recognized the untenable position it faced being put in if it relied on the FBI for additional investigation when the FBI was claiming that the crime had been solved and no more investigation was necessary. Hoover had already staked the very reputation of his agency on a solution that demanded Oswald as the lone assassin. It would have been a naive Commission indeed that would have expected the FBI to destroy its own “solution” of the crime with further investigation. In light of these secret discussions, the Commission’s heavy dependence on the FBI is nothing less than culpable.

    The central FBI conclusion, which the Commission adopted as its own, was that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy. This conclusion was sustained solely on the finding that bullets from Oswald’s rifle had caused the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. If this one finding crumbles, the case for Oswald’s guilt must crumble with it. It was thus of paramount importance that the Commission independently verify this FBI finding.

    The Commission was certainly aware of its responsibility. In secret, the members admitted to each other the inadequacy of the Bureau’s ballistics findings as set forth in the FBI Report. At the executive session held December 16, 1963, Mr. McCloy complained, “This bullet business leaves me totally confused.” Chairman Warren concurred: “It’s totally inconclusive.”[4] Members of the Commission’s staff, noting the FBI’s sloppy work, recognized a need “to facilitate independent analysis of the Bureau’s ballistic conclusions”[5] and to “secure from the FBI and consider the underlying documents and reports related to the rifle and shells.”[6]
    –‘Presumed Guilty’ by Howard Roffman
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.html (Complete book ©1976 by A.S. Barnes and Co., Inc. ©1975 by Associated University Presses, Inc.ISBN 0-498-01933-0)
    Also see:


  21. This is an interesting article on the possibility that a very rare and special secret weapon system, developed by the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was used to immobilize JFK, and thus ensure the success of “the turkey shoot” carried out in Dealey Plaza.
    Consider also that until the day of the JFK assassination in 1963, there was no place that anybody outside of the very small CIA and Special Forces group (perhaps as many as twenty people) could get access to that flechette-launching weapon system or anything like it.
    To arrive at a solution to a murder as enigmatic and convoluted as that of JFK, we must confront the existence of the netherworld of secret operations carried out by covert agencies within our own government: “We have to start thinking like the CIA, people. . . . Black is white, and white is black.”

    To the skeptic who refuses to accept the idea that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in the assassination of John Kennedy, nothing could be more convincing than to demonstrate how one of the CIA’s secret poison and weapon systems was used in the assassination. Such a claim would have been scoffed at by everyone, but the weapons system itself was made public by Mr. William Colby, CIA director; Mr. Richard Helms, former CIA director; and Mr. Charles Senseney, a contract weapons designer for the CIA in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) in September 1975.

    The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison.

    The flechette itself is very simple. It is about the same size and looks like the tip of a large chicken feather. It is plastic and has tiny tail fins. Many varieties were developed for different uses. The great advantage of this weapon is that it is recoilless, almost silent, and the flechette travels at a high velocity which increases after launch. The flechettes can be fired singly or in high-impact clusters.

    It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds.

    The launching devices developed by Mr. Charles Senseney at Fort Detrick, Maryland for the CIA included a cane, a fountain pen, soda straws, and an umbrella.

    The umbrella was used to shoot President Kennedy.

    The flechette struck JFK in the throat, causing a small entrance wound, but leaving no other trace. The missile was about 5 millimeters in diameter, and the wound was 4 millimeters. The size of the wound as compared to the size of the flechette is consistent with other findings of this nature. This particular wound, officially called an exit wound by the Warren Commission, puzzled medical examiners and critics of the Warren Commission alike. The critics charged that had the throat wound been an exit wound, it could not have been so small.

    JFK was paralyzed by poison contained in the flechette in less than two seconds–so paralyzed that the first rifle bullet that hit him did not knock him down, but left him in a nearly upright position. A second volley of shots fired at JFK a few seconds later struck a stationary, visible target. The paralyzing flechette shot was fired by a man holding the umbrella launcher. He was in close proximity to an accomplice. Using a radio transmitter, the accomplice signaled the riflemen through each of their respective radiomen in the Dal Tex building, the western end of the Texas School Book Depository building, and on the grassy knoll.

    An exquisitely timed intelligence murder was performed. The paralytic poison allowed two volleys of rifle shots to be fired into JFK. He had become a sitting duck.

    In what follows, the basic evidence for this sophisticated murder technique and weapon system will be presented. Much of the evidence, in the form of photographs, has been under the noses of assassination researchers for many years. The testimony given by Colby, Helms, and Senseney opened the minds of a small group of researchers, who looked at the photographic, medical, and ballistics evidence in a new way.

    The coauthors of this article and researcher Christopher Sharrett have now been able to clearly show that JFK’s assassination had to have been a carefully planned, well-executed intelligence operation, using CIA weapons and techniques.
    . . . . .
    Church Committee
    The answers to all of these questions and the analysis of the evidence must begin historically with the development of the weapon system itself. There is no better way to describe it than to hear about it from ex-CIA directors William Colby and Richard Helms and weapon developer Charles Senseney. Here is their testimony before the Church Committee on September 16 to 18, 1975, as published in Volume One (1976) of that Committee’s final report, under the title, “Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents.”
    THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975. Testimony of Charles A. Senseney:

    Baker: Looking at your previous executive session testimony, apparently you developed for them a fountain pen. What did the fountain pen do?

    Senseney: The fountain pen was a variation of an M-1. An M-1 in itself was a system, and it could be fired from anything [emphasis added]. It could be put into–

    Baker: Could it fire a dart or an aerosol or what?

    Senseney: It was a dart.

    Baker: It fired a dart . . . a starter, were you talking about a fluorescent light starter?

    Senseney: That is correct. Baker: What did it do?

    Senseney: It put out an aerosol in the room when you put the switch on.

    Baker: What about a cane, a walking cane?

    Senseney: Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also an umbrella.

    Baker: Also an umbrella. What about a straight pin?

    Senseney: Straight pin?

    Baker: Yes, sir.

    Senseney: We made a straight pin, out at the Branch. I did not make it, but I know it was made, and it was used by one Mr. Powers on his U-2 mission.

    Huddleston: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon’s [a researcher at Fort Detrick] office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin?

    Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders 46-40. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe six weeks to six months later, they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all of the hardware except the projectile, okay?
    . . . . .


    shellfish toxin — tetrodotoxin


  22. “Garrison never denied that the Mafia was involved in the [JFK] assassination. The issue [for Garrison] was who planned the crime and whose idea was it and who was in control of it.” –Joan Mellen, in a speech about her book, A Farwell to Justice, at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, 24 January 2006

    “In 1975 a Senate committee headed by Frank Church found that the [Central Intelligence] Agency had planned a number of assassination operations, using everything from poison to machine guns and sometimes mob hit men” –Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans, On the Trail of the Assassins

    “We now know that the [Central Intelligence] Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation…. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.” –Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement from 2003

    “The dalliance between American intelligence and the Mafia had begun in World War II, at a time when anything seemed justifiable if it helped the war effort. In the United States the Office of Naval Intelligence obtained the help of the Mafia’s then ‘don of dons,’ Lucky Luciano, in preventing German sabotage in American dockyards. Through his close associate Meyer Lansky, Luciano mobilized his network of waterfront thugs accordingly and was rewarded by official leniency for his own past crimes.” –Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime

    “If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out specific selective ‘jobs’ [assassinations].” –Clandestine Operations Manual for Central America, a training manual written by the CIA

    “It’s called in the intelligence lexicon, ‘plausible deniability.’ If they [CIA hired guns] perform actions that might embarrass the United States government, they can be denied [as being employed by the government].” –William Leary, Merton Coulter Professor of History and winner of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Studies in Intelligence Award, interviewed in the documentary, Air America: The CIA’s Secret Airline

    “Speaking of the CIA and FBI, Chief Justice Warren said, ‘They and all other agencies do employ undercover men who are of terrible character.’ Former CIA director Allen Dulles agreed, ‘Terribly bad characters,’ he said.” –Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, citing Warren Commission Executive Session Transcripts, 27 January 1964, p. 163.

    “The agency ‘deals with everything from bottom feeders around the world to their governments on a routine basis.'” –senior U.S. intelligence official, cited in Time magazine, 3 February 2003

    “In late 1960, without the knowledge of President Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA had contacted underworld figures John Rosselli, Sam Giancana, and Santos Trafficante, offering them $150,000 for Castro’s assassination. The gangsters were happy to be hired by the U.S. government to murder the man who had shut down their gambling casinos in Cuba. If they were successful, they hoped a U.S.-sponsored successor to Castro would allow them to reopen the casinos.” –James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

    “Sometimes people sort of glaze over about the notion that the Mafia and U.S. intelligence and the anti-Castro activists were involved together in the assassination of President Kennedy. In fact, there’s no contradiction there. Those three groups were all in bed together at the time and had been for several years in the fight to topple Fidel Castro.” –Anthony Summers, journalist and assassination researcher, interviewed by Bill Curtis for the cable TV program, Investigative Reports, September 1991

    “One of the Mob’s big bases of operations was in Havana before the revolution, and Fidel [Castro] was cutting all that off … severing the ties with the gambling casinos. The Mob worked shoulder to shoulder with the CIA’s Mongoose people [against Castro], to the point that it became almost indistinguishable as to where the CIA activities stopped and Mob activities started.” –John Stockwell, former CIA officer, interviewed by Frank Morrow for the TV program, Alternative Views, 1989

    “The more we looked into it [the JFK assassination], the most productive area of investigation was clearly the CIA — namely, those operatives who had worked with the anti-Castro Cubans.” –Robert Tanenbaum, former Deputy Counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, interviewed by David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years

    “The accusations linger. In some minds the suspicions persist of a dark, unsolved conspiracy behind his [JFK’s] murder. You can dismiss them, as many of us do, but knowing now what our secret government planned for Castro, the possibility remains: Once we decide that anything goes, anything can come home to haunt us.” –Bill Moyers, for the 1987 documentary, The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis

    “…the real danger the CIA has always presented — unbridled criminal stupidity, cloaked in a blanket of national security.” –Gary Webb, Dark Alliance

    “After Castro overthrew Batista in January 1959, [Jack] Ruby began to provide weapons, now with CIA support, to anti-Castro Cubans. Ruby was working with another CIA-connected gunrunner, Thomas Eli Davis, III…. He told his first attorney, Tom Howard, that he ‘had been involved with Davis, who was a gunrunner entangled in anti-Castro efforts.'” –James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

    “Now they’re going to find out about Cuba, they’re going to find out about the guns, find out about New Orleans, find out about everything.” –Jack Ruby, Oswald’s assassin, HSCA Report, vol. IX: V, p. 162. (Ruby made this comment to his former employee, Wally Weston who was visting him in jail.)

  23. Alfredo Duran was a member of Brigade 2506, the CIA invasion force that landed at the Bay of Pigs. After returning to the United States, Duran became the president of the Veterans’ Association of Brigade 2506. However, he was expelled from this group in 1993 for his willingness to travel to Cuba and to discuss the invasion with Fidel Castro. He then established the Cuban Committee for Democracy. In 2001, he travelled to the scene of the brigade invasion with Arthur Schlesinger, CIA man Bob Reynolds, Jean Kennedy Smith and Richard Goodwin.
    It was during the late summer of 1963 when Alfredo Duran was involved in a propaganda broadcast mission out of Miami. His associates at this time were Bernardo De Torres, William Seymour, Ed Collins, Dennis Harber and Isidro Borja.


  24. Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used
    In the JFK Conspiracy
    Copyright © 1993 by Richard Bartholomew

    Ten minutes after President Kennedy was shot, Marvin Robinson, Helen Forrest and Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, independently of each other, reportedly saw two men leaving Dealey Plaza in a light-colored Rambler station wagon. One of them entered the car on Elm Street after running from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). Craig and Forrest described this man as being identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. A few minutes before this incident Richard Randolph Carr saw two of three men, who had come from behind the TSBD, enter what was apparently the same Rambler parked next to the building on Houston Street. He saw the third man enter the car seconds later on Record Street, one block east and two blocks south of the TSBD. 1
    The Warren Commission had Robinson’s and Craig’s reports of November 23, 1963. It also had Craig’s statement to the FBI from the day before; as well as Carr’s statements to the FBI and Craig’s testimony. The Commission, however, apparently never knew about Mrs. Forrest and did not publish Robinson’s statement.2 It chose not to believe that Craig took part in Oswald’s interrogation or that Craig identified Oswald as the man who entered the station wagon. Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, Oswald’s interrogator, denied to the Commission that Craig was present. Fritz thus never had to deal with Craig’s allegation that Oswald admitted to Fritz that he had indeed left Dealey Plaza in a station wagon belonging to Ruth Paine.3

    Despite the Robinson statement that corroborated Craig and which the Commission had; and despite other corroborating evidence such as newspaper photographs showing Craig’s presence on Elm Street and at the open door of the interrogation room with Fritz during Oswald’s questioning, the Commission chose to believe the contradictory and unsupported testimony of taxi driver William Whaley.4 Whaley told the Warren Commission about two witnesses who saw Oswald enter his cab. But there is no indication that the Commission ever attempted to locate, through the simple process of examining the cab company’s records, the only two people who could corroborate Whaley.5

    With the Warren Commission’s attempted classification of Marvin Robinson’s statement, the death of William Whaley in 1965, and the 1975 death of Roger Craig after his many failed attempts to make his story public, the truth about this alleged getaway car has eluded the few who have tried to seek it.6

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) apparently attempted but failed. It reported, “Robinson did not testify before the Warren Commission, and he has not been located by the committee.” Despite this attempt, however, the House Committee, like the Warren Commission, avoided the entire matter in its report, choosing instead to repeat the Commission’s conclusion that “shortly after the assassination, Oswald boarded a bus, but when the bus got caught in a traffic jam, he disembarked and took a taxicab to his rooming house.” In this, as in many other areas of its investigation, the House Committee had it both ways by concluding that “The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.” Thus leading to the conclusion, voiced in 1980 by DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, “after careful study of the HSCA’s Final Report, that this most recent official version does not satisfy the need for a thorough inquiry into what happened that day in Dallas.”7

  25. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann, and yet kept silent during the meeting presided over by JFK. Unaccountably, Lemnitzer later wrote in his own hand, in an unpublished hand-written account of the debacle, speaking of himself in the third person, “General Lemnitzer then refrained from raising this issue with the Chief Executive.” The question is, WHY? Consider this: Lyman Lemnitzer, CIA Director Allen Dulles, and Richard Bissell (Deputy Director of Plans at CIA, or Director of Covert Operations) were all close associates; Lemnitzer and Dulles from as long ago as the end of World War II, and Lemnitzer and Bissell throughout much of the 1950s.

    The Bay of Pigs operation was Richard Bissell’s project. Was Lemnitzer trying to keep secret from the President information that might have invited cancellation of the pet project of his close associates at the CIA? Veteran newsman Daniel Schorr provided his answer to this question in March 2001 on the NPR radio program All Things Considered, after attending a conference on the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, almost 40 years after the event:

    … the CIA overlords of the invasion, director Allen Dulles and deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan of how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed, as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counterrevolutionary government, and appeal for aid from the United States and Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots…. In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed.

    The major players in deceiving Kennedy were his CIA advisors, especially Director Allen Dulles. As Arthur M. Schelsinger, Jr. [an historian and a former JFK aide] observed, “the Joint Chiefs of Staff had only approved the Bay of Pigs. The CIA had invented it.” At his death Allen Dulles left the unpublished drafts of an article that scholar Lucien S. Vandenbroucke has titled “The `Confessions’ of Allen Dulles.” In these handwritten, coffee-stained notes, Dulles explained how CIA advisors who knew better drew John F. Kennedy into a plan whose prerequisites for success contradicted the President’s own rules for engagement, that precluded any combat action by U.S. military forces. Although Dulles and his advisors knew that this condition conflicted with the plan they were foisting on Kennedy, they discreetly kept silent in the belief, Dulles wrote, that “the realities of the situation” would force the President to carry through to the end they wished: “[ We] did not want to raise these issues – in an [undecipherable word] discussion – which might only harden the decision against the type of action we required. We felt that when the chips were down – when the crisis arose in reality, any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

    JFK’s private opinion about what had really happened was expressed to his old Navy buddy, `Red’ Fay, who was serving as Under Secretary of the Navy in his administration. `Red’ Fay quoted JFK’s heated remarks about the Bay of Pigs fiasco in his book, The Pleasure of His Company: “Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don’t think is in the best interests of the country,” he [President Kennedy] said. “I will never compromise the principles upon which this country is built, but we’re not going to plunge into irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in the country puts so-called national pride above national reason…. Do you think I’m going to cause a nuclear exchange – for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn’t think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he’s crazy…. By God, there will be no avoiding responsibility nor will there be any irresponsibility. When the time comes, action will be taken. Action was indeed taken. Within one year, JFK had fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. Dulles and Bissell were officially “retired” in face-saving public ceremonies.

    Horne, Douglas. JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated (Kindle Locations 290-295). The Future of Freedom Foundation. Kindle Edition.


  26. Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of “Sharpshooter,” the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the “Sharpshooter” level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called “rapid-fire” phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

    The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, “Marksman.” To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.
    by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler

  27. The following is an unpublished manuscript
    written by the late Roger Craig:

    Roger Craig – © 1971

    The Dallas County Court House at 505 Main Street was indeed a unique place to come to hear what was WRONG with John F. Kennedy and his policies as President of these United States.

    This building housed the elite troops of the Dallas County Sheriff`s Department (of which I was one), who, with blind obedience, followed the orders of their Great White Father: Bill Decker, Sheriff of Dallas County.

    From these elite troops came the most bitter verbal attacks on President Kennedy. They spoke very strongly against his policies concerning the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile crisis. They seemed to resent very much the fact that President Kennedy was a Catholic. I do not know why this was such a critical issue with many of the deputies but they did seem to hold this against President Kennedy.

    The concession stand in the lobby of the court house was the best place to get into a discussion concerning the President. The old man who ran the stand evidenced a particular hatred for President Kennedy. He seemed to go out of his way to drag anyone who came by his stand into a discussion about the President. His name is J. C. Kiser.

    He was a little man with a short mustache and glasses that he wore right on the end of his nose. He was a particularly good friend of Sheriff Decker, and he held the concession in the lobby for many years. Like Decker, he was unopposed when his lease came up for renewal. It was common knowledge that Bill Decker made it possible for him to remain there as long as he wished. This sick little man not only had a deep hatred for John F. Kennedy, he also hated the black people, even those who spent their money at his stand. He would often curse them as they walked away after making a purchase from him. He flatly refused to make telephone change for them even though he would be simultaneously making change for a white person.

    This little man was a typical example of the atmosphere that lingered in this building that housed law and order in Dallas County.

    Many of the deputies had a dislike for the President-some more so than others. However, there were those who would not degrade themselves by taking verbal punches at our President. One of these was Hiram Ingram. Although devoted to Bill Decker, he was also a good friend of mine. We often discussed the political debates that took place in the lobby. Hiram had a great dislike for this sick little man who seemed to lead the attack on the President. He also had little respect for the deputies, attorneys and court house employees who tolerated or even agreed with this philosophy of attacking John F. Kennedy.

    Hiram Ingram was a small man-in stature. He was always ready with a friendly smile and greeting. He began his association with the County during the Bonnie and Clyde era-when he was an ambulance driver and inside employee at a local funeral home. In fact, Hiram prepared Bonnie and Clyde for burial after they were brought back to Dallas from the ambush in Louisiana.

    Hiram and I were very close-one of those friendships which develops when some people first meet. I had known Hiram for about four years at the time of the assassination. He was working in the Civil Division and shortly after November 22, 1963 he had a heart attack. When he returned to work Decker put him on the Bond Desk, where I would later be and work closely with Hiram. I worked the day shift one month and the evening shift the following month. Hiram worked only evenings. So every other month we worked together. This gave us time to talk and discuss the events in Dallas and even the Sheriff`s Office itself. The Department was not well organized.

    To clear some of the bonds and bondsmen we would have to call Decker at home-no matter what time of the day or night-for his approval or any decision. This applied only to certain bondsmen. Decker had his chosen few who were not questioned. Hiram was a very dependable employee and should not have had to clear the minor decisions with our Great White Father, Bill Decker.

    As the months passed and Hiram and I worked together we built a mutual respect for each other. When Decker fired me on July 4, 1967 Hiram was infuriated but, like any employee of Decker`s, he couldn`t say anything in my defense for fear of having his employment cut short or his reputation ruined. One of Decker`s favorite past times was ruining reputations.

    Our friendship did not end with my termination. We continued to talk from time to time and Hiram was very helpful when Penn Jones wanted information concerning records at the Sheriff`s office. However, in March of 1968 Hiram explained to me that information was getting more difficult to get for some reason. Fortunately by this time I had already supplied Penn Jones and Bill Boxley (investigator for Jim Garrison) with much information from Hiram.

    About two weeks later, near the end of March 1968, I heard that Hiram had fallen at home and broken his hip and was in the hospital. I went to see my good buddy to cheer him up and received the shock of my life. Hiram was under oxygen and could not have any visitors. Three days later he was dead-of cancer. He had been working just prior to the fall. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to this great man who, in his own quiet way, helped us all so much.

    Thus . . . we have the atmosphere that was to greet the President of the United States upon his arrival in Dallas. However, things were to get even worse before he arrived.

    The battle ground had been picked and the UNwelcome mat was out for President Kennedy. Unknown to most of us, the rest of the plan was being completed. The patsy had been chosen and placed in the building across from the court house-where he could not deny his presence after it was all over. This was done with the apparent approval and certainly with the knowledge of our co-workers, the F.B.I., since they later admitted that they knew Lee Harvey Oswald was employed at the School Book Depository Building located on the corner of Elm Street and Houston Street across from the Sheriff`s Office.

    The security had been arranged by the Secret Service and the Dallas Police-our boys in blue. The final touch was put on by Sheriff James Eric (Bill) Decker. On the morning of November 22, 1963 the patrolmen in the districts which make up the Dallas County Sheriff`s Patrol Division were left in the field, ignorant of what was going on in the downtown area, which was just as well. Decker was not going to LET them do anything anyway.

    About 10:30 a.m. November 22, 1963, Bill Decker called into his office what I will refer to as his street people-plain-clothes men, detectives and warrant men, myself included-and told us that President Kennedy was coming to Dallas and that the motorcade would come down Main Street. He then advised us that we were to stand out in front of the building, 505 Main Street and represent the Sheriff`s Office. We were to take no part whatsoever in the security of that motorcade. (Why, James Eric?) So . . . the stage had been set, all the pawns were in place, the security had been withdrawn from that one vulnerable location. Come John F. Kennedy, come to Elm and Houston Streets in Dallas, Texas and take your place in history!




    The time was 12:15 p.m. I was standing in front of the court house at 505 Main Street. Deputy Sheriff Jim Ramsey was standing behind me. We were waiting for the President of the United States. I had a feeling of pride that I was going to be not more than four feet from the President but deep inside something kept gnawing at me. I said to Jim Ramsey, “He‘s late.” Jim‘s reply stunned me. He said, “Maybe somebody will shoot the son of a bitch.” Then I realized the crowd was hostile. The men about me felt that they were forced to acknowledge his presence. Although he was the President, they were making statements like, “Why does he have to come to Dallas?”

    Something else was bothering me . . . being a trained officer, I always looked for anything which might be amiss about any situation with which I was confronted. Suddenly I knew what was wrong. There were no officers guarding the intersections or controlling the crowd. My mind flashed back to the meeting in Decker‘s office that morning, then back to the lack of security in this area.

    Suddenly the motorcade approached and President Kennedy was smiling and waving and for a moment I relaxed and fell into the happy mood the President was displaying. The car turned the corner onto Houston Street. I was still looking at the rest of the people in the party. I was soon to be shocked back into reality. The President had passed and was turning west on Elm Street . . . as if there were no people, no cars, the only thing in my world at that moment was a rifle shot! I bolted toward Houston Street. I was fifteen steps from the corner—before I reached it two more shots had been fired. Telling myself that it wasn‘t true and at the same time knowing that it was, I continued to run. I ran across Houston Street and beside the pond, which is on the west side of Houston. I pushed a man out of my way and he fell into the pond. I ran down the grass between Main and Elm. People were lying all over the ground. I thought, “My God, they‘ve killed a woman and child,” who were lying beside the gutter on the South side of Elm Street. I checked them and they were alright. I saw a Dallas Police Officer run up the grassy knoll and go behind the picket fence near the railroad yards. I followed and behind the fence was complete confusion and hysteria.

    I began to question people when I noticed a woman in her early thirties attempting to drive out of the parking lot. She was in a brown 1962 or 1963 Chevrolet. I stopped her, identified myself and placed her under arrest. She told me that she had to leave and I said, “Lady, you‘re not going anywhere.” I turned her over to Deputy Sheriff C. I. (Lummy) Lewis and told him the circumstances of the arrest. Officer Lewis told me that he would take her to Sheriff Decker and take care of her car.

    The parking lot behind the picket fence was of little importance to most of the investigators at the scene except that the shots were thought to have come from there.

    Let us examine this parking lot. It was leased by Deputy Sheriff B. D. Gossett. He in turn rented parking space by the month to the deputies who worked in the court house, except for official vehicles. I rented one of these spaces from Gossett when I was a dispatcher working days or evenings. I paid Gossett $3.00 per month and was given a key to the lot. An interesting point is that the lot had an iron bar across the only entrance and exit (which were the same). The bar had a chain and lock on it. The only people having access to it were deputies with keys. Point: how did the woman gain access and, what is more important, who was she and why did she have to leave?

    This was to be the beginning of the never-ending cover up. Had I known then what I know now, I would have personally questioned the woman and impounded and searched her car. I had no way of knowing that an officer, with whom I had worked for four years, was capable of losing a thirty year old woman and a three thousand pound automobile. To this day Officer Lewis does not know who she was, where she came from or what happened to her. Strange!

    Meanwhile, back at the parking lot, I continued to help the Dallas Officers restore order. When things were somewhat calmer I began to question the people who were standing at the top of the grassy knoll, asking if anyone had seen anything strange or unusual before or during the President‘s fatal turn onto Elm Street.

    Several people indicated to me that they thought the shots came from the area of the grassy knoll or behind the picket fence. My next reliable witness came forward in the form of Mr. Arnold Rowland. Mr. Rowland and his wife were standing at the top of the grassy knoll on the north side of Elm Street. Arnold Rowland began telling me his account of what he saw before the assassination. He said approximately fifteen minutes before President Kennedy arrived he was looking around and something caught his eye. It was a white man standing by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building in the southeast corner, holding a rifle equipped with a telescopic sight and in the southwest corner of the sixth floor was a colored male pacing back and forth. Needless to say, I was astounded by his statement. I asked Mr. Rowland why he had not reported this incident before and he told me that he thought they were secret service agents—an obvious conclusion for a layman. Rowland continued. He told me that he looked back at the sixth floor a few minutes later and the man with the rifle was gone so he dismissed it from his mind.

    I was writing all this down in my notebook and when I finished I advised Mr. and Mrs. Rowland that I would have to detain them for a statement. I had started toward the Sheriff‘s Office with them when lo and behold I was approached by Officer C. L. (Lummy) Lewis, who asked me “What ya got”—a favorite expression of most investigators with Bill Decker. I explained the situation to him and told him of Rowland‘s account. Being the Good Samaritan he was, Officer Lewis offered to take the Rowlands off my hands and get their statements. This worked out a little better than my first arrest. The Warren Commission decided not to accept Arnold Rowland‘s story but at least they did not lose them. Hang in there, Lummy!

    The time was approximately 12:40 p.m. I had just turned the Rowlands over to Lummy Lewis when I met E. R. (Buddy) Walthers, a small man with a very arrogant manner. He was, without a doubt, Decker‘s favorite pupil. He wore dark-rimmed glasses and a small-brimmed hat because effecting them meant that he would resemble Bill Decker. Walthers had worked for the Yellow Cab Company of Dallas before coming to the Sheriff‘s Office, about a year before I began working there. His termination from the cab company was the result of several shortages of money. He came to the Sheriff‘s Department as a patrolman but because of his close connection with Justice of the Peace Bill Richburg—one of Decker‘s closest allies—Buddy soon was promoted to detective. He had absolutely no ability as a law enforcement officer. However, he was fast climbing the ladder of success by lying to Decker and squealing on his fellow officers.

    Walthers‘ ambition was to become Sheriff of Dallas County and he would do anything or anybody to reach that goal. It was very clear Buddy enjoyed more job security with Decker than anyone else did. Decker carried him for years by breaking a case for him or taking a case which had been broken by another officer and putting Walthers‘ name on the arrest sheet. Soon after he was promoted to detective he became intimate with such people as W. O. Bankston, the flamboyant Oldsmobile dealer in Dallas who furnished Decker with a new Fire Engine Red Olds every year and who was arrested several times for Driving while Intoxicated but never served any jail time.
    Back to November 22, 1963. As I have earlier stated, the time was approximately 12:40 p.m. when I ran into Buddy Walthers. The traffic was very heavy as Patrolman Baker (assigned to Elm and Houston Streets) had left his post, allowing the traffic to travel west on Elm Street. As we were scanning the curb I heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm Street. I turned and saw a white male in his twenties running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. A light green Rambler station wagon was coming slowly west on Elm Street. The driver of the station wagon was a husky looking Latin, with dark wavy hair, wearing a tan wind breaker type jacket. He was looking up at the man running toward him. He pulled over to the north curb and picked up the man coming down the hill. I tried to cross Elm Street to stop them and find out who they were. The traffic was too heavy and I was unable to reach them. They drove away going west on Elm Street.

    In addition to noting that these two men were in an obvious hurry, I realized they were the only ones not running TO the scene. Everyone else was running to see whatever might be seen. The suspect, as I will refer to him, who ran down the grassy knoll was wearing faded blue trousers and a long sleeved work shirt made of some type of grainy material. This will become very important to me later on and very embarrassing to the authorities (F.B.I., Dallas Police and Warren Commission). I thought the incident concerning the two men and the Rambler Station Wagon important enough to bring it to the attention of the authorities at the command post at Elm and Houston.

    I ran to the front of the Texas School Book Depository where I asked for anyone involved in the investigation. There was a man standing on the steps of the Book Depository Building and he turned to me and said, “I‘m with the Secret Service.” This man was about 40 years old, sandy-haired with a distinct cleft in his chin. He was well-dressed in a gray business suit. I was naive enough at the time to believe that the only people there were actually officers—after all, this was the command post. I gave him the information. He showed little interest in the persons leaving. However, he seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler. This was the only part of my statement which he wrote down in his little pad he was holding. Point: Mrs. Ruth Paine, the woman Marina Oswald lived with in Irving, Texas, owned a Rambler station wagon, at that time, of this same color.


  29. Charles Drago:
    I have created this “watchdog” thread to keep us up to date on what for me is the highly suspect work of Ramon F. Herrera. You will recall that he burst upon the scene here on November 4 to announce that his “3D Animation of Dealey Plaza” project would bring Stone Age JFK research kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    As my published reactions to his comments will attest, I find that Herrera’s repeated characterizations of broad generalities as established fact, reasoning from demonstrably false premises, and episodes of staggering narcissism make a mockery of his claim to stringent adherence to scientific method even as they provide compelling evidence for a challenged intellect and a psyche as disturbed as it is disturbing.

    Since being called out publicly on these cyber-pages, Herrera has fled to safer havens. His posts thereon are, in the majority, supportive of my analysis as presented above. So from time to time I’ll share my findings on this thread.

    NOTE 1 — I have no intention of engaging in any further exchanges with Herrera until such time as I can be confident that his agenda is honorable and his methods sound.

    NOTE 2 — I urge all interested parties to engage in their own surveillance of Herrera’s posts.

    DECEMBER 19, 2015

    Herrera today offered the following obversation regarding the SBT based upon viewing of the long-discredited PBS (American public television) production, “NOVA: ‘Cold Case JFK'” — a “documentary” that concludes that LHO, acting alone, shot and killed JFK:

    “They [the producers] make a strong case about the trajectory (*) of the SBT”. [emphasis in original]

    Herrera’s footnote: “(*) The LN trajectory seems to be flawless.”

    The problem, of course, is that the “NOVA” producers, to support their mission to “prove” the LN “argument,” were forced to indicate a neck entry point for the SBT unsupported by fact and fatally contradicted by unimpeachable physical and eyewitness evidence — old news to everyone, it seems, but Herrera.

    Herrera’s ignorance of the most basic facts of this case, coupled with his vulnerability to pursuation by the hoariest of disinformation (assuming, of course, that he’s nothing more sinister than a fool with a pulpit), give cause for grave concern.
    Phil Dragoo:
    “Cold Case JFK” vs. Cold Hard JFK Facts
    by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD (physics)
    Posted November 26, 2013
    Note: This is a critical review of the NOVA production (November 14, 2013) – “Cold Case JFK.

    I have also found Pat Speer, Animania: Searching for Truth in Dale Myers’ House of Mirrors useful:


    I find the Single Bullet Trajectory thoroughly deconstructed in Sherry Fiester, The Enemy of the Truth, Chapter Eight: The Single Bullet Theory.

    I note Humes’ inability to located his alleged entry either at the EOP or the committee-revised four inch/ten centimeter higher location

    (Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, Gunn deposes Humes)

    I note the intact, minimally deformed CE 399 in no way comparable to test rounds fired at cadavers, but very like those fired into cotton batting

    The position of the occupants and the location of wounds has been reshaped to suit an a priori solution the Tague problem

    The statement of Kellerman regarding “flurry of bullets” does not suggest a single bullet

    For someone off the street to burst into the room, his hair on fire, screaming, “The Single Bullet Theory is the answer!”

    indicates he’s dealing with a different question

    We seek truth and justice here

    The Oswald Lynch Mob meets in a room down the hall

    A simple case of misdirection


  30. I find it curious that some would balk at the idea that the common routines and practices of espionage aka spycraft, would be such an outlandish idea when applied to the JFK assassination.

    Such things as generating false documents, costumes, disguises, the use of doubles or look-alike characters, planting false evidence, the use of ingenious weaponry, all manner of subterfuge.

    To scoff at such prospects as “absurd” or claim that such is the result of too fertile an imagination; “having seen too many spy thrillers”, etc… it is such incredulity that is itself the absurdity. After all the best and most realistic fiction is drawn from reality.

    Just a few examples of authors that were real spies: Gene Coyle, Kenneth Benton, John Bingham, William Mole, Alan Judd, Max Knight, John Masterman , le Carre, Hammet…and of course Ian Flemming.


  31. I read the details of the Fackler experiments. That bullet was NOT fired with a full charge of powder that a standard Carcano uses.

    He reduced that charges in increments to slow the bullet down to the speed it would have been traveling had it gone through Kennedy’s neck, then through Connally’s armpit, shattering a rib, and then exiting Connally’s chest and striking the wrist:


    In other words Von Pein, that bullet didn’t do a fraction of the work that CE399 is claimed to have accomplished.

    Fackler’s experiment was simply ill-conceived.

  32. “Tom Alyea and I have talked about this several times. Tom was standing there next to Fritz when Weitzman stated that it was a Mauser rifle and that they saw 7.65 stamped on the action.

    “Mannlicher-Carcano does have a 7.35 mm. In the heat of the `find’ Weitzman stated `Mauser’ and everyone simply agreed. It wasn’t until Day was showing the rifle off at the Police Station that it was properly identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.”113

    Although properly identified, it was officially reported to be a Mauser for the next twenty-four hours without an official correction. The point here is that this eyewitness account seems to confirm that there was no Mauser, and that Weitzman, imagining a “7” and a decimal point where there was none, somehow inspired the others present, including Fritz, the ranking officer in charge of the crime scene, to call it something it was not; and as discussed above, even something bizarre.

    Given Alyea’s film of this event, it seems that is probably what happened. **The unnecessary complications involved in reenacting this scene make Alyea’s claim even more plausible.** There is no such thing as a 7.65 Mannlicher-Carcano. If “they saw 7.65 stamped on the action” it was some strange rifle. And if Weitzman misread the caliber on a 7.35 Mannlicher-Carcano, it was also another rifle. The question this raises is the same one we began with: Why in the world would the crime scene investigators enter into a criminal conspiracy to call a weapon easily linked to their suspect something else? Of course, it seems the other confirmation from Alyea’s film is that there was no clip seen or handled on the sixth floor.

    There is some justification that the word “Mauser,” in its earliest use in Dallas, was a redundant generic term for what in effect were nearly all bolt-action rifles. Since “bolt action” would exclude just about all semi-automatic and automatic weapons, there is some justification that the redundancy was used to emphasize that very exclusion. It could even be argued that the redundant use of the word “Mauser,” in addition to deflecting attention from clip-fed weapons, served the purpose of deflecting attention from early reports of automatic gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Later, Commission attorney Joseph Ball was particularly careful to refer only to “Mauser bolt action” rather than an actual Mauser rifle in his questioning of Weitzman on April 1, 1964.114

  33. Deputy E. L Boon and Seymour Weitzman were also in attendance with Deputy Roger Craig when the rifle was found, all three claimed it was a Mauser.

  34. “I never saw the casings again after Fritz put them in his pocket. Obviously he gave them to Studebaker when Studebaker was led to the sniper’s nest, with the instructions to include them in shots of the crime scene. Fritz did not go with Studebaker, he stayed with us, watching Day dusting the rifle.”~Alyea

    “After the discovery of the “sniper”s nest,” Captain Fritz assigned two uniformed officers to guard the location, then ordered a search of the seventh floor, which yielded nothing of interest. At this point, Alyea removed the roll of film from his movie camera and dropped it to a locked-out colleague; within 20 minutes, pictures from the sixth floor were flashed around the world. However, without Alyea’s explanation of the film footage, its enormous significance went largely unrecognized; Alyea later discovered that key shots were edited out and lost [18]. He never saw the footage of the undisturbed “sniper’s nest,” of the cartridge cases on the floor, or of the cartridge cases in Fritz’s hand.”
    Sheriff’s Deputy Luke Mooney corroborated Tom Alyea’s account of Fritz picking up the cartridge cases. During Mooney’s testimony for the Warren Commission, his questioner, Joseph A. Ball, posed a blatantly leading question with reference to the chain of evidence for the cartridge cases:

    Q: Those were empty shells?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: They were turned over to Captain Fritz?
    A: Yes, sir: he was the first officer that picked them up, as far as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up and look at them.

    His choice of words — “I stood there and watched him” — suggests surprise, if not shock. Although Mr. Ball seemed to expect Deputy Mooney to say that someone other than Fritz had picked up the empty shells, the news that Fritz himself had gone over and picked them up elicited no response. In the questioning of other police officers, much emphasis was given to who collected the cartridge cases and the chain of evidence, yet the issue of Captain Fritz boldly stepping into the crime scene and handling evidence was unworthy of follow-up questions. Instead:

    Q: Is this the position of the cartridges as shown in 510 (Figure 27), as you saw them?
    A: Yes, sir. That is just the way they were lying, to the best of my knowledge. I do know there was — one was further away, and these two were relatively close together — on this particular area. But these cartridges — this one and this one looks like they are further apart than they actually was [sic].
    Q: Which ones?
    A: This one and this one.
    Q: Now, two cartridges were close together, is that right?
    A: The one cartridge here, by the wall facing, is right. And this one and this one, they were further away from this one.
    Q: Well–
    A: But as to being positive of the exact distance-


  35. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    The President’s Commission reconvened at 2 :15 p.m.

    Mr. BALL. When you ran across Elm, where did you go?
    Mr. MOONEY. Across Elm. up the embankment, which is a high terrace there,
    across-there is a kind of concrete building there, more or less of a little park.
    Jumped over the fence and went into the railroad yards. And, of course, there
    was other officers over there. Who they were, I don’t recall at this time. But
    Ralph Walters and I were running together. And we jumped into the railroad
    yards and began to look around, there.
    And, of course, we didn’t see anything there. Of course the other officers had
    checked into the car there, and didn’t find anything, I don’t believe, but a Negro
    porter. Of course there were quite a few spectators milling around behind us.
    We were trying to clear the area out and get all the civilians out that wasn’t
    Mr. BALL. Why did you go over to the railroad yard?
    Mr. MOONEY. Well, that was-from the echo of the shots, we thought they
    came from that direction.
    Mr. BALL. That would be north and west from where you were standing?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir. To a certain extent-northwest. The way the echo
    sounded, the cracking of the shot. And we wasn’t there many seconds-of course
    I never did look at my watch to see how many seconds it took us to run so many
    hundred yards there, and into the railroad yard. We were there only a few
    seconds until we had orders to cover the Texas Depository Building.
    Mr. BALL. Is that the empty shells you found?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Are they shown there?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
    Mr. MOONEY. All right.
    Mr. BALL But a fairly good sized circle around each shell. That is the way
    they were when you saw them, is that right?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir. I assume that this possibly could have been the flrst
    Mr. Bm. You cannot speculate about that?
    Mr. MOONEY. You cannot speculate about that.
    Mr. BALL. Those were empty shells?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL They were turned over to Captain Fritz?
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir; he was the first ofacer that picked them up, as far
    as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up
    and look at them. As far as I could tell, I couldn’t even tell what caliber
    they were, because I didn’t get down that close to them. They were brass
    cartridges, brass shells.
    Mr. BALL. Is this the position of the cartridges as shown on 510, as you saw
    Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir. That is just about the way they were laying, to the
    best of my knowledge. I do know there was-one was further away, and these
    other two were relatively close together-on this particular area. But these
    cartridges-this one and this one looks like they are further apart than they
    actually was….
    Mr. BALL Which ones?
    Mr. MOONEY. This one and this one.
    Mr. BALL. Now, two cartridges were close together, is that right?
    Mr. MOONEY. The one cartridge here, by the wall facing, is right. And this
    one and this one, they were further away from this one.
    Mr. BALL. WellMr.
    MOONEY. But as to being positive of the exact distance
    Mr. BALL You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when
    you saw them in this picture 510?
    Mr. MOONEY. As far as my knowledge, they are ; pretty close to right.
    Mr. BALL. Well, we will label these cartridges, the empty shells as “A”, “B”,
    and “C.”
    Now, I didn’t quite understand-did you say it was your memory that “A”
    and “B” were not that close together?
    Mr. MOONEY. Just from my memory, it seems that this cartridge ought to
    have been over this way a little further.
    Mr. BALL.. You mean the “B” cartridge should be closer to the “C?”
    Mr. MOONEY. Closer to the “Cl”; yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL Now, I have another picture (changing the thrust of the questioning…)



  36. After this tortuous exchange, which demonstrated that Deputy Mooney did not recognize the positions of the cartridges as seen in CE 510, Mr. Ball came up with the non-sequitur of the year:
    Q: You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510?

    And the witness almost succumbed to this coercion:

    A: As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right…Just from my memory, it seems that this cartridge ought to have been over this way a little further.
    Q: You mean “B” cartridge (see Figure 27) should have been closer to “C?”
    A: Closer to the “C”; yes sir.

    That was the end of the subject. Mr. Ball did not invite Mr. Mooney to mark on the photograph where he thought “B” should have been located. It is noteworthy that the Deputy Sheriff not only corroborated Tom Alyea’s account of Captain Fritz compromising the crime scene, but he also placed two of the three cartridges in the same general area as did Alyea.

    In affidavits for the Warren Commission, Lieutenant Day stated that he and Detective Richard M. Sims picked up the cartridge cases at about 1:20 PM and placed them in an envelope; after Day processed them for fingerprints, Sims took possession of them [22]. One might think that key events of that terrible day would be indelibly impressed in the memories of those involved. Taking possession of the cartridge cases of the bullets assumed to have killed the President of the United States would surely have been a seminal experience. Yet, Detective Sims was vague and uncertain in his Warren Commission testimony [23]:

    Q: Who picked up the hulls?
    A: Well, I assisted Lieutenant Day in picking the hulls up.
    Q: There were three hulls?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: Now, what kind of receptacle did you put them in?
    A: He had an envelope.
    Q: Did he take charge of the hulls there?
    A: I don’t know.
    Q: Did he take them in his possession, I mean?
    A: I don’t remember if he took them in his possession then or not.
    Q: …You didn’t take them in your possession did you?
    A: No sir; I don’t believe I did.
    . . . . . .
    This confused exchange suggests that Mr. Sims was relying less on his memory of the events than on his memory of what he had been told to say. Captain Fritz, although significantly older than Detective Sims, exhibited a better memory in an affidavit [24]:

    After the pictures were made, Detective R.M. Sims of the Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of building, brought the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later turned them over to C.N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau.

    One has to wonder if these were the same casings that Captain Fritz himself had picked up and pocketed.

    The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was examined for its pattern of cartridge-case ejection by Robert Frazier, a firearms expert with the FBI. The tests showed that cartridges were ejected at angles ranging from 68 to 97 degrees [25]). When shown the photographs in Figures 14 and 15, Mr. Frazier concurred, in his Warren Commission testimony, that if the rifle had been fired from that window, the locations of the cartridge cases were consistent with the results of his tests to determine the ejection patterns [26]. If Mr. Frazier had been shown the photograph in Figure 11 and had been told that the rifle trajectory was 45 degrees towards the southwest, I wonder if he would have similarly concurred. It is ironic that the results from Mr. Frazier’s tests indicate that casings ejected from the rifle fired by an assassin in the official “sniper’s nest,” as illustrated in Figure 11, would have struck the east surface of the stacked cartons and not ricocheted between the stacked cartons and the south wall.
    . . . . . . .
    And we have another chain of custody problem here ‘gentlemen’.

  37. Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins, gave descriptions that were more precise than Brennan’s, but which did NOT match Oswald’s appearance. Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch, saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn from the window.
    . . . . . . . .
    Mr. SPECTER. Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were
    you looking then?
    Mr. EUINS. I was still down here, looking up at the building.
    Mr. SPECTER. What did you see in the building?
    Mr. EUINS. I seen a bald spot on this man’s head, trying to look out the
    window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot.
    I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could
    see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he
    just pulled it back in the window.
    Mr. ‘SPECTER. Did you see him pull it back in the window?
    Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
    Mr. SPECTER. And were you still standing at point B?
    Mr. EUINS. Yes.
    Mr. SPECTER. When he pulled it back in the window?
    Mr. EUINS. I was still behind here, yes.
    Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you heard what you described as the
    fourth shot?
    Mr. EUINS. The flrst shot I was standing here.
    Mr. SPECTER. Now you are referring to 366. Put an “L” on 366 where you
    were standing at the first shot.
    Mr. EUINS. Right here.
    (Witness marking.)
    Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot.
    you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in
    there, at this point B.
    Mr. SPECTER. At point B. on 365:’
    Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then
    he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.
    Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he
    fired on that fourth time.
    Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B.
    Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
    Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
    Mr. SPECTER. Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the fourth
    Mr. EUINS. Yes; he just come back like this.
    Mr. SPECTER. Did you watch what he did after that?
    Mr. EUINS. No, sir; because after he had pulled it back in the window, I
    ran this way, and went across the tracks.

    . . . . . .
    Gerald Ford: Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle?

    Arnold Rowland: No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.

    Gerald Ford: I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?

    Arnold Rowland: The west, southwest corner.

    Gerald Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?

    Arnold Rowland: The east, southeast corner.

    Gerald Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?

    Arnold Rowland: On the same floor.

    Gerald Ford: When did you notice him?

    Arnold Rowland: This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle.


  38. Tom Alyea, “Facts and Photos”
    From Connie Kritzberg’s Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, pp. 39-46

    “I was the first newsman into the building and the only newsman to accompany the search team as they went from floor to floor searching for the person who fired the shots. At this time, we did not know the president had been hit. I rushed in with a group of plain clothesmen and a few uniformed officers. . . .
    I [followed] the search team that was on its way to the rear elevator, to start the floor by floor search. We searched every floor, all the way to the roof. The gunman could have still been in the building. Finding nothing, they started back down. After approximately 18 minutes, they were joined by Captain Fritz, who had first gone to Parkland Hospital.

    The barricade on the sixth floor ran parallel to the windows, extending in an “L” shape that ended against the front wall between the first and second twin windows. The height of the stack of boxes was a minimum of 5 ft. I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade. I set my lens focus at the estimated distance from the camera to the floor and held the camera over the top of the barricade and filmed them before anybody went into the enclosure. I could not position my eye to the camera’s view finder to get the shot. After filming the casings with my wide angle lens, from a height of 5 ft., I asked Captain Fritz, who was standing at my side, if I could go behind the barricade and get a close-up shot of the casings. He told me that it would be better if I got my shots from outside the barricade. He then rounded the pile of boxes and entered the enclosure. This was the first time anybody walked between the barricade and the windows.

    Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz’s hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally. The originals by this time were probably in a plastic bag at police headquarters. Why? Probably this was a missing link in the report the police department had to send to the FBI and they had to stage it and the barricade box placement to complete their report and photo records.

    The position of the barricade, while difficult to follow for one who was not there, is important because of the difference in photographs seen today.

    There are four different box positions.

    1) There was one box in the barricade stack that was considerably higher than the others. This box is the one that can be seen in the photos taken from outside the window by Tom Dillard, because it was high enough to catch the sunlight and still be seen from the ground below. It is not to be confused with the second box set at an angle in the window sill, that was used as a brace for the assassin’s rifle.

    2) A portion of this box can also be seen in these same photos taken by Tom Dillard. It shows up in the lower right hand corner of the picture.

    3) Two boxes were stacked on the floor, inside the window, to give arm support to the assassin. The top box was one of the two boxes from which the crime lab lifted palm prints.

    4) The fourth box of importance was on the floor behind the sniper location. Officers also lifted palm prints from this box. It is suspected that the sniper sat on this box while he waited for the motorcade to pass.

    The positioning of boxes 2, 3, and 4 were recorded by the police crime lab. They are the only boxes involved in the crime scene.

    The actual positioning of the barricade was never photographed by the police. It s actual positioning is only on my movie footage, which was taken before the police started dismantling the arrangement.

    We all looked over the barricade to see if the half open window with three boxes piled to form a shooting rest for a gunman. One box was actually on the window sill, tilted at an angle. There was a reason for this that I cover in my JFK Facts newsletter. The shooting location consists of two windows set together to form one single window.

    (The police photo showing the shell casings laying next to the brick wall was staged later by crime lab people who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later.) . . .

    Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn’t even close. I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin’s lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . . .”



  39. “MM doesn’t respond to my posts so would somebody inquire of him why the plotters decided to shoot Kennedy from the front while framing their patsy as shooting from the rear..”~Dale H. Hayes, Jr.
    . . . . . .
    Since Dale H. Hayes, Jr. obviously never pays any attention to my responses, and would realize I did answer this question when originally asked, I will respond this ONE MORE time. So he had better put in under his hat and leave it there.

    > Kennedy was killed in an ambush of triangulated gunfire involving at least three and probably five shooting positions. There were shooters from the front and rear and both sides in a matrix. There is evidence of a shooter from the window on the other side of the TSBD from the “Oswald window” on the fifth rather than 6th floor. There were shooters from the Daltex building both on the roof, and a lower sniper on a fire escape latter. So there WERE shooters from the rear. All such events are based on contingency, there are always glitches in the best laid plans. There were shooters from the grassy knoll area to the right of the limousine and shooters from the front nearer the triple overpass (Elm), one on the northwest side at the and one at the southwest side just above Commerce Street. it was the sniper at the last position that made the head shot. Both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind and Connally from the side as well. JFK in the back, likely from the shooter on the fire escape on the Daltex Bldg due to the angle of entry. The shooter on the fifth floor of the TSBD likely hit Connally in the back/armpit. A shooter from the grassy knoll likely hit Connally in his right wrist.
    Finally the first hit to Kennedy was in the throat by a flechette fired from within an open umbrella from the curb just to the right of the FWY sign on Elm, when the limo was about 30 to 40 feet from that spot. This flechette was tipped with shellfish toxin, which paralyzes the victim.
    “If the sixth floor window was staged, why were the hulls subsequently moved along with the boxes in the window?”~Hayes
    . . . . . .
    > Obviously the staging of the “snipers nest” was time sensitive and had to be staged just before the motorcade arrived. It was likely set up by one or two employees of the TSBD. The subsequent discovery may not have been successfully carried out by the party or parties meant to find the snipers nest. At this point after the shots were fired and the limo had left the scene, the ensuing confusion and panic would necessitate playing it by the ear as things developed. Fritz picking up the bullet hulls and pocketing them may have very well been simple stupidity. There may have been other motives; perhaps it was realized that more hits had been scored than planned and there was to be an attempt to add a shell to the “nest” scene. More than likely just allowing the scene to be overrun by the scores of people that ended up there was enough to satisfy the intent to provide a confusion of contradictory evidence that would benefit the planners.
    . . . . .
    These are both plausible scenarios in answer to the questions posed. These answers attend to the facts of the case as I have come to understand them during more than 40 years of study and research.

    I will add that I wouldn’t and won’t expect a die hard apologist/defender of the Warren Report to accept or even consider any scenario that confronts their ingrained biases. They asked, I answered. I no longer give a damn what these indoctrinated androids think.


  40. Next page:
    HSCA Executive Session of 09 Mar 1977 B (Duplicate)
    …..Mr. Sprague. …..Jumping ahead a little bit — and Mr. Tanenbaum will get into it —
    …We have just come across a memorandum by J. Edgar Hoover where in his memorandum to the Secret Service he is advising the Secret Service that FBI agents listened to that tape from Mexico City and those FBI agents who were familiar with Oswalds voice — he was under arrest at the time — said that the voice on the tape is not Oswald….
    HSCA Interview of David Atlee Phillips, Saturday, 27 Nov. 1976

    On this page, included in the same David Atlee Phillips, 27 Nov. 1976 testimony transcript
    …Mr. Phillips. You asked me last night in the subpoena to bring any documents that I have and so forth.

    As the executive session of 27 Nov. 1976 is about to wrap up….
    ….from the Committee, and I take it that Mr. Thone agrees with me on this,
    that matters discussed in Executive Session should not be discussed.
    And you will consider yourself as remaining under the subpoena until further notice.
    Is their anything further that we need? I want to thank you, Mr. Phillips, and I thank all of
    you members of the staff….

    Evening Session March 9, 1977

    ….Mr. Thone. Mr. Sprague, I am now thoroughly confused. Mr. Preyer and I spent a Saturday
    taking testi mony from Phillips.

    Next page:
    HSCA Executive Session of 09 Mar 1977 B (Duplicate)
    …..Mr. Sprague. …..Jumping ahead a little bit — and Mr. Tanenbaum will get into it —
    …We have just come across a memorandum by J. Edgar Hoover where in his memorandum to the Secret Service he is
    advising the Secret Service that FBI agents listened to that tape from Mexico City and those FBI agents who were
    familiar with Oswalds voice — he was under arrest at the time — said that the voice on the tape is not Oswald….

  41. Gordon Norvel

    Ed Butler and INCA: Part I
    Social Origins of Anticommunism

    The first item of interest concerning INCA is an article by Arthur E. Carpenter, “Social Origins of Anticommunism: The Information Council of the Americas” (Louisiana History, Spring, 1989, Vol. XXX No. 2; hereafter cited as “Carpenter”). This article provides a reasonable summary of the history of INCA and includes references to a number of primary sources such as the papers of Dr. Alton Ochsner in the Historic New Orleans Collection.

    The Forgotten Army

    Ed Butler issued a call to arms to his fellow public relations professionals in an article entitled “The Forgotten Army” in the Public Relations Journal for June 1960. His plans for an Information Council of America are not specifically targeted at Latin America as INCA would be, but Butler has already developed some of the specialized vocabulary which would distinguish his later pronouncements. For example, the term “Brainwar”, which he uses to describe the propaganda interplay between the East and the West. Butler proposed that his non-profit Council “would serve as a consultant to the State Department, USIA, CIA, free institutions abroad, and the various legislative committees dealing with trade, information, foreign aid and the like (p12).

    Butler is described as having earned commendations from the Secretary of the Army for his work with the U.S. Army Management School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (p12). He had owned a public relations firm in Alexandria, Virginia, before becoming an account executive with Brown, Friedman & Co. in New Orleans (ibid).

    The Free Voice of Latin America

    Ed Butler’s first move on the “Brainwar” front was with an abortive enterprise known as the Free Voice of Latin America. An article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune (NOTP, hereafter) announced the naming of Calixto Garcia Iniquez, “grandson of a hero in Cuba’s revolt against Spain”, as president (NOTP; January 5, 1961; Section 1, p2). The Free Voice operated out of the International Trade Mart Building (ibid). Among those named as members of the executive advisory committee are Richard G. Drown, an area director for Radio Free Europe; Dean Antonio B. Papale of Loyola Law School; city council president and future mayor, Victor H. Schiro; Joseph D’Antoni, president of the Standard Fruit Company; and Peter C. White, co-chairman of the New Orleans Cold War Seminar, which will be discussed later in another context (ibid). Ed Butler served as executive director (NOTP; June 1, 1961; Section 4, p 7). During the Garrison probe, William Wayne Dalzell would describe himself as having “founded … [the] Free Voice of Latin America and a group known as Friends of Democratic Cuba” (NOTP; November 3, 1967; Section 1, p1).

    The Free Voice would prove to be a short-lived project. Butler resigned in February, 1961 (Carpenter; p 121). Later, Butler would explain the Free Voice had failed “because of differences of opinion among various groups within the organization” (NOTP; June 1, 1961).

    Betty Parrot

    During 1967, Andrew J. Sciambra of Jim Garrison’s staff would file two memorandums based on information obtained from Betty Parrot, who “had an extremely close relationship with BILL DALZELL” (Memoranda dated April 1, and December 18, 1967). Parrott revealed that Ed Butler and William Dalzell were on opposite sides of the Free Voice faction fights, with Butler being “responsible for the dismissal of DALZELL” (Dec 18). Butler is described as being “always with GUY BANISTER and JACK MARTIN.” Martin is said to have been trying to sell some of Banister’s files at some point (ibid).

    Parrot also indicated that a “Logan, who was … a member of the CIA” and Regis Kennedy of the FBI were members of the Friends of Democratic Cuba (April 1). Logan may be indentical to a person Jack Martin referred to as “Lloyd Ray”. Page 220 of Harold Weisberg’s “Oswald in New Orleans” states that Regis Kennedy contacted a “Betty Parent” in his search for Clay Bertrand immediately after the assassination.

    Parrot told Sciambra that Regis Kennedy had “confirmed to her” that Clay Shaw was a former CIA agent who had done work in Italy over a period of five years (April 1). Another allegation is that Regis Kennedy and Eugene C. Davis were involved in blackmailing homosexuals using information obtained by Kennedy and “some New York agents” (Dec 18). Also of interest is Parrott’s recollections of a Joseph Moore conected withe the Friends (ibid; p 1). Moore is a name connected the the well publicized Bolton Ford incident of January, 1961.

    Rancier Blaise Ehlinger

    Another person who connects Butler with the Friends of Democratic Cuba is Rancier Blaise Ehlinger. Ehlinger was interviewed on March 30, 1967 by Louis Ivon, Jim Alcock, and Bill Gurvich (Transcript; March 30, 1967). Ehlinger was an associate of Gordon Novel and was interviewed because of his involvement as a participant in the Schlumberger bunker ‘burglary’. Ehlinger indentifies Butler as “my cousin”. He states that Butler was present when Gordon Novel was introduced to Sergio Arcacha Smith. Novel was to have been involved in a fund raising telethon. Ehlinger reports that Novel also spoke of Regis Kennedy.

    William Dalzell Listed as CIA Domestic Contact Service Contact

    A CIA document, dated Oct 19, 1967, and entitled “Alphabetic Key to Chart of Garrison Case”, lists 100 persons connected in some fashion to the Garrison investigation. The following is from the entry for DALZELL, William Wayne: “One of the incorporators of Friends of Democratic Cuba. Had three contacts with DCS New Orleans, November 1960 and January-February 1961” (p 5). In other words, Dalzell was in contact with the CIA during the period the Free Voice was in operation.


  42. The Probe Interview: Bob Tanenbaum

    Robert K. Tanenbaum was chosen by Richard Sprague to be the House Select Committee’s first Deputy Counsel in charge of the John Kennedy murder investigation. Last year he wrote a fictionalized account of that experience entitled Corruption of Blood.The book was released as a mass market paperback this year in a million copy print run, the first highly successful release in the field since Case Closed. He was recently the keynote speaker at the 1995 COPA Conference in Washington.

    Bob attained his law degree at UC Berkeley’s distinguished Boalt Hall in 1968. In New York he served under legendary DA Frank Hogan where he rose to Deputy Chief of the Homicide Bureau, garnering an unbeatable record: he never lost a murder case.

    Bob felt morally resigned to leave the HSCA after Sprague’s forced departure. He has stated, “at that time I had a three year old daughter. . .and I didn’t want her to read about American history that I knew to be absolutely false, that her father may have participated in.”

    In Los Angeles, he has had a multi-faceted career. Although he is still in private practice, he recently served as Mayor of Beverly Hills. He has also written several books based on his legal career. Two of them were non-fiction, The Piano Teacher and Badge of the Assassin. The latter became a film starring James Woods and includes two detectives Tanenbaum used on the HSCA: Cliff Fenton and L. J. Delsa. Bob has written six fictional books based on his Butch Karp character, a New York City Assistant District Attorney. Bob kindly granted Probe’s Jim DiEugenio an interview at his home in Beverly Hills, which he shares with his wife of 29 years and two children. The following are only excerpts from a candid 85 minute talk that can be obtained in the current catalog.


  43. Jeff Morley talking about his new JFK book with WIOD radio talk show host Fernand Amandi in Miami on Friday morning at 11 am ET.
    You can call in with questions or comments at 866-610-6397. You can listen live anywhere on the planet on wiod.com or by downloading the iheartradio mobile app.

    I will be joined by Brian Latell, a retired CIA Cuba analyst known for his somewhat conspiratorial analysis of the JFK story. This going to be a very interesting show.

    http://media.ccomrcdn.com/media/station_content/1175/2016/06/mp3 /default/jefferson_morley_and_brian_lat_0_1466172043.mp3

    Brian Latell claims that the Warren Commission had no idea that Castro was involved in the assassination of JFK, when in fact the whole reason Warren agreed to taking the position of head of the commission because it could lead back to Castro and the Soviets, and if this were revealed the American people would demand that the US nuke the USSR and millions of Americans would parish in such a an event.

    In other words Latell is redirecting the listeners to the very first deception invented by LBJ and those who backed him; the perpetrators of the coup d’etat.

    Which leads to the perennial question, does one ever really retire from CIA?

  44. After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.


    How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up


    In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

    Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services-from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

    To understand the role of most journalist‑operatives, it is necessary to dismiss some myths about undercover work for American intelligence services. Few American agents are “spies” in the popularly accepted sense of the term. “Spying” – the acquisition of secrets from a foreign government-is almost always done by foreign nationals who have been recruited by the CIA and are under CIA control in their own countries. Thus the primary role of an American working undercover abroad is often to aid in the recruitment and “handling” of foreign nationals who are channels of secret information reaching American intelligence.

    Many journalists were used by the CIA to assist in this process and they had the reputation of being among the best in the business. The peculiar nature of the job of the foreign correspondent is ideal for such work: he is accorded unusual access by his host country, permitted to travel in areas often off‑limits to other Americans, spends much of his time cultivating sources in governments, academic institutions, the military establishment and the scientific communities. He has the opportunity to form long‑term personal relationships with sources and-perhaps more than any other category of American operative-is in a position to make correct judgments about the susceptibility and availability of foreign nationals for recruitment as spies.

    “After a foreigner is recruited, a case officer often has to stay in the background,” explained a CIA official. “So you use a journalist to carry messages to and from both parties”

    Journalists in the field generally took their assignments in the same manner as any other undercover operative. If, for instance, a journalist was based in Austria, he ordinarily would be under the general direction of the Vienna station chief and report to a case officer. Some, particularly roving correspondents or U.S.‑based reporters who made frequent trips abroad, reported directly to CIA officials in Langley, Virginia.

    The tasks they performed sometimes consisted of little more than serving as “eyes and ears” for the CIA; reporting on what they had seen or overheard in an Eastern European factory, at a diplomatic reception in Bonn, on the perimeter of a military base in Portugal. On other occasions, their assignments were more complex: planting subtly concocted pieces of misinformation; hosting parties or receptions designed to bring together American agents and foreign spies; serving up “black” propaganda to leading foreign journalists at lunch or dinner; providing their hotel rooms or bureau offices as “drops” for highly sensitive information moving to and from foreign agents; conveying instructions and dollars to CIA controlled members of foreign governments.

    Often the CIA’s relationship with a journalist might begin informally with a lunch, a drink, a casual exchange of information. An Agency official might then offer a favor-for example, a trip to a country difficult to reach; in return, he would seek nothing more than the opportunity to debrief the reporter afterward. A few more lunches, a few more favors, and only then might there be a mention of a formal arrangement – “That came later,” said a CIA official, “after you had the journalist on a string.”

    Another official described a typical example of the way accredited journalists (either paid or unpaid by the CIA) might be used by the Agency: “In return for our giving them information, we’d ask them to do things that fit their roles as journalists but that they wouldn’t have thought of unless we put it in their minds. For instance, a reporter in Vienna would say to our man, `I met an interesting second secretary at the Czech Embassy.’ We’d say, `Can you get to know him? And after you get to know him, can you assess him? And then, can you put him in touch with us-would you mind us using your apartment?”`

    Formal recruitment of reporters was generally handled at high levels-after the journalist had undergone a thorough background check. The actual approach might even be made by a deputy director or division chief. On some occasions, no discussion would he entered into until the journalist had signed a pledge of secrecy.

    “The secrecy agreement was the sort of ritual that got you into the tabernacle,” said a former assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence. “After that you had to play by the rules.” David Attlee Phillips, former Western Hemisphere chief of clandestine services and a former journalist himself, estimated in an interview that at least 200 journalists signed secrecy agreements or employment contracts with the Agency in the past twenty‑five years. Phillips, who owned a small English‑language newspaper in Santiago, Chile, when he was recruited by the CIA in 1950, described the approach: “Somebody from the Agency says, ‘I want you to help me. 1 know you are a true‑blue American, but I want you to sign a piece of paper before I tell you what it’s about.’ I didn’t hesitate to sign, and a lot of newsmen didn’t hesitate over the next twenty years.”

    “One of the things we always had going for us in terms of enticing reporters,” observed a CIA official who coordinated some of the arrangements with journalists, “was that we could make them look better with their home offices. A foreign correspondent with ties to the Company [the CIA] stood a much better chance than his competitors of getting the good stories.”

    Within the CIA, journalist‑operatives were accorded elite status, a consequence of the common experience journalists shared with high‑level CIA officials. Many had gone to the same schools as their CIA handlers, moved in the same circles, shared fashionably liberal, anti‑Communist political values, and were part of the same “old boy” network that constituted something of an establishment elite in the media, politics and academia of postwar America. The most valued of these lent themselves for reasons of national service, not money.

    The Agency’s use of journalists in undercover operations has been most extensive in Western Europe (“That was the big focus, where the threat was,” said one CIA official), Latin America and the Far East. In the 1950s and 1960s journalists were used as intermediaries—spotting, paying, passing instructions—to members of the Christian Democratic party in Italy and the Social Democrats in Germany, both of which covertly received millions of dollars from the CIA. During those years “we had journalists all over Berlin and Vienna just to keep track of who the hell was coming in from the East and what they were up to,” explained a CIA official.

    In the Sixties, reporters were used extensively in the CIA offensive against Salvador Allende in Chile; they provided funds to Allende’s opponents and wrote anti‑Allende propaganda for CIA proprietary publications that were distributed in Chile. (CIA officials insist that they make no attempt to influence the content of American newspapers, but some fallout is inevitable: during the Chilean offensive, CIA‑generated black propaganda transmitted on the wire service out of Santiago often turned up in American publications.)

    According to CIA officials, the Agency has been particularly sparing in its use of journalist agents in Eastern Europe on grounds that exposure might result in diplomatic sanctions against the United States or in permanent prohibitions against American correspondents serving in some countries. The same officials claim that their use of journalists in the Soviet Union has been even more limited, but they remain extremely guarded in discussing the subject. They are insistent, however, in maintaining that the Moscow correspondents of major news organizations have not been “tasked” or controlled by the Agency.

    The Soviets, according to CIA officials, have consistently raised false charges of CIA affiliation against individual American reporters as part of a continuing diplomatic game that often follows the ups and downs of Soviet‑American relations. The latest such charge by the Russians—against Christopher Wren of the New York Times and Alfred Friendly Jr., formerly of Newsweek, has no basis in fact, they insist.

    CIA officials acknowledge, however, that such charges will persist as long as the CIA continues to use journalistic cover and maintain covert affiliations with individuals in the profession. But even an absolute prohibition against Agency use of journalists would not free reporters from suspicion, according to many Agency officials. “Look at the Peace Corps,” said one source. “We have had no affiliation there and they [foreign governments] still throw them out”


  45. Lasting Questions about the Murder of President Kennedy
    Rex Bradford
    November 2001
    . . . . .
    In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Peter Dale Scott traces the connection between many individuals in these seemingly disparate groups.

    The country was a little more sophisticated in the 1970s, after Watergate and the exposes of the Rockefeler Commission, Pike Committee and Church Committee. The House Select Committee on Assassinations seemed a promising avenue to the truth for many, for a moment at least. But the fate of Richard Sprague, the original lead investigator for the Committee, is instructive. Sprague, a tough Philadelphia DA famous for the Yablonski case among others, was the original Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Within the first few months, he and his team began chasing the “Oswald in Mexico City” story very hard. They deposed David Phillips, head of Covert Operations in the CIA station there. They interviewed the CIA translators who transcribed the “Oswald” tapes. Refusing to sign secrecy oaths, Sprague took on the CIA and seemed determine to get to the bottom of the Mexico affair, as recently declassified HSCA records reveal. Then a funny thing happened. Stories in the press began questioning Sprague’s ethics in some of his cases as District Attorney. Then, HSCA Chairman Henry Gonzalez suddenly started attacking Sprague publicly, accusing him of misconduct and mismanagement, disputing his budget, accusing him of not following the Committee’s directions, etc. After a bit of this, Gonzalez fired Sprague. Stunned, the other Committee members unanimously supported Sprague, telling him not to accept the dismissal. Henry Gonzalez ended up resigning, but the damage was done. In the face of a Congress unwilling to continue funding the HSCA with this “renegade” prosecutor at the helm, Sprague resigned. …

    Also see:


  46. THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled
    The House Select Committee On Assassinations

    In the fall of 1976, with Downing as chairman, the HSCA selected Richard A. Sprague, from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, to be chief counsel. Sprague hired four professional investigators and criminal lawyers from New York City. They were very good and completely independent of the CIA and FBI, having been trained by one of the best professionals in the business, D.A. Frank Hogan of New York.

    Sprague and his JFK team, headed by Bob Tanenbaum, attorney, and Cliff Fenton, chief detective, were going after the real assassins and their bosses, whether this led them to the CIA or FBI or anywhere else. Sprague had already made it clear to the HSCA that he would investigate CIA involvement, and subpoena CIA people, documents and other information, whether classified or not. He had also had meetings with several researchers, including the author, and made it known privately that he was going to use the talent and knowledge of every reliable researcher on a consulting basis. He had contacted Jim Garrison in New Orleans and informed him he would be following up on all of his information and leads. He had initiated an investigation of the CIA activities in Mexico City connected with the JFK assassination, including information supplied to Sprague by the author.[3]

    R.A. Sprague and Tanenbaum were aware of the CIA connections of the individuals involved in the JFK assassination in Dealey Plaza, in Mexico City, in New Orleans and in the Florida Keys. They had, in November 1976, exposed the entire HSCA staff to all of the photographic evidence showing these people in Dealey Plaza and elsewhere. They were aware of the assassination planning meetings held by CIA people in Mexico City and knew who the higher level conspirators were. They had initiated searches for the real assassins; Frenchy, William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Jack Lawrence, Fred Lee Crisman, Jim Braden, Jim Hicks, et al. They were planning to interview CIA contract agents, Richard Case Nagell, Harry Dean, Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope and Guy Gabaldin. Cliff Fenton had been appointed head of a team of investigators to follow up on the New Orleans part of the conspiracy which had included CIA agents and people; Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Gordon Novel and others. They were going to contact people who had attended assassination planning meetings in New Orleans.

    From the photographic evidence surrounding the sixth floor window, as well as the grassy knoll, Sprague, Tanenbaum and most of the staff knew Oswald had not fired any shots, knew no shots came from the sixth floor window, and knew there had been shots from the Dal Tex Building and the knoll. They knew the single bullet theory was not true, and knew there had been a well-planned crossfire in Dealey Plaza. They were not planning to waste a lot of time reviewing and rehashing the Dealey Plaza evidence, except as it might lead to the real assassins.

    They had set up an investigation in Florida and the Keys, of the evidence and leads developed in 1967 by Garrison. Gaeton Fonzi was in charge of that part of Sprague’s team. They were going to check out the people in the CIA that had been running and funding the No Name Key group and other Anti-Castro groups. Seymour, Santana, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Jerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, Frenchy and Cubans Rolando Masferrer and Carlos Prio Socarras were to be found and interrogated.
    One important result of this drastic change of investigative environment compared to that existing under Richard A. Sprague, was to draw the attention of the public during the hearings away from the evidence and the witnesses pointing to the real assassins, and to the fact that Oswald was framed and did not fire any shots. It thus provided an additional shield for the CIA and in effect, completed the cover-up.


    Now, in the spring of 1985, the CIA appears to have under control the final cover-up engineered by Robert Blakey with the support of a few murders of key witnesses and the existence of the insidious, illegal, nondisclosure agreement silencing the HSCA staff, committee members, and consultants. The situation for the American public appears to be hopeless. The CIA effectively controlled all three branches of government when the chips were down, and have had no problems controlling the fourth estate, the media, or the independent researchers. By what means could the American public combat this awesome power? It is hard to see that there is any means available. And we have now reached and passed 1984. Would an election of Edward Kennedy to the presidency in 1988 change anything? If he lived through a presidency following an election campaign, it probably would. Most Americans react to that by saying, “he would be assassinated.” Somehow they have received the messages about what has gone wrong with the United States.

    1985: The House Select Committee (2)

    Chapter 17

    THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled
    The House Select Committee On Assassinations

    The Situation in 1976
    The CIA’s problem
    How The CIA Did It
    The Nondisclosure Agreement
    Examples of CIA-Control
    Garrison Evidence and Witnesses Example
    Frenchy Example
    Nagell, Dean, Novel, and Augustinovich
    The Umbrella Man
    Goal Number Eight


    The final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), issued in 1979, concluded that a conspiracy existed in the assassination of President Kennedy. This news should have delighted hundreds of researchers who had disagreed with the no-conspiracy finding of the Warren Commission. The fact that it did not, is due to the HSCA conspiracy being a simple one, with Lee Harvey Oswald still firing all but one of the shots from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The existence of another shooter and another shot, from the grassy knoll, was “proved” by the HSCA, based primarily on acoustical evidence presented in the very last month of their public hearings. Dr. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, chief counsel and report editor for the HSCA, co-authored, in 1981, a book, The Plot to Kill the President, following the publication of the HSCA’s final report. The book claimed that the other shooter and Oswald were part of a Mafia plot to kill JFK.

    To over simplify the current (1985) situation, most JFK researchers feel that the American public had been deceived once again. The HSCA reaffirmed all but one of the Warren Commission’s findings, including even the famed single bullet theory. The simplified conspiracy finding is now subject to review by the Justice Department and the FBI because it is based on very questionable acoustical evidence. Justice commissioned the so-called Ramsey Panel[1] to review this evidence, in 1981, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. It found no evidence from the acoustics that a grassy knoll shot was fired. So, we are back to no-conspiracy and Oswald being the lone assassin. And even if there was a conspiracy, Blakey claims it involved the Mafia and not the CIA. The HSCA report and all of its volumes of evidence omitting any reference to CIA involvement, concluded that the CIA was not involved, and did not reveal any evidence that the HSCA staff had collected showing that CIA people murdered JFK, and that the CIA has been covering up that fact ever since.

    Any followers of CIA activities connected with the JFK assassination, since 1963, must ask the question, how did they do it? How did the CIA turn things completely around from the 1976 days when Henry Gonzalez, Thomas Downing, Richard A. Sprague, Robert Tanenbaum, Cliff Fenton and others were pursuing the truth about the assassination, to essentially the same status as when the Warren Commission finished its work? How did they produce the final cover-up? The answer is that the CIA controlled the HSCA and its investigation and findings from the early part of 1977, forward. The methods they used were as clever and devious as any they had used previously to control the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the Garrison Investigation, the Schweiker/Hart Committee[2] and the efforts of independent researchers.

    The Situation in 1976

    In 1976, Henry Gonzalez, member of the House from Texas, and Thomas Downing from Virginia, were both convinced there was a massive conspiracy in the JFK assassination. They introduced a joint bill in the House which resulted in the formation of the HSCA and an investigation of the JFK and King assassinations. Gonzalez believed there were at least four conspiracies in the assassinations of JFK, MLK, Robert Kennedy and in the attempted assassination of George Wallace. He introduced an original bill to have the House investigate all four and the cover-ups and links among them. Downing was primarily interested in the JFK case and his original bill dealt only with that conspiracy. Mark Lane and his committee members and supporters around the country joined forces with Coretta King and the Black Caucus in the House to pressure Congressmen and Tip O’Neill to investigate the King and John Kennedy assassinations. The net result was a merging of the Gonzalez and Downing bills into a Final HSCA bill dealing with only two of the cases.

    In the fall of 1976, with Downing as chairman, the HSCA selected Richard A. Sprague, from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, to be chief counsel. Sprague hired four professional investigators and criminal lawyers from New York City. They were very good and completely independent of the CIA and FBI, having been trained by one of the best professionals in the business, D.A. Frank Hogan of New York.

    Sprague and his JFK team, headed by Bob Tanenbaum, attorney, and Cliff Fenton, chief detective, were going after the real assassins and their bosses, whether this led them to the CIA or FBI or anywhere else. Sprague had already made it clear to the HSCA that he would investigate CIA involvement, and subpoena CIA people, documents and other information, whether classified or not. He had also had meetings with several researchers, including the author, and made it known privately that he was going to use the talent and knowledge of every reliable researcher on a consulting basis. He had contacted Jim Garrison in New Orleans and informed him he would be following up on all of his information and leads. He had initiated an investigation of the CIA activities in Mexico City connected with the JFK assassination, including information supplied to Sprague by the author.[3]

    R.A. Sprague and Tanenbaum were aware of the CIA connections of the individuals involved in the JFK assassination in Dealey Plaza, in Mexico City, in New Orleans and in the Florida Keys. They had, in November 1976, exposed the entire HSCA staff to all of the photographic evidence showing these people in Dealey Plaza and elsewhere. They were aware of the assassination planning meetings held by CIA people in Mexico City and knew who the higher level conspirators were. They had initiated searches for the real assassins; Frenchy, William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Jack Lawrence, Fred Lee Crisman, Jim Braden, Jim Hicks, et al. They were planning to interview CIA contract agents, Richard Case Nagell, Harry Dean, Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope and Guy Gabaldin. Cliff Fenton had been appointed head of a team of investigators to follow up on the New Orleans part of the conspiracy which had included CIA agents and people; Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Gordon Novel and others. They were going to contact people who had attended assassination planning meetings in New Orleans.

    From the photographic evidence surrounding the sixth floor window, as well as the grassy knoll, Sprague, Tanenbaum and most of the staff knew Oswald had not fired any shots, knew no shots came from the sixth floor window, and knew there had been shots from the Dal Tex Building and the knoll. They knew the single bullet theory was not true, and knew there had been a well-planned crossfire in Dealey Plaza. They were not planning to waste a lot of time reviewing and rehashing the Dealey Plaza evidence, except as it might lead to the real assassins.

    They had set up an investigation in Florida and the Keys, of the evidence and leads developed in 1967 by Garrison. Gaeton Fonzi was in charge of that part of Sprague’s team. They were going to check out the people in the CIA that had been running and funding the No Name Key group and other Anti-Castro groups. Seymour, Santana, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Jerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, Frenchy and Cubans Rolando Masferrer and Carlos Prio Socarras were to be found and interrogated.

    Tanenbaum and his research team had seen the photo collection of Dick Billings from Life Magazine which was, by 1976, deposited in the Georgetown University Library’s JFK assassination collection. The No Name Key people and others showing up in Garrison’s investigation appeared in these photos with high level CIA agents.

    In 1977, Henry Gonzalez, who was far more supportive of a CIA conspiracy idea than Tom Downing, was to become chairman of the HSCA. Downing did not run for re-election in 1976 and was retiring. At that point, December 1976, Gonzalez and Sprague were of the same mind and getting along fine. Researchers were very pleased with the way things were going and believed Sprague would expose the CIA’s involvement in the JFK cover up.

    The CIA’s problem

    Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can easily be seen that the CIA was up against much more serious opposition than it ever had been before in the JFK murder and cover-up. They had ruined Jim Garrison’s reputation and curtailed his investigation by various dirty trick means. They had been in solid control of the Warren Commission by the simple expedient of having four of the Commissioners belonging to them; Dulles, Ford, McCloy and Russell. They were also able to kill enough people who knew the truth, to slow down any truth-seeking that might have taken place. They also hid documents, destroyed and altered evidence, lied about other evidence, and bald facedly (Dulles) admitted that they wouldn’t tell the President or the Commission if Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent (which he had been). In the Rockefeller Commission situation they were in complete control of that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission’s findings. And in the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could do.

    But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA’s role in the murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what they had to do:
    > Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.

    > Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.

    > Get rid of Sprague’s key men or keep them away from CIA evidence or keep them quiet.

    > Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation.

    > Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who could be fooled.

    > Cut off all Sprague’s investigations of CIA people. Make sure none of the people were found or bury any testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA people who might talk.

    > Keep the committee members from knowing what was happening and segregate the investigation from them.

    > Create a new investigative environment whose purpose would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach.

    > Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep any of them from revealing what they already knew about CIA involvement.

    > Control committee consultants in the same way, and staff members who might leave or who might be fired.

    > Continue to control the media in such a way as to reinforce all of the above.

    > Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency situations if necessary.

    The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those they had used before, although they did continue with murders of potential HSCA witnesses and with media control.



  47. The Last Investigation
    By Gaeton Fonzi

    The title of my book, “The Last Investigation,” was meant to convey an element of cynicism
    and more than a touch of irony. It referred to the just-completed inquiry into JFK’s murder by the
    U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations. I worked for the Committee for almost two
    years as a staff investigator, and later as an investigative team leader. Prior, I had been an
    investigator on the staff of U.S. Sen. Richard Schweiker, who headed a JFK assassination
    subcommittee of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
    How “The Last Investigation” got published in South Florida, in Gold Coast magazine, and how I
    became an official investigator for the U.S. Government, parallels the evolvement of interest in
    the Kennedy assassination by two magazine journalists out of Philadelphia: myself and Bernard
    McCormick, my former Gold Coast partner and now editor and publisher.
    Being in Philadelphia was the key because it was home of two individuals of pivotal importance
    in the history of Kennedy assassination research. Arlen Specter and Vince Salandria. Specter, at
    this writing running for his fifth term as U.S. senator, then a young and ambitious assistant district
    attorney, became a junior counsel on the Warren Commission and is credited with authoring the
    now fabled “single bullet theory” – the contention critical to the Commission’s conclusion that a
    lone gunman killed JFK. Vince Salandria was a little-known school board lawyer who developed
    an intense suspicion about the workings of the Warren Commission long before it issued its
    report. He didn’t like the secret meetings or the rumors it leaked about designating “a lone nut”
    named Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin who reportedly killed to gain attention, yet kept
    insisting he was innocent and “a patsy.”
    McCormick and I were working for Philadelphia magazine at the time and heard about a
    wild-eyed young lawyer giving talks to civic groups and writing pieces in local legal journals
    contending that the Single Bullet Theory was hogwash and that the Warren Commission Report
    was basically a fraud the U.S. government was fostering on the American people. We thought
    Salandria was likely some kind of lone nut.
    But when McCormick and I met Salandria, a small fellow, soft-spoken and intensely earnest, we
    were stunned that he could support his sensational assertions with the Warren Commission’s own
    evidence. Salandria gave me a copy of the Commission’s thick report, as well as its 26 volumes
    of accompanying evidence. McCormick and I, interrupting our regular summer assignment of
    evaluating the latest flock of classless beach birds at Wildwood by the Sea, studied the report. It
    quickly became apparent that Salandria’s claims might be valid. There were blatant contradictions
    between the Commission’s conclusions and the evidence in key areas. Not gray or minor
    differences, but stark black and white discrepancies.

    I couldn’t believe the prestigious members of the Warren Commission would permit so many
    obvious misrepresentations of facts. Why hadn’t the national news media jumped on this story? I
    didn’t realize then that even the big media boys had screwed up, lured and then trapped into a
    defensive position on the JFK murder that would last for years and still exists to this day. The
    Commission had cleverly withheld release of its 26 volumes of evidence until more than two
    months after the release of its report. A lengthy The New York Times editorial, for instance,
    lavishly endorsed the Report’s conclusions without having available any supporting or
    contradicting evidence.
    At any rate, at the time I thought Arlen Specter would clear it all up for me. A number of
    reporters had interviewed Specter when he had returned from Washington and had asked him
    about the report. Specter, a former Yale Law Debating Team captain, exuded confidence and
    authority in claiming that the Warren Commission did the most thorough investigation in the
    history of mankind. He exuberantly defended the report’s lone gunman conclusion and the “single
    bullet theory.” Yet from their questions it was obvious that few reporters, if any, had even read the
    888-page Commission Report and likely not one had even touched the 26 volumes of evidence. I
    would be the first journalist to confront Specter with the details.
    I had known and admired Specter as a young assistant DA, had even worked with him on a
    story about his courageous battle with the corrupt local Teamsters union. He was not only
    exceptionally articulate, but always forthright and candid. But that day in Philadelphia and in the
    days of follow-up interviews, I found another Arlen Specter. He hemmed and hawed and
    mumbled in his attempt to explain critical points, he was evasive and anything but forthright,
    often stammeringly frustrated in his inability to provide rationale explanations.
    I remember asking Specter one very critical question about the bullet holes in the back of
    Kennedy’s jacket and shirt. The “single bullet theory” hinged on, among other factors, the bullet
    emerging from Kennedy’s throat and tumbling on to do all the damage to Governor John
    Connally’s chest, wrist and thigh. And yet here, I showed Specter, is a photo from the volumes of
    evidence revealing that Kennedy’s jacket and shirt had bullet holes at least six inches down his
    back and well below where the bullet emerged from his throat. If Oswald was supposedly firing
    from behind and above the President, wouldn’t the entrance wound, I asked Specter, be above the
    exit wound? Specter sputtered and backed, danced around a few impossible possibilities, finally
    got up from his desk and went behind me to use me as a model to indicate that maybe Kennedy’s
    jacket might have hunched up. He raised my arm high to pull up my jacket. “See,” he said, “he
    was waving.” Yes, but not that much, I said, showing him another photo from the volumes of
    evidence. Besides, I asked, what about his form-fitting custom shirt? “Same thing,” said Specter.
    And then realizing that was an inadequate explanation, he sat down at his desk, shook his head
    and softly said, “I don’t remember.”
    Didn’t remember a defining issue about a critical piece of evidence in the most important murder
    case in recent American history? I came away from my two long sessions with Arlen Specter
    numb with disbelief. He had not eased my concerns about the Warren Commission Report, he had
    magnified them….


    • “The Gold Coast article and subsequently the book, documented the frustrations and planted
      obstructions blocking staffers’ access to key witnesses and documents. Blocked by whom? To
      some extent by the Committee’s own Congressional members who, for political expediencies,
      had voted to form the committee but saw no residual political gain in being involved in a
      Kennedy assassination investigation. They wanted it ended as quickly as possible. These were the
      committee members who forced Chief Counsel Sprague out when he dared to confront the CIA’s
      power. And that’s why the new Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, a former federal prosecutor,
      forthrightly told staffers at our first meeting: “We have two priorities: One is to get the report
      finished on deadline and the second is to do it within our budget.” Taken aback, I asked, “What
      about finding the truth about the Kennedy assassination?” Blakey’s reply: “Oh, sure, we’ll do that
      We didn’t do that too. Instead the committee’s investigation was sabotaged at almost every
      important point along the way. And, for whatever assumptions that may come from it, the most
      disabling roadblocks were set up by the Central Intelligence Agency.”~Gaeton Fonzi


  48. Chief Counsel Bob Blakey never believed it. Blakey had previously worked in Washington and
    had experience running Congressional committees. He thought he could sweet talk the Agency
    into complete cooperation. He ignored the lesson Sprague had learned when he refused to sign
    the CIA Secrecy Oath in return for access to its documents. “Why should I sign an agreement
    with an agency that might be a subject in my investigation? ” Sprague had asked. Almost
    immediately, Sprague began to feel the heat. Critical barrages were fired at him from Capitol Hill
    and members of his own committee took potshots. A budget battle was the ostensible issue and,
    to keep the Committee alive, Sprague resigned. Sprague later admitted, “I had no problems in
    Washington until I bucked the CIA.”
    Blakey believed he could handle the CIA. He sat down with its top bosses and negotiated and
    renegotiated “agreements” that would eventually provide committee researchers access to all its
    files. Of course, all the Committee’s staffers who wanted access to the files had to first sign the
    CIA Secrecy Oath. Blakey saw no problem with that.
    Blakey always returned from Langley beaming with pride at his skillful handling of the CIA. And
    on the surface it appeared that Blakey was successful. Even the Agency’s liaisons, wing-tipped
    bureaucrats who handled committee staff requests for documents, became unusually friendly and
    smilingly cooperative. And if it were necessary to research documents at CIA’s headquarters,
    committee staffers were greeted with an organized efficiency.
    That attitude didn’t last long. Yet Blakey continued
    to maintain his faith in the CIA’s professed total
    cooperation even in the face of his researchers’
    increasing number of complaints. Despite the
    unprecedented pact Blakey had made with their
    top-level bosses, the CIA’s operative-level staffers
    were claiming that more and more requested
    documents were “unable to be found,” or were
    “missing for some reason,” or were “inadvertently”
    destroyed in routine file purges. Still Blakey refused
    to be cynical. “Maybe they’re telling the truth,” he
    said. “Would the CIA lie to me?”
    And yet now, a couple of decades later, there is hard
    evidence that the Agency did lie to Blakey and to
    Congress and the American people. And that
    evidence also reveals the deceit and shocking
    arrogance with which the Agency handled those
    who tried to penetrate its fiefdom. A defining
    example that recently came to light:
    When Kennedy made a deal to avert a nuclear war
    stemming from the Cuban Missile Crisis, among his
    stipulations to Khrushchev was that, in return for
    removal of the missiles, he would shut down a
    secret guerilla war the anti-Castro Cubans and the
    CIA were waging against Castro. Kennedy had quietly supported this secret war and the CIA was
    providing money and covert advisers to dozens of the groups. Directed by the CIA’s JM/ WAVE
    station in South Miami, the groups conducted very successful, almost nightly missions into Cuba,
    destroying both military and civilian targets, burning government buildings, planting bombs in
    large department stores and committing general acts of terrorism.
    But the Missile Crisis was a cathartic awakening for Kennedy. He suddenly realized he had
    helped bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. His subsequent speeches reflect a
    more conciliatory approach in dealing with the Soviet Union. He also planned withdrawing
    troops from Vietnam and, to augment his promise to Khrushchev that the U.S. would not invade
    Cuba, he ordered the CIA to completely shut down the secret military operations of the
    anti-Castro Cuban groups.
    There are those who believe that in issuing directives to augment his enlightened policy, JFK was
    signing his own death warrant. Among some of the CIA’s own field personnel, there appeared
    pockets of insubordination. A few of the anti-Castro guerilla groups initially ignored his edict
    against further military operations and one even tried to sink a Russian ship in Havana harbor. To
    enforce his directive, Kennedy had to call on the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard to raid a few
    anti-Castro bases in Miami, the Keys and the Bahamas – bases the CIA itself had helped
    establish. What more evidence could there be that Kennedy was a “traitor” and maybe, as the
    leaflets being passed around Little Havana declared, a communist himself.
    The Warren Commission used that DRE-generated incident to bolster its portrait of Oswald as a
    pro-Castro fanatic. However, over the years researchers burst that balloon of disinformation,
    producing evidence that the pamphlets originated with a CIA front and Oswald was likely a
    willing role player. By the time the Assassinations committee began probing the DRE, emerging
    evidence had forced the Agency to retreat from its stance of non-involvement with any
    anti-Castro Cuban group. It admitted it played an “advisory” role with a few of the groups and,
    yes, the DRE among them. The Committee researchers immediately requested all documents and
    records of the agency’s contacts with the DRE. They also asked the CIA to locate and produce the
    DRE’s control officer so that he could answer questions under oath.
    Just prior, Chief Counsel Blakey had brought some of his researchers’ complaints to the attention
    of the Agency’s main liaison to the committee, a usually glib lawyer named Scott Breckenridge.
    Now Breckenridge seemed solicitous and suggested a “new point of contact” for the committee,
    an expert the Agency would bring out of retirement to “facilitate” the researchers’ requests. His
    name was George Joannides.
    Joannides was a tall, patrician-looking man who wore tailored suits and a dour demeanor around
    the Committee’s offices. It soon became apparent that instead of facilitating document requests he
    was more and more dancing around, delaying and blocking them. More, Joannides said, he could
    not find any records indicating the name of the DRE’s control officer or documents revealing his
    operational activities with the group. Nor did he find any records revealing Oswald’s contacts
    with members of the DRE.
    But, Joannides said, he would continue looking for the agency’s DRE files as well as any records
    which would help him identify and locate the agency’s control officer, the one man who would
    have the most information about the DRE and its contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.
    The tenure of the House Select Committee expired before the CIA ever responded to its DRE
    document requests. Congressional committees come and go, the CIA is a perpetual institution.
    The Agency chose to simply “wait out” the committee’s life. By law, the CIA’s legal mandate is
    to function as the Administration’s intelligence advisory and support entity in a duly elected
    democratic government. In fact, the CIA has evolved into an independent institution, its ultimate
    priority survival. Refusing to comply with dictates issued by elected representatives of the
    American people reveals its disdain for the basic values of a democratic society. The
    Assassinations Committee’s relationship with the CIA regarding the DRE indicates, in itself, what
    a renegade institution the Agency had become. Through the lies and deceptions of Joannides, the
    CIA was able to control and stifle the Committee’s efforts to pursue the truth about an important –
    perhaps pivotally crucial – aspect of President Kennedy’s assassination

    The CIA never informed the committee that Joannides was more than a clerkish Agency expert
    in “facilitating” document requests. When Kennedy was assassinated he was chief of Miami
    station JM/WAVE’s “psychological warfare” branch. He worked with the agency’s legendary
    psych war guru, David Atlee Phillips, who concocted many of the Oswald-as-pro-Castro
    misinformation rumors planted immediately after the assassination. Phillips, who got the CIA’s
    equivalent of the Medal of Honor, was later promoted to Chief of the Western Hemisphere
    Division, the agency’s highest staff level. However, as a young covert operative in the early ’60s,
    he went by the name of Maurice Bishop and planned at least two Castro assassination plots with
    another militant Miami group, Alpha 66, headed by Antonio Veciana, a former bank accountant.
    It was Veciana who saw “Bishop” meeting with Oswald in Dallas weeks before Kennedy’s
    Phillips had also been instrumental in helping members of the Student Directorate regroup in
    Miami after they were forced to flee Havana. Once reorganized and strengthened with zealous
    exiles anxious to take the fight against Castro to its most effective level, the DRE was deemed by
    the Agency to be worthy of a high degree of both advisory and monetary support. The control
    agent the CIA assigned to the DRE soon began handing DRE’s leaders a monthly contribution
    that would reach, in current dollars, $1.5 million a year.
    More than 20 years later we finally learned the name of the CIA’s control agent assigned to the
    DRE. It was George Joannides. The man he said he could not locate in CIA files was himself.
    Many of the revelations about Joannides and the CIA’s sabotaging the Assassination Committee’s
    investigation were uncovered by former Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley, who discovered
    Joannides’ personnel file in newly released National Archives documents. The Post never ran his
    story, the Kennedy assassination being history and the details too esoteric.

    More than 20 years later we finally learned the name of the CIA’s control agent assigned to the
    DRE. It was George Joannides. The man he said he could not locate in CIA files was himself.
    Many of the revelations about Joannides and the CIA’s sabotaging the Assassination Committee’s
    investigation were uncovered by former Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley, who discovered
    Joannides’ personnel file in newly released National Archives documents. The Post never ran his
    story, the Kennedy assassination being history and the details too esoteric.
    Chief Counsel Blakey, now a professor at Notre Dame Law, no longer believes he was right in
    trusting the CIA. In fact, he now accuses the agency of “obstruction of justice.”
    Several years ago there was a petition circulated asking that still-classified CIA documents in the
    National Archives pertaining to the assassination be released. Among those who signed was
    Robert Blakey. The man who trusted the Agency had lived to rue the day.



  49. Two Richard Sprague’s with an A & E difference in middle initial.


    Richard A. Sprague was born in Philadelphia. He received his B.S. from Temple University and his LL.B. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. After joining the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office in 1958, Sprague served as a Chief Assistant District Attorney, Chief of the Prosecution Division, Chief of the Trial Division and Chief of the Homicide Division. From 1966 to 1974, he was the First Assistant District Attorney of Philadelphia County.


    Richard E. Sprague was born in 1921. He graduated from Purdue University in 1942 and after the Second World War was employed as an engineer at Northrup Aircraft.
    In 1966 Sprague began his research into the photographic evidence associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. According to Dick Russell, Sprague was “the leading gather of photographic evidence about the Kennedy assassination.”

    Sprague served a year as photographic expert advisor in the investigations conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and had amassed and analyzed a majority of the known evidence on film by 1968 when he CO-founded the Committee to Investigate Assassinations.

    See also:

    “Beware that you do not lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.”
    — Aesop, c. 570 B.C.


    “The Warren Report is a dead whale decomposing on the beach.”~Norman Mailer

  50. The “Power Control Group”
    A new study of the political assassinations in the
    U.S. (“The Taking of America 1-2-3”)* describes a
    group of individuals in the United States and labels
    them “The Power Control Group,” or PCG. A precise
    definition of the group is:
    “The PCG is that group of individuals or organizations
    that knowingly participated in one
    or more of the assassination conspiracies or
    related murders or attempted murders, plus all
    the individuals who knowingly participated in
    or are still participating in the cover-ups of
    those conspiracies or murders.”
    The PCG therefore would include any people in the
    CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Secret Service, local
    police departments or sheriffs’ offices in Los Angeles,
    Memphis, Dallas, New Orleans, or Florida, judges,
    district attorneys, state attorneys general, other
    federal government agencies, the House, the Senate,
    the White House, the Congress, or the Department of
    Defense, plus any people in the media under the influence
    of any of the above, who participated in or
    who are participating in (1) the cover-ups or (2) the
    cover-ups of the cover-ups. There are clear indications
    that people in every one of the above organizations
    or collections of persons belong to the Power
    Control Group; in other words, they are seeking actively
    to cover up the assassinations, or to continue
    the cover-ups of the assassinations.
    Hard Evidence of Conspiracy
    Anyone who has honestly and openly taken the time
    to examine just a few pieces of “hard” evidence in
    any one of the four major cases, has no trouble at
    all deciding that there were in fact individual conspiracies
    in each one.
    In the face of this situation, the layman (and 80%
    of the people of the U.S.) wonder why the Congress,
    either the Senate or the House, is continually demanding
    “hard” evidence of conspiracy. Statements
    continue to appear in the media to the effect that,
    “I’ve seen no evidence of conspiracy.” Or, “We are
    not sure whether there were others involved in addition
    to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl
    Ray or Arthur Bremer.” These statements are made in
    spite of the fact that even the most casual analysis
    clearly shows that Oswald, Sirhan, and Ray did not
    fire any of the shots that struck JFK, RFK and MLK,
    and that they were all framed. Bremer fired some of
    the shots in the Wallace case, but there is evidence
    of another gun being fired.
    The essence of this situation is that it is to be
    this way forever — in the style of George Orwell’s
    “1984”. The “hard” evidence is all old evidence; it
    goes back at least to 1964 in the JFK case, and back
    to 1970-1972 in the RFK and MLK cases. The Wallace
    evidence is a little fresher and a little less “hard”,
    but nevertheless convincing.
    The people who keep demanding new “hard” evidence
    are either members of the PCG, or are brainwashed by
    the media members of the PCG into ignoring the old
    evidence. These people do not choose to “see” or to
    “hear” the old evidence, even when it is literally
    placed before their very eyes and ears. Thus the
    call for “hard evidence” has become merely a substitute
    for the words “no conspiracy. …
    And most importantly, who brainwashed both Henry Gonzalez and Gail Beagle into mistrusting all of the people whom they had previously always trusted?
    Answer these questions and publicize the answers – and the top down approach to exposing the PCG and solving the assassination conspiracies will be started along the path to success.”~Richard E. Sprague


    Also see:
    “Lardner next poked fun at the pirated first-draft version of Stone’s screenplay for suggesting that as many as five or six shots might have been fired in Dealey Plaza. “Is this the Kennedy assassination,” Lardner chortled, “or the Charge of the Light Brigade?” As though only the ignorant could consider a fifth or even, smirk, a sixth shot realistic.

    But here is what the House Assassinations Committee’s final report said on page 68 about the number of shots detected on the famous acoustics tape: “Six sequences of impulses that could have been caused by a noise such as gunfire were initially identified as having been transmitted over channel 1 [of police radio]. Thus, they warranted further analysis.” The committee analyzed only four of these impulses because (a) it was short of funds and time when the acoustics tape was discovered, (b) the impulses selected for analysis conformed to timing sequences of the Zapruder film, and (c) any fourth shot established a second gun and thus a conspiracy. All four of these impulses turned out to be shots. Numbers one and six remain to be analyzed. That is, the acoustics evidence shows that there were at least four shots and perhaps as many as six.

    Lardner’s most interesting error is his charge that JFK mis-states the impact of the assassination on the growth of the Vietnam war. No doubt Stone’s first-draft screenplay telescoped events in suggesting that LBJ began escalating the Vietnam war the second day after Dallas. Quietly and promptly, however, LBJ did indeed stop the military build-down that JFK had begun; and as soon as LBJ won the 1964 election as the peace candidate, he started taking the lid off. Motivated by a carefully staged pretext, the Gulf of Tonkin “incident,” the bombing of North Vietnam began in February 1965. It is puzzling to see such a sophisticated journalist as Lardner trying to finesse the fact that Kennedy was moving toward de-escalation when he was killed and that the massive explosion of the U.S. war effort occurred under Johnson. In this sense, it is not only reasonable but necessary to see the JFK assassination as a major turning point in the war

    As one who has followed this case closely and actively for nearly 20 years-and who has often heard the charge of “paranoia” as a response to the bill of particulars-I find it increasingly hard to resist concluding that the media’s strange rage for silence in this matter presents us with a textbook case of denial, disassociation, and double-think. I hear frustration and fear in the reasoning of Lardner and Margolis and their comrades who constantly erect straw men to destroy and whose basic response to those who would argue the facts is yet another dose of ad hominem character assassination, as we are beholding in the media’s response to Stone and Garrison:

    Frustration because the media cannot stop Stone’s movie from carrying the thesis of a JFK conspiracy to a global audience already strongly inclined to believe it.

    Fear because the media cannot altogether suppress a doubt in their collective mind that the essential message of JFK may be correct after all, and that, if it is, their current relationship to the government may have to change profoundly.
    And perhaps a touch of shame, too, because in the persistence of the mystery of JFK’s death, there may be the beginning of an insight that the media are staring their own greatest failure in the face.”
    — Who Killed JFK?
    The Media Whitewash By Carl Oglesby — Lies Of Our Times, September 1991


  51. Ruth Paine’s Calendar
    Post by Richard Gilbride on Thu 24 Mar 2011, 7:38 pm

    Was the rifle allegedly shipped by Klein’s Sporting Goods to A. Hidell actually instead “shipped” to Ruth Paine?

    Gil Jesus has pointed out in a recent Ed Forum post that in Hoover’s 10:00 AM phone call to LBJ on November 23, Hoover states that the Klein’s rifle was shipped “to a man- no, to a woman by the name of A. Heidel”. Jim DiEugenio has asked whether this might relate to Ruth Paine’s calendar markings.

    Her calendar for March may be found at XVII p. 56; it contains a 5-pointed star in the box for March 20; another 5-pointed star is at the top left-hand corner of the page, beside the notation “Oct 23- LHO purchase of rifle”.


    Mrs. Paine had no explanation for this entry, but tried to tell the Commission that she had mistakenly written “October 23” instead of November 23… the day after the assassination, Mrs. Paine somehow knew that Klein’s shipped a rifle to A. Hidell on March 20, 1963… The day after the assassination only a few FBI officials had access to the Klein’s microfilm and no one in the DPD knew about March 20th until that evening, and certainly not Mrs. Paine. Even if Mrs. Paine mistakenly wrote “Oct 23” instead of “Nov 23” on her calendar, it does not explain how she knew, the day after the assassination, that Klein’s shipped a rifle to Oswald on March 20, 1963…

    The only way Mrs. Paine could have known on November 23 that Klein’s had shipped a rifle to Oswald on March 20, 1963, is if she was told by a person or persons unknown or if she had knowledge of the shipment before the assassination.

    -Harvey and Lee, p. 912


    The relevant testimony was given on 3/21/64, at IX p. 358:

    JENNER: Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then “LHO” followed by the words “purchase of a rifle”. Would you explain those entries?
    PAINE: Yes. This was written after.
    JENNER: After.
    PAINE: This was written indeed after the assassination.
    JENNER: All right.
    PAINE: I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
    JENNER: When?
    PAINE: I heard it on November 23.
    JENNER: Yes.
    PAINE: And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn’t fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.
    JENNER: That is the entry I have read?
    PAINE: Put the star saying “LHO purchase of rifle”, then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life, and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
    JENNER: That is you made the entry October?
    PAINE: October 23 instead of November.
    JENNER: It should have been November 23?
    PAINE: It should have been November 23.
    JENNER: And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by “LHO purchase of rifle” and likewise the date you made an entry?
    PAINE: On the 20th.
    JENNER: This is the square having the date March 20?
    PAINE: Yes.
    JENNER: Is that correct?
    PAINE: I might point out that I didn’t know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina at Parkland Hospital.
    JENNER: That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
    Paine: Right.


    But 2 days earlier, on 3/19/64, at III p. 8, as Ruth was describing how she helped Marina move from New Orleans to Irving, she demonstrated that she already knew LHO’s middle name:

    “…My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying “Yabutchski”, which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before.”

    ~Richard Gilbride

    See also:

  52. What was a Corsican assassin doing in Dallas on the day JFK was assassinated?
    n response to a 1976 Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA released documents 632–796 confirming for the first time that a professional assassin was apprehended in Dallas on Nov. 23, 1963.

    The CIA memo, Corsi notes, mentions Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a. Michel Mertz – a world-renowned Corsican hit man with a long history as an accomplished assassin and with ties to the French Connection drug trade stretching from Southeast Asia to Marseilles, France, to New Orleans. The memo, stamped “SECRET” and dated April 1, 1964, reads as follows:

    Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz – On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderman living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS [U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed on to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE.


  53. Phillips’ history is critical to understand. Linda Minor has identified that his father was an attorney with connections to Great Northern Railroad … I know for fact that the investors i.e. the board by 1963 included some heavy hitters in Fort Worth and by extension Fred Korth and the TFX scandal; Phillips was in Chile in the early ’50’s, married to a stewardess and my guess is she flew with Pan Am.

    by chance last night I watched “Truth” — the film about GWBush and the TX National Guard, CBS, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, The guy who got GHW into that cushy slot so he didn’t have to go to Nam was a former pilot with Pan Am turned Texas oil man; there were probably a couple of hundred privileged sons in the Air National Guard in the early ’70’s. But in that particular scenario, the same guy,Sid Adger who got George W into the guard is connected to my old boss Caroline Hunt thru an electronic ballot counting firm just before Bush was elected prez. It’s complicated, but I’m trying to understand who Phillips was working for … Dulles? ~Leslie Sharp



    The Big Lie Told by David Atlee Phillips

    It has been said by at least one or two Kennedy assassination researchers that Judyth Vary Baker tells a heartrending love story, but that, even if what she says is true that it does not “add anything” to our knowledge about the assassination itself. In my own opinion, that belief is utterly false. What Judyth’s story supplies is the answer to the question of what Lee Oswald was really doing in Mexico City in late September . . . and why he went there. It also gives a strong hint about who was responsible for planning the plot. I have arrived at a conclusion that Alton Ochsner was working with someone who was not technically part of the Central Intelligence Agency, although I began my research thinking that Lee believed he was working under Robert Kennedy’s design.

    Judyth’s book also relates that David Atlee Phillips told Lee Oswald before the two met in Dallas on September 6th that he would be introduced to a contact who would supply a method for the cancer weapon to be taken into Cuba. As we learn below, that was part of a much bigger lie in which Phillips was involved. Phillips must have had an Oswald impostor planted to appear at the Consulate twice after Oswald attempted to gain his visa. The tape of the real Lee Oswald’s appearance was said to have been destroyed or recycled before it normally would have been. However, tapes of the impostor’s appearance at the Consulate were preserved, ready to present to the new President Lyndon Johnson the day after Kennedy’s murder as a pretext for silencing all investigations other than his “blue-ribbon panel” that would frame the patsy as the lone-nut assassin. It was a very intricate plan which clearly involved Lyndon Johnson, working with David Atlee Phillips and someone else who knew ahead of time when Oswald would appear at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City

    John Newman related in a PBS Frontline story, that J. Edgar Hoover said he could not “forget CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip in Mexico City only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.” In the text and in footnote 17, following this quote from Hoover, Newman added:
    CIA headquarters made the decision soon after the assassination to deny that anyone within the CIA — including the Mexico station — knew of Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate until after JFK’s murder. But the Mexico City station’s chief, the head of Cuban operations, and the others involved with Cuban operations all maintain that they knew about the visits and informed headquarters at the time. They also maintain that there was an additional Oswald phone call not accounted for in the extant records.
    An additional appendix to the HSCA Report on the JFK assassination, entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City,” actually called the “Lopez Report,” was first partially released in 1996, but with fewer redactions again in 2003. Since 2003, other separate files have been come to light which furnish new information not dealt with by the HSCA staff in its report, according to History Matters:
    The LBJ taped phone conversations for instance, include startling corroboration for the claim that audio intercepts of an Oswald impersonator were listened to by FBI agents in Dallas while Oswald was in custody. Declassified testimony of David Phillips, the Tarasoff couple who translated the tapes for the CIA, and others illuminate some areas and deepen the mystery in others. [The Tarasoffs’ 1976 interview with review date indicated as 11/14/96 appears in the Mary Ferrell website.]


  54. There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
    ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called “groupthink,” the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town’s cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
    See also:


  55. The indemnified criminality of the state is an open and mundane secret.

    History is written by the winners.
    The only thing extraordinary about Hitler is that he was defeated. The other psychopathic leaders that conducted the bloodbath called WWII are now the ones who write the history.

    Of course it is easy to forget Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when one is in a rush to embrace American Exceptionalism.



    Significant errors have been found in the National Academy of Sciences'(NAS) study of the JFK acoustics
    evidence. At least two of them can independently invalidate the conclusions of the Norman Ramsey panel. Dr. James Barger, who headed the original study of the Dallas Police tapes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), begins a series of meetings with associates Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy on August 9 to work out responses to the NAS Report. And while Barger will not comment publicly, he has confirmed that one of the apparent-flaws is the Panel’s observation of automatic gain control in the Channel 1 recording.
    In simple terms, AGC is continuous, automatic volume control’ which is found in most portable cassette
    recorders and some radio receivers. When the incoming audio is too loud, AGC circuitry reduces it, while a soft sound is boosted. The Ramsey Panel found and measured AGC action on Channel 1 of the DPD tapes, then used it to confirm a theory offered by researcher Steve Barber.
    The Barber theory is that a faint voice during the gunshots is that of Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker.
    Seconds after the shooting, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry ordered the motorcade to Parkland Hospital via the Channel 2 radio; 62 seconds later, Decker, who was riding in the same car, also used the radio. A 31/2 second fragment of Decker’s Channel 2 conversation also appears on Channel 1 during the last two gunshots. Only two possibilities, therefore, can explain this “crosstalk” situation: the impulses thought to be gunshots were actually something else occurring more than one minute after the shooting, or Decker’s voice had been dubbed in and what was thought to be the original Dictabelt recording was really an altered copy.

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations stunned many people with its finding that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” The HSCA’s finding was based in large part, though not solely, on its analysis of acoustics evidence.
    Mary Ferrell and others brought to the attention of the HSCA the existence of a police dictabelt which might contain sounds of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. One channel of police transmissions had been open during this time due to a stuck microphone switch. The HSCA hired two outside laboratories to analyze the dictabelt. While the roar of motorcycle engine noise drowned out much of the audio from a human listener’s perspective, distinct spikes in volume could be analyzed statistically, based on comparison between the pattern of such spikes and the echo patterns which the buildings in the Plaza would create. The experts found 6 impulses on the dictabelt whose echo patterns matched what one would expect from gunfire in the plaza. The HSCA then conducted a field study, placing microphones in Dealey Plaza and firing rifles fired from the Book Depository’s “sniper’s nest” and from spots behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

    In the end, the scientists found a solid match for a shot from the grassy knoll. Due to its medical conclusions that all shots which struck the motorcade came from the rear, a finding which has long been questioned, the Committee determined that the grassy knoll shot missed. This strange juxtaposition of the existence a shot from the knoll, but calling it a missed shot, opened the Committee to disbelief and ridicule from all sides.

    The HSCA’s analysis was later called into question by a panel of scientists headed by Norman Ramsey. But that “debunking” has itself been called into serious question by the re-analysis of scientist D.B. Thomas, described most thoroughly in his book Hear No Evil.

    • Incidentally, the digital spectrograms, which the Panel used to identify and confirm the crosstalk and AGC,
      were not made from the “original” Dictabelt or the DPD tape copy located by the HSCA and analyzed by Dr.
      Barger. The Panel used a third or fourth generation copy provided by Jim Bowles. At Ramsey’s request, Bowles took his personal tape copy (made in March 1964) and had it copied at a Dallas recording studio. Bowles says he provided two copies, filtered and unfiltered. I talked with the engineer who did the work and he says one or both tapes were fed through a Burwen Noise Reduction system to “enhance” the speech. The Burwen device uses split-frequency AGC circuitry. It’s possible the AGC seen by the Panel is only an artifact—comparison with the Dictabelt itself should easily answer this question.
      These are just a few of the many problems caused by the Ramsey Panel and I’ve passed this and more on to Dr. Barger.

  57. The Mexico City Tapes

    President Lyndon Johnson on the telephone.

    At 10 AM on the morning following the Kennedy assassination, President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed the state of the case over the telephone. In response to LBJ’s question about “the visit to the Soviet Embassy in September,” Hoover replied:
    “No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason-we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”
    This message was conveyed later the same day in writing, in a memo from Hoover to the White House and the Secret Service Chief. Did this amazing discovery of an Oswald imposter, caught on tapped phone lines, launch the greatest manhunt in history? No, instead within 48 hours the entire story had been buried. The tape of the Johnson-Hoover call quoted from above has itself been erased; only a contemporaneous transcript remains.

    The CIA and FBI have both since denied that such a tape existed post-assassination, having reportedly been “routinely erased.” But beyond the early reports, no less than two Warren Commission staffers told investigators that they had listened to such a tape in April of 1964. It is doubtful they knew of even the possibility that Oswald might have been impersonated in the call.
    What was on the tape? In the 1990s transcripts of “Oswald” phone calls were declassified. There were indeed a couple of points which drew the interest of investigators – the mention of a meeting with a man named Kostikov, and Oswald’s curious statement that the Cubans had his address. But generally they appear to be fairly innocuous calls about obtaining a visa. However, also declassified in the 1990s was an HSCA interview with the CIA employees who transcribed the tapes, who described a much lengthier call between “Oswald” and the Soviet Embassy, one which does not appear in the purportedly complete record of transcripts.

    See also:
    As well as:
    The Mexico City Tapes

    “I’m John Newman, as I said I’m a conspiracy theorist. I also do other things for a living. I’m trying to get to be conspiracy theorist first class, I don’t know if I’ve gotten there yet but I’m going to make myself a button that has a rank, so I can refer to myself appropriately. I don’t know if I can get through everything I have, and if I don’t I’ll try and squeeze in somewhere else, where’s there’s a hole this weekend. What I have for you is basically a two part presentation today. The first part of it deals with the tapes from Mexico City. It is a very controversial issue, a lot of stuff has been released on it in the archives. The House Select Committee chased that story very vigorously and so did the Review Board.

    “Then at the end of that section I am going to present a hypothesis to you, for three or four minutes, then I’m going to go back, and I am going to take you through the case, pre-assassination, a couple of weeks between Mexico City and the assassination, and then through the first 24 to 48 hours and watch the panic set in in Washington, D.C. and see what happens everywhere.

    “In all of that you will see, I think, more clearly than before, the hand of Lyndon Johnson directing a lot of the cover-up, it’s pretty interesting to watch this. But it is clear that the Mexico City story is driving all of that, so that’s my plan today. And a lot of this stuff is brand new. And I thought you would appreciate actually seeing the documents. I’m going to do my best to go through this. As it turns out if it’s taking too long, well, I’ll cut it off and maybe come back later to see how we do.

    “This schematic over here on the overhead, ‘The tale of the Mexico City tapes,’ Debby is going to put it up every once in a while will help orient you for the first part of this presentation. There are really two competing stories here. One is that the tapes survived the assassination and were listened to, in fact listened to in Dallas, Texas, by FBI agents while Oswald was alive. And then they got a surprise when they listened to those tapes, and listened to that voice.

    “There is another story, the tapes had been destroyed before the assassination, had been ‘routinely erased.’ You will find on the right hand side of that, the graphic there, all the references, the contemporaneous references, in the record, to the actual tapes having survived, having been listened to, which call it was, and so on and so forth, and on the left hand side you will find the contemporaneous reflections in the record of the erasure story. It goes through three stages. The first 24 hours from the time Kennedy is killed on 11/22 till noon the following day there is no story of erasure, then from noon till about 6:00 p.m. on 11/23 the story is that one tape was erased, the 9/28 call, the call on the 28th of September from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet embassy by Lee Harvey Oswald. For those of you who are not conversant in all of this I will say a little something about it in a second. And then the final phase, from about 6:00 p.m. on Saturday till today, the story is that all of the tapes have been erased.

    “So, that is what that schematic is, it will be put back up from time to time to remind you as I go through the first part of this presentation on the tapes what the two competing stories are. So, you get a better feel for them.

    “Lee Harvey Oswald went to Mexico City at the end of September, 1963, ostensibly to “defect”, yet again, for the second time, to the Soviet Union. While he was there he sought visas. He sought a visa to the Soviet Union, and a transit visa across Cuba. This was very strange because when he had applied for his passport, it was stamped, okay for travel to the Soviet Union, and Finland, and Germany, all of the countries he had gone through his first time. It was illegal for travel to Cuba. So, why he would go an illegal route when he had an opportunity to go the same way he went before is a mystery. It’s really a non-starter, anyway, I don’t want to get into that part of the story. What I do want to focus on is his visits to those consulates and the phone calls that he allegedly made. Now, I don’t have time to tell the entire story here. In fact, I wrote a little article in PROBE, I don’t know how many of you have seen it. It sort of lays it out a little bit. And I am going to do something more lengthy for JFK Lancer it’ll be out towards the end of the year on this. But, I went through a great deal of trouble when I wrote Oswald and the CIA [New York,Carroll & Graf Publishers 1995] to really get into those tapes on a content basis. And I don’t have the time to do that here but it was my judgment when I read them and analyzed them when I wrote that book back in 1995, that based on the content of those tapes alone, that it wasn’t him. Because the words that were spoken by the person who identified himself as Oswald were incongruous with the experiences that we know he had down there from all of the testimony and all of the witnesses that were there, the Cubans, the Russians, the Mexicans, and so on.

    “Right now I am going to be single minded and stay just on the tapes. There are also transcripts. Of course, when you intercept a phone call, when the CIA intercepted those phone calls they made transcripts, from the tapes. But it’s the tapes that I’m focused on now. Because when you read a transcript you can’t tell whose voice it is. When you have a tape you can take that tape to the Dallas Police building, while he (Oswald) is still alive and you can play them in one room, and have him talk in another room, you can even have him repeat lines. And you can make some judgments.

    [Author’s note – This may be why we have this cover story of no interrogation notes haven been taken while Oswald is alive and being questioned, and why we were told there was no room for a stenographer, etc.]

    “And if it’s not him, we have a real problem. We, the United States, have a real problem, based on what happened in those phone calls. So, I am going to stay riveted for the next 30-40 minutes on the tapes themselves. One more thing before I start, the CIA did routinely erase tapes. They have a very large intercept operation down there in Mexico City, but the period before an erasure occurred was two weeks, two weeks. So for the phone calls for the 28th of September, and say the first of October we would be talking middle of October before any of those tapes would have been erased. So, I will just make that parenthetical observation.

    “The very first document that we find in the record actually comes from, and you can find this by the way in the back of Hosty’s book [Assignment Oswald] if you like. [See p. 296-317. Also RIF # 104-10004-10199 from the 3rd batch.] It’s actually a summary report, the ARRB released this, this is a brand new document, relatively new, last couple of years, it is called, “Summary Report” it was written on the 13th of December, 1963, internal CIA report, it was called “We find Oswald in Mexico City.” It’s about 22 pages, a pretty interesting document.


  58. “This may be why we have this cover story of no interrogation notes haven been taken while Oswald is alive and being questioned, and why we were told there was no room for a stenographer, etc.” ~John Newman

    This is an interesting aside from Newman, one pregnant with possibilities. A real and unexplored possibility is that in those 12 hours of interrogation, recordings were made, and stenographer notes taken; and Oswald told the whole story of him as an agent of OSI working with FBI to infiltrate the Banister-Ferrie operation. And how he had stumbled upon the plot to kill Kennedy, and reported it to FBI – but nothing was done, and Kennedy was killed anyway…and now Agent Oswald has been made the patsy.
    . . . . .
    If there were tapes recorded, and transcripts of Oswald’s interrogation, and this is the story he told, this would break the case wide open.
    And IF these records do still exist… wow, what an amazing discovery that would be!


  59. “…[LBJ] and J. Edgar Hoover have a telephone conversation. 10:01 a.m. EST, and it’s very interesting. This is 10 o’clock in the morning, Saturday, less than 24 hours have gone by, and what does Johnson ask Hoover? ‘Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?’

    [See p. 520 of Oswald and the CIA. Also President Johnson telephone conversation with FBI director Hoover, November 23, 1963.
    Note: November 23rd audiotape is not available, only the transcript.

    ‘We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice nor to his appearance. In other words it appears there was a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.’

    “And shortly after that Mr. Hoover wrote a memo to the head of the Secret Service, James Rowley. This is Hoover now writing to Rowley. ‘The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on 1 October, 1963 an extremely sensitive source,’ this is the LIENVOY, the telephone taping system that they had in place down there ‘reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald who contacted the Soviet embassy in Mexico City inquiring,’ and so on and so forth, ‘Special Agents of this Bureau who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. Special Agents are of the opinion that it was not Oswald…’

    “So, now we’ve brought the head of the Secret Service online. Now, about an hour and 50 minutes later we see two things that have happened. Basically, Belmont who writes this memo, and this is a portion, this is out of the back of the Lopez Report, Eddie Lopez excerpted this stuff here. I actually found it in the archives. I am going to show it to you right now, found the real thing. It was quite exciting to get it. So, we have two things that go on. First of all a phone conversation between Shanklin here and Belmont about this, and then Belmont actually writes Tolson. Belmont is number three guy in the FBI and Clyde Tolson is Hoover’s gay lover, the number two guy in the FBI, and that’s what you’re looking at here. And what it says is, ‘Inasmuch as the Dallas agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly,’ this is good lawyer talk here, ‘of Oswald from the Cuban embassy to the Russian embassy,’ that’s the 9/28 call, and if we go back one you will see that the Rowley memo discusses the 1 October tape, and if you recall the Johnson-Hoover conversation it was the 1 October, and here we have a very clear description of the phone call from the Cuban embassy to the Soviet embassy that was on 9/28.

    “So, what are we to deduce from this? There are two tapes that they are listening to, that Belmont, Tolson, Shanklin, Hoover and Rowley are all discussing, or writing memoranda, or receiving memoranda about. And of course it’s the same thing, the tape is not Oswald.



    • “This is Mexi 7023, Eddie Lopez informs us that Ann Goodpasture wrote this. Ann Goodpasture worked for David Atlee Phillips in the Cuban section of the CIA station in Mexico City. It’s a rather lengthy cable and I’ve blown up the portion that is relevant over here and you can see, ‘In view Oswald in Soviet… subject paragraph probably Oswald…station,’ meaning the CIA station in Mexico City is, ‘unable to compare voice as first tape erased prior to receipt second call.’

      [See Document # 104-10015-10124 in the 8th batch is another one page cable. It is from Mexico City to CIA director. It is dated November 23, 1963. Some of the text from the Sept 28 intercept is given. They believe that the unidentified person is Oswald but the tape is reported erased prior to receipt of the second call. This was sent to “Scelso”. The paragraph John is quoting from is ‘In view Oswald in Sov Union and fact he claimed on 1 October LIENVOY to have visited Sov Emb 28 Sept, subject para one probably Oswald. Station unable compare voice as first tape erased prior receipt second call.’]

      “Let me put that in plain English. The Mexico City CIA station was unable to compare the voices between the September 28th call and the 1 October call because the 28 September tape was erased before they got the 1 October call. So, that would mean it would have had to have been erased within a few days. That doesn’t make sense. They don’t erase things in a few days. They wait at least two weeks before they start recycling tapes. But, that is not the only thing wrong with this, even if they made an exception and somebody dropped the tape into the degaussing pile by accident, this statement that station is unable to compare voice is wrong. This, by the way, this particular cable is written by Ann Goodpasture again. She is questioned about it under oath. I’m going to show you why this doesn’t work.

      “In 1964, this little document pops into the record, in October, 1964. It’s actually a Washington Post article about CIA withholding intelligence from the Warren Commission. And there’s some handwriting. See? You know who’s handwriting that is? It’s Ann Goodpasture’s. Now isn’t that something? And when we blow it up what does it say? ‘The caller from the Cuban embassy was unidentified until headquarters sent traces on Oswald and voices compared by Feinglass.’ [See Document # 104-10125-10001 from The Third Batch.]

      “Thank you Ann. She just told us, let’s go back. Why are we looking at this? Here it says ‘station unable to compare voices,’ here it says ‘voices compared.’ Feinglass is actually the cover name for Mr. Tarasoff, Mr and Mrs. Tarasoff are transcribers that work for the CIA station down there. You will find them covered extensively in my book and also Eddie Lopez ad nauseam interviewed both of these individuals about these tapes. So, there was a voice comparison done, by the transcriber ‘Feinglass,’ Mr. Tarasoff was the original transcriber at the time these things took place.
      “This is Eddie Lopez, who is very suspicious of that cable asking her, you know, the transcript says, ‘Oswald was identical to the person,’ in other words here he is asking, he is pointing out to her, this is in the Lopez report, he is pointing out to Ann Goodpasture this business here and he asks her whose handwriting is that?”

      ‘It’s mine,’ [says Goodpasture]

      Lopez, ‘Oh, it indicates the caller; would you please read it.’

      She read, ‘the caller…’ Anyway, the point of all of this is she admits it, that the voices were compared and when, she gives a date. She says 18 October. It must have been on 10 October. Here she’s under oath.

      “So, where are we now? We now have an intrusion into the record alleging that one tape had been erased. And the time is 11:59 in the morning on Saturday. It is just about noon. We have gone almost 24 hours when the first mention of any erasure enters the record. And as I’ve said it’s not credible for a lot of reasons. Number one, they would not have erased that soon. Number two, the whole story about no voice comparisons does not stack with her sworn testimony or with the other records.

      “Furthermore, there is another document I may or may not show it later on written on the 25th of November, 1963 from the DDP at CIA, the Deputy Director for Plans to the FBI Director saying ‘voices have been compared.’ So, we have other, you know, aspects of the record, as well as sworn testimony from CIA people on this. So, what I am trying to do is to impeach the first reference in the record to an erasure story here bearing in mind of course that it’s a technical one. We are saying one tape was erased prior to the second call.

      “In fact, here it is.

      [See Document # 104-10004-10257 from the 5th batch.]

      “Here is the 25 November, ’63 a document that I’m talking about. I think I blew it up. Yeah, here it is. And it talks about lots of tapes. They found new phone calls of 27 September, that would have been Friday the day Oswald arrived, there’s the 1 October, and the 3 October, which can’t really be him. Anyway, ‘voices compared indicated,’ so on and so forth.

      [In the actual document it reads, “voice comparisons indicated.”]

      “It was the same guy. So, my case rests there. There is enough evidence in the documentary record, as well as, the sworn testimony I think to suggest, it’s a reasonable thing for me to say that voices were actually compared, and that therefore that first cable from Mexico City mentioning erasure is very suspect.

      “Now, at this point things are really starting to get tense in Washington, over all of this. This is a little bit later, and a couple of hours later, 4:45 EST, Curtis from Knight, Knight is the cover name for Dick Helms, the DDP, and basically it is extremely urgent that we get, as soon as possible all of these transcripts and other tape, all this stuff, ‘in cabling your highly valuable information which is being read and processed around the clock here,’ okay? In other words we are really fixated on this, on this stuff coming out of Mexico City.

      “Oh yeah, here’s one more, here’s Feinglass doing, saying that two of these tapes are the same. That’s here, and this one here. So, there is another reference, really to voice comparisons going on, which I am going to blow through right here.

      “Now, this is phase three of our tape story. This is now around 6 o’clock at night on the 23rd and this is Mexico City 7054.

      [See Document # 104-10015-10082 from the 5th batch. Also, Document # 104-10015-10290, a duplicate copy in the 8th batch. Of note is that once upon a time the document was released with a redaction, the black ink was over the phrase ‘with Mexi 7933 HQ has full transcripts all pertinent calls. Regret complete recheck shows tapes from this period already erased.’]

      “And now we have the statement that, ‘regret complete recheck shows tapes from this period already erased.’ And this is the only other contemporaneous CIA reference to tape erasure at all. And it is very suspect for the following reasons. I’m probably going to just skip through this so I can save a little bit of time here.

      “It’s interesting because this one here is sent, [See RIF# 104-10015-10114, 3rd batch of ARRB released documents.] let’s see, let’s take a look at it, it’s sent 1837 Zulu, that’s going to be minus 5, 13, This is 1:37 p.m. in the afternoon on the 24th, this is Sunday, around 1:30 in the afternoon and then about an hour and a half later it’s like they didn’t even hear it at headquarters.


    • The Fourteen Minute Gap

      Rex E. Bradford

      April 10, 2000

      During Watergate, one of the more important events was the discovery of an “eighteen minute gap” on one of the Nixon tapes. This erasure, reportedly performed by Presidential secretary Rose Mary Woods on Nixon’s orders, created quite a stir when revealed. It was never determined what in fact had been erased, which added to the mystery of the affair.

      This article presents my discovery of a second such tape erasure, this one of a phone conversation conducted between President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy. The erasure in this case is about 14 minutes in length, somewhat shorter than the Nixon gap. The Johnson tape is different in one other significant respect-a transcript of the conversation survived the erasure. It is in my view the true “smoking gun” tape of modern American history.

      First, some background. At last November’s JFK Lancer conference in Dallas, former military intelligence officer and history professor John Newman gave an electrifying presentation. In this talk, he discussed in detail the existence, post-assassination, of the famous “Oswald” Mexico City tapes. One of the most astonishing documents to surface in this regard was a transcript of a phone call between FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the new President Lyndon Johnson. This call occurred at 10:01 AM on the morning of November 23, 1963, less than 24 hours after the assassination, while Oswald was still alive in a jail cell in Dallas. The most explosive portion of this transcript is reproduced below:

      LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

      Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason-we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.[1]

      Tapes of Oswald calling the Soviets not matching his voice? But hasn’t the CIA declared since the beginning that these tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, leaving only transcripts as evidence on November 22, 1963? When the above LBJ-Hoover conversation was first revealed a few years ago, many assumed that Hoover was being typically loose with his facts. But last November, Newman presented a good deal of evidence which corroborates Hoover’s astounding statement that the taped calls did indeed survive the assassination and were listened to by FBI agents. Some of this comes from the Lopez Report, the long-suppressed House Select Committee on Assassinations staff report on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. More still comes from newly released FBI materials, some only available for the first time last year. The Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBI’s Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:

      …..Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,…..[2]

      Also in the Lopez Report is the following excerpt of a memo from Hoover to Secret Service Chief Rowley on 11/23:

      …..The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual indentified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald…..[3]



    • The “extremely sensitive source” above is a wiretap, and this quite detailed inter-agency memo should by itself be sufficient to corroborate the LBJ-Hoover call. But there is more. There are CIA documents from the day of the assassination referring to the review of “intercepts” and “actual tapes.”[4] There is also an 11/25 FBI cable which refer to tapes “previously reviewed Dallas.”[5] Newman presented yet additional documents, including an FBI memo from January 1964. At the bottom of this memo from Brennan to Sullivan discussing CIA-FBI liaison procedures, Hoover scrawled his own comments: “OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can’t forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, only to mention two of their instances of double-dealing.”[6] There may be more to come. An 11/23 FBI memo, from agent Eldon Rudd to Dallas Special Agent-In-Charge Gordon Shanklin, has an interesting redaction: “With regard to the tapes ********************* referred to herein, CIA has advised that these tapes have been erased and are not available for review.”[7]

      From the new cables and memos, it appears likely that the tapes were put on a special plane to Dallas on the evening of the 22nd, arriving at Love Field at 2:57 AM local time on the morning of the 23rd.[8] There, unspecified agents listened to them and concluded that the voice on the tapes did not match that of the captured Lee Oswald, who was presumably sitting right in front of them. But later that day, a CIA cable mysteriously asserted that one of the tapes had been routinely erased prior to the assassination.[9] By the following day, the official story held that all tapes had been recycled prior to the assassination.[10] As noted, however, there is now enough official traffic in the record concerning the tapes’ existence that there is every reason to believe that these later cables in fact represent the beginning of a cover-up.

      What was on these “Oswald” tapes that was so important? In one of the conversations, the caller identifies himself as “Lee Oswald” and then refers to a previous meeting with a man named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was a known KGB agent working under diplomatic cover in the Soviet Embassy. More ominously was that, through an informant in an operation code-named TUMBLEWEED,[11] he was identified as a member of the KGB’s “Department 13,” which concerned itself with sabotage and assassinations. The import of the Mexico City phone calls, placing Oswald in a meeting with a KGB assassination officer, was explosive enough. The knowledge that Oswald was impersonated in these calls, eight weeks prior to the assassination, had to have been even more stunning news. Less than 36 hours after the voice on the tapes was determined to be other than Oswald’s, Lee Harvey Oswald was dead.

      With this background, it is time to tell of my discovery. I had spent the day before the Lancer conference at the LBJ Library in Austin, and purchased some 17 tapes of LBJ phone calls, a few of them assassination-related. But not included among these was the incredible LBJ-Hoover call of the 23rd, which Newman showed in transcript form. After busying myself with other matters, finally around the first of March of this year (2000) I called the LBJ Library to inquire about whether a tape of this phone call was available. I spoke with library staff member Regina Greenwell, who informed me that yes they did have it, but it was of such poor quality as to be inaudible. Having been impressed by the quite good quality of the other tapes in my possession, and given the import of the conversation, I half-jokingly asked if this was another “18-minute gap.” Ms. Greenwell agreed that this seemed a bit troubling, but then went on to say that LBJ had yet to move into the White House and was still using his Vice-Presidential taping system. This “magnetic belt” system was of inferior quality-the library had needed to enlist technical help to enhance the signal quality of the conversations on these belts before releasing them. Curious, I asked to purchase the cassette tape which contained the Hoover conversation of the 23rd. I hung up with the impression that all conversations on this tape would be inaudible.

      Several days later the single cassette tape arrived. Imagine my surprise when the first few calls, taped on the evening of the 22nd, sounded perfectly clear (they may indeed be of somewhat lesser quality than the later Dictabelts, but not by much). Then came, according to the printed call log on the cassette label, the 10:01 AM Hoover call. At this point, the tape emits over 14 minutes of silence interrupted only by some kind of “pop” or “beat” about every seven seconds (presumably at the seam where the end of the belt meets the beginning, though that is just a guess). The succeeding conversation, which is denoted as beginning at 10:17 AM, sounds perfectly clear again.

      The log for side A of this compilation cassette tape is printed below, and only the Hoover call is silent.


      9:06 PM

      Arthur Goldberg



      (Machine Noise)


      9:10 PM

      Richard Maguire



      10:01 AM

      J. Edgar Hoover


      10:17 AM

      George Meany


      1:10 PM

      Carl Albert


      1:15 PM

      Fred Kappel


      1:35 PM

      Edwin Weisl, Sr.


      1:44 PM

      Ralph Yarborough


      1:50 PM

      Everett Dirksen


      1:55 PM

      Robert Anderson


      2:00 PM

      Mrs. J. D. Tippitt

      Underlined names denote the beginning of a new magnetic belt. Note that the Hoover conversation occupies its own belt. There is thus the possibility that a blank belt has been substituted for the original. Expert testing could presumably distinguish between this and erasure of the real belt. In any case, the effect and inferred motivation remain the same.



  60. “Note: Members of Holmes’ family have contacted JFK Lancer to say that their father should be remembered in the context of the times where it was considered a badge of honor to be an FBI informant and feel he did his duty in all areas of his responsibility in relation to the murder of President John F. Kennedy.”~Ian Griggs

    The FBI Informant

    Prior to the assassination, Holmes had already become an FBI informant. One of his functions was to keep the FBI (and, incidentally, the Secret Service) appraised of changes in the allocation of post office boxes in the Dallas area. This obviously brought Lee Harvey Oswald to his attention. Several authors, notably the late Sylvia Meagher and our colleague George Michael Evica, brought this point out in their books. In each case they mentioned that Holmes had been allocated a Dallas Informant Number – T-7. It is a problem that nowhere do we find any document, FBI report or anything else which positively states this as a fact. However, close perusal of Commission Exhibit 1152 does prove the point. That exhibit is an FBI report which deals exclusively with information supplied by “Confidential Informant, Dallas T-7”. It contains many precise details which can only have been known to Harry D Holmes in his capacity as a Dallas Postal Inspector. It is thus proved beyond any doubt that FBI Informant T-7 and Harry D Holmes are one and the same. I would urge you all to study that exhibit – CE 1152. In his Warren Commission testimony, Holmes told Assistant Counsel David Belin that he was “feeding change of addresses as bits of information to the FBI and the Secret Service and a sort of a coordinating deal on it” At this stage, Belin immediately silenced him with one of those convenient “discussions off record” and they then went on to something completely different.

    Eyewitness to the Assassination

    Harry D Holmes was one of hundreds who watched the attack on the motorcade in Dealey Plaza. He was possibly unique, however, since he claimed to have watched it through binoculars. This fact emerged in strange fashion. During the recording of Holmes’ Warren Commision testimony, David Belin suddenly came up with the rather odd and direct question: “Were you looking with the aid of any optical instrument?” Holmes replied: “I had a pair of 7 1/2 by 50 binoculars”. As far as I know, such a question was never put to any other assassination eyewitness.

    Holmes also said that he was watching from “my office on the fifth floor of the terminal annex building located at the corner of Houston and Commerce Streets”. I now come to an important point and I believe I am the first researcher to come up with the answer to an oft-asked question about the exact location of Holmes’ vantage point. Unfortunately, nothing appears to have been published to indicate the exact window from which Holmes witnessed the assassination. I believe, however, that through a lapse in concentration during his testimony, Holmes himself inadvertently provided that information although for some reason it had never been specifically requested. David Belin questioned Holmes closely concerning the exact location of the Terminal Annex building in Dealey Plaza and Holmes answered him plainly and fully. Holmes had already described exactly where the building was when Belin asked: “On what corner is your building?” Holmes, either mishearing or misunderstanding the question replied: “It is on the northeast corner”. As we all know, it is not on the northeast corner of the Plaza – it is on the southeast corner. I believe that Holmes’ answer mistakenly gave the location of his office within the building. If my interpretation is accurate, then something which has eluded researchers for more than a third of a century has now been resolved. When you are next on the grassy knoll, look across the plaza to the Terminal Annex building. I believe that Holmes’ office (and vantage point) was either the small top (fifth) floor window on the extreme left or the first of the large windows just along to its right. Holmes mentioned that “there was several of us looking out of the window” at the motorcade but none of them has been positively identified.

    In his testimony, Holmes also produced one of the classic remarks in the whole of this case. When asked by Belin if he had seen anyone run across the railroad track, he replied: “No. I saw nothing suspicious and I am a trained suspicioner”.


    “a trained suspicioner” … Hahahahaha!!!

    “Expert Witness”

    As we have already heard from George Michael and Larry Hancock, Harry D Holmes was an important figure in the investigation into Oswald’s use of post office boxes. Right from the beginning, he was active. In his testimony he said “I never quit. I didn’t get to bed for two days” and “I was doing all I could to help other agencies”. Indeed, within hours of the assassination, he was mounting his own private investigation. After learning from the FBI that an Italian rifle had been purchased by mail order from Klein’s of Chicago on 20th March 1963, Holmes tried unsuccessfully to locate a record of the money order used in the transaction. The following morning, Saturday 23rd., he sent his secretary out to purchase “outdoor-type magazines such as Field and Stream, with the thought that I might locate this gun to identify it, and I did”. As we now know, the magazine which Holmes obtained was both a different title and a different date to that allegedly used by Oswald to order his rifle. He actually obtained the November 1963 issue of Field and Stream whereas the so-called Oswald rifle had been ordered from the February 1963 issue of The American Rifleman. Holmes seemed to take control of investigation into the issue of the money order used for the purchase of the rifle. Despite the fact that Oswald was by then in custody, he also arranged continuous surveillance on Oswald’s post office box, number 6225, at the Terminal Annex building. During his Warren Commission testimony, he covered all these events, together with details of Oswald’s use of post office box 2915 at the U.S. Post Office on the corner of Bryan and North Ervay Streets in Dallas. Ironically, it was in that same building that the testimony of the Dallas-based witnesses was heard.
    (4) The Final Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald

    There are many strange aspects to Harry D Holmes’ various parts in this case but perhaps the strangest is his attendance and participation in Oswald’s final interview. In his testimony, he referred to it thus: “I presume my next part in connection with this was when I joined the interrogation period of Oswald on Sunday morning of November 24 at about 9:30 a.m.” He went on to say that he had driven to church with his wife but that after dropping her there he suddenly decided to return to the police station (City Hall) where he simply walked in and saw Captain Fritz. He claimed that Fritz said:
    “We are getting ready to have a last interrogation with Oswald before we transfer him to the county jail. Would you like to join us?”
    Holmes replied: “I would.”

    Now what exactly is that all about? Why did the Chief of Homicide invite a Dallas Postal Inspector to attend such an important session? The other people present were Local Agent in Charge Forrest V. Sorrels and Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, both of the Secret Service, and, dependent on whose testimony you believe, either three or four Homicide Detectives whose job was solely to guard Oswald. The interview took place in Captain Fritz’ office, room 317 at City Hall. It seems to have been readily accepted that no record was kept of this interview or of any of the previous Oswald interviews. Indeed, when Captain Fritz was questioned on this by the Warren Commission’s Mr Ball, he mentioned that several unsuccesful attempts had been made to obtain a tape recorder. Amazingly, however, some very detailed and comprehensive notes were taken of that final interview – by none other than our friend Harry D Holmes. Now why he took it upon himself to do this is as much a mystery as why he was present in the first place. You will find Holmes’ notes of the interview not once, but twice in the 26 Volumes! Firstly, they appear as Commission Exhibit 2064 on pages 488 to 492 of Volume 24. They also appear as Holmes Exhibit No. 4 betweeen pages 177 and 181 of Volume 20. As if that is not enough, Holmes’ notes are even reproduced under the title “Report of U.S. Postal Inspector H. D. Holmes” as part of Appendix XI of the Warren Commission Report (pages 633 to 637). Holmes did not just sit there recording notes. He also took an active part in the interview, asking many questions of Oswald – particularly regarding his use of post office boxes. The interrogation seemed to go on for longer than Fritz had anticipated it would – indeed, in his testimony he stated that he had intended closing it at 10:00. As we know, it went on for a further hour.

    Holmes later stated in a June 1989 interview with Postal Inspector David McDermott that Chief Curry “was beating on the door”. Obviously, had the session ended at 10 o’clock or shortly afterwards, and Oswald’s transfer had then been put into motion, we would not have had Mr Ruby waiting in the basement with his little gun.


    Needless to say, there is a great deal more to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D Holmes than I have had time to outline here. It is my intention eventually to publish the full story – or as much of it as I can. I will leave you with one small example of the amount of clout this manhad. How many witnesses who testified before the Warren Commission were officially permitted to keep any of their exhibits? Harry D Holmes was allowed to do just that. He introduced one of those well-known “Wanted for Treason” posters which he stated had been found in one of the postal collection boxes on the morning of the assassination. When Mr Belin stated that he intended to mark it as an exhibit, Holmes said: “I want to save that.” It was then agreed that he could keep the original and that the Court Reporter would make copies. Holmes Exhibit No. 5 is, therefore, nothing more than a xerox copy of the original. Thanks I cannot close without expressing my thanks to a number of people who have assisted in many ways with what you have just heard or read. I am particularly grateful to friends and fellow researchers such as Mary Ferrell, Melanie Swift, Malcolm Blunt, Pat Cady, George Michael Evica, Larry Hancock, Connie Kritzberg and many others.


  61. home/ archive / documents / jfk assassination documents / documents from private collections /
    Mary Ferrell Chronologies

    Mary Ferrell developed a detailed set of chronologies of events leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy, and including the weekend and months following it. These pages have been scanned from copies left among her papers.

    1. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 1 – Prior to 1959
    2. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 2 (a) – 1959
    3. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 2 (b) – 1960 to June 1963
    4. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 3 – July 1, 1963 to November 21, 1963
    5. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 4 – November 22, 1963
    6. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 4 (a) – November 22, 1963
    7. Mary Ferrell Chronologies – November 22, 1963, Book 1
    8. Mary Ferrell Chronologies, Volume 5 – November 23, 1963 – Forward
    9. Mary Ferrell Chronologies – Mexico City Trip


  62. John Mcadams – Laughing stock of the Internet

    ..McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position — his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. – Debra Hartman


    • John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago

      By Jim DiEugenio with Brian Hunt

      “McAdams did indeed make comments that were intended to imply that Gary Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor.”

      Robert Harris on John McAdams

      Several months ago I received a phone call from a couple of people who lived in the Chicago area. They were associated with a play that was going to be staged at a venue called the Glen Ellyn Village Theater. Glen Ellyn is a suburb of nearly 30,000 people which lies about 25 miles west of the Windy City. The play was called Oswald: The Actual Interrogation.

      Dennis Richard is the playwright. And he personally appeared and did a little talk on opening night. This was the Midwest premiere of his play, which had already been produced in Los Angles and New York. The director was William Burghardt, who was one of the men who was in contact with me. Bill was interested in the play since he was interested in the topic. As he told the Glen Ellyn Daily Herald, the subject of Kennedy’s assassination had fascinated him since he was in seventh grade. He therefore read scores of books on the subject. He came to the conclusion that he “thought this couldn’t have happened the way the official inquiry decided.” So Burghardt decided to contact Richard to produce the play for the 50th anniversary of the Village Theater Guild.

      Burghardt’s production ran for three weeks late last summer. It was a successful run. So successful that Burghardt says the play will be produced this November in Forth Worth. Why did Burghardt and his friend, assassination researcher Phil Singer, want me there? Because, during the last week of the production, they decided to invite John McAdams to discus the play with the audience after a performance. Burghardt ran a notice about the play on McAdams’ web site. McAdams replied that he might come to see it. Burghardt invited him to come, and told him he would even buy him dinner. Which he did. McAdams lives in Milwaukee, about 90 minutes directly north of Glen Ellyn. To present a counterpoint to McAdams, Burghardt wanted me to be there. Although I was interested, I had to beg off because of the cost of the flight and the expense of renting a room. Therefore, Burghardt had an associate of Bob Groden’s, Mr. Singer, appear opposite McAdams. Singer had seen an earlier performance of the play and talked to Burghardt afterwards.

      Phil and Bill taped the discussion with the audience on the night McAdams was there. They then sent me a DVD of the discussion. As I watched it, I regretted not being able to attend. Because McAdams was in his rabid mode. And since neither Bill nor Phil understood his battery of rhetorical and verbal techniques, they weren’t really ready to counter him. In fact, it was such a stereotypical performance by the infamous Marquette professor that I decided to use it as a launch pad for a review of McAdams’ JFK career. But to establish who McAdams is, let us describe some of the things he did and said during this roughly forty-minute discussion with the audience.

      First of all, whenever McAdams appears in public in any kind of give and take about the facts of the Kennedy assassination, the backers should set certain ground rules to protect the public. Because he utilizes certain techniques almost immediately. Two simple rules would be: 1.) McAdams should not be allowed to use the word “buff” in any aspect 2.) McAdams should not be able to use the term “factoid” in any instance. These would limit him to such an extent he would probably not even show up. Let me explain why.

      Like Ron Rosenbaum, McAdams uses the term “buff’ to automatically demean the work of any person who studies the JFK case from a critical angle. By using that term, instead of the word “critic”, he reduces the works of scholars like the late Phil Melanson and Dr. John Newman to the level of street corner chatter. When, in fact, their work is much more valuable to the pursuit of facts and truth than the exposed hackery of Warren Commission counsels like David Belin and/or Arlen Specter.

      Concerning the use of the second propagandistic term, McAdams borrowed the term “factoid” from a panel discussion in Washington D. C. after the film JFK came out. The late Fletcher Prouty was on that panel. When Prouty tried to bring in matters that did not directly tie into the Commission’s case against Oswald, the moderator said that these were “factoids”. Therefore, under this rubric, things like Kennedy’s intent to withdraw from Vietnam, his issuance of NSAM’s 55, 56 and 57 to limit the role of the CIA, and his editing of the McNamara-Taylor report in the fall of 1963 would be “factoids”, even though they are all facts….

  63. If a silenced or “suppressed” rifle was fired from behind the limo, the muzzle blast of the rifle would be eliminated, but the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier would be heard along the entire path of the bullet. Each time the bullet passed a hard vertical surface, this sonic boom would be reflected off these hard surfaces back toward the origin of the shot.

    Contrary to popular belief, an object travelling at supersonic speeds does not make just one sonic boom as it passes through the sound barrier. It makes a series of continuous and uninterrupted sonic booms all the time it is travelling in excess of the speed of sound.

    Oddly enough, the overall effect is to make it appear, to ear witnesses, that the source of the shot is actually down where the bullet ends up; 180° away from the actual source of the shot.

    This is the very reason for fitting a high powered rifle with a suppressor. It does not totally eliminate the sound, but it completely destroys anyone’s ability to pinpoint the origin of the shot.

    The one dead giveaway that any shots fired from behind the limo were suppressed is the description, by many witnesses, that the 1st shot sounded like a firecracker. The total lack of startle reactions on the faces of bystanders in the Altgens 6 photo, supposedly taken 5 seconds after the first shot at z190, also points strongly toward a suppressed rifle.

  64. ‘Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.’

  65. One of the main things I came away with after reading Dr Baden’s testimony, is his opinion that practically nothing can be certain when it comes to the behavior of bullets, and reading gunshot wounds. He is of the opinion that just about ANYTHING can happen, and often does. These revelations from the good doctor do not fare well for either side of the argument in this case. The bottom line according to Baden being that, ‘you never can tell’.

    Ergo, it’s a ‘FREE-FOR-ALL’

    So what we end up with is the uncertainty that will drive the Warrenista’s crazy, as there is nothing more unsettling for a conformist than the prospect of uncertainty. And for the critic’s side, we have the benefit of all of the other aspects of the case indicating a conspiracy perpetrated from the highest level of the statist system.

    I for one however disagree with the central premise that the science of forensic ballistics is so open ended as is suggested by Dr Baden. And although his testimony tended in that direction when pressed on the term, “possibility”, I don’t think Baden holds to such other than rhetorically. And this brings us to another point that is revealed in the good doctors testimony, the position of the back wound and the trajectory of a bullet fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

    A bullet striking Kennedy in the back at the lower position cited by Baden, based on the the alignment of the shirt and coat with what he said was the same position in the flesh of the back (T-3) would be highly unlikely to exit from a position some five inches higher, that being the throat just below the Adam’s apple. It would be more likely according to the known trajectory for that bullet to exit somewhere near the sternum.

    We have the “nick” on the vertebrae, that can be said to have redirected the bullet path, and we have the appearance of the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy. It is just as reasonable to conclude that the nick of the vertebrae at the C7-T3 junction was caused by a projectile entering the throat from the front.

    I already understand the rage this scenario brings to the dedicated Warrnenista. I have heard it all before. So I will fuel that flame with one other assertion; I think that the consensus of the pathologists on Baden’s panel derives from the pressure to conform with the official narrative. This having been so for the other panels convened before and since. It is known as ‘Confirmation Bias’.

    My adversaries may think we are back at square one here. I disagree with that as well. I think this case has been solved for more that 40 years. The accumulated evidence is for a coup d’etat by the military industrial complex.

    Let the chorus of bleating begin.
    . . . . . . . .




  66. Joan Mellen mentions Leake:…Q…;cd=3&gl=us

    That Oswald was an employee of the CIA I demonstrate in my book, a fact recently re-confirmed by a historian named Michael Kurtz. Professor Kurtz reports on an interview he did in 1981 with Hunter Leake, second in command at the New Orleans field office. Leake admitted that CIA used Oswald as a courier and that Oswald came to New Orleans in April 1963 because the CIA office there intended to use him for certain operations. Leake either was disaffected from the Agency, or, perhaps, was just an honest man. He admitted that he personally paid Oswald various sums of cash for his services. Oswald was on the CIA payroll, Leake knew. He himself paid Oswald’s CIA salary.

    Leake also explained in this telephone interview with Professor Kurtz why there was no documentation on Oswald’s employment with CIA in New Orleans. After President Kennedy’s assassination, he drove the files personally to Langley, Virginia. They were so voluminous that he had to rent a trailer to transport them. Shouldn’t revelations from so credible a source have made the newspapers or CNN? I don’t know why Hunter Leake, who figures prominently in “A Farewell to Justice,” talked to Professor Kurtz, but I discovered that the original Hunter Leake family estate, in 1927, was sold to purchase Hammond Junior College, which became Southeastern Louisiana University – where Professor Kurtz teaches.



  67. “What the best evidence shows is that a tape of the Oswald conversation survived the assassination and was listened to by various people. The best evidence comes from the woman whose job it was to handle the tape, Anne Goodpasture.

    Please note that Goopasture, as the custodian of the tape from the time it was made on October 1 until November 22, is a far better source than the FBI men in the United States who may or may not have eventually received the tape.

    Also note that Goodpasture made her remarks under oath to the ARRB. And when I interviewed Goodpasture in Dallas in May 2005, she repeated, on tape, the same comments she made to the ARRB. Anything as important as an American making contact with the communist embassies, the station made “a dub,” a short excerpt edited from much longer the daily take of the LIENVOY tape recorders. The dub went into the file; Win Scott’s the the longer tape was reused.

    The innocents of the Warren Commission believed the story that Dick Helms fed them via Lee Rankin. It sounded plausible: the Agency simply hadn’t recognized the importance of Oswald and the recording of Oswald’s voice was lost when the tape was reused. It was a clever answer in that it was factually true-the Oswald tape was reused-and quite misleading-It was reused after a copy had been made.

    Goodpasture’s testimony that the CIA had a tape of Oswald that was never made public has been corroborated in multiple ways.

    Coleman and Slawson heard an Oswald surveillance tape in April 1964

    A November 1964 notation by Goodpasture speaks of a “voice comparison.”

    Goodpasture’s testified that Win Scott had stored the Oswald tape in his office safe. The CIA inventory of the contents of the tape included tape recordings.

    So it doesn’t matter too much what the under-informed FBI men in Dallas said or thought about this tape. J. Edgar Hoover believed the CIA had a tape of someone calling himself Oswald. He was right.”~Jeff Morley
    – July 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm



    • Q. One technical .question of clarification. In
      your former answer you referred to CE. Are you using
      CE and CI as equivalents?
      A. Interchangeable, yes. Counterespionage was
      the activity and counterintelligence was the product.
      Q. Did you consider the photography work and the
      surveillance work as being part of CE — or CI or CE

      A. Well, down there they used the term support,
      or they grouped everything in projects and it was by
      having a project that you got the money and you
      submitted a request for a project and estimated
      approximately how much it was going to cost. They
      weren’t broken down CE, CI or FI or CA, they were all .
      projects, and in each one there was probably a little
      element of those, but the support operations,
      surveillance and telephone taps and travel control or
      travel reporting, rather, not control, we didn’t have
      any control over travel. .

      Pg 14

    • Pg. 20
      [paragraph redacted up to this point and continuing>> used semi official credentials. The other operations were all independent, they were run by us and the take on it came to us but in the other operations, we never knew how much of that we were sharing with them. I know that they kept they kept their own chrono files, so that’s what I mean JO by liaison. .

      Q. Okay. You also were responsible for the liaison with other U.S. government agencies in Mexico City at the same time; is that correct?

      A. That’s right, because there was a time when everybody was talking to the officers from different agencies and because of that, records were not kept on what was said. So Mr. Scott then decided ‘that he wanted only one person to be in touch with them and in my dealings with them, everything was written down. I would give them a memorandum and they would give me one and if they asked me a question, I would say, well, I’ll get the information and we’ll write it up for you. So that you didn’t have the problem of someone coming to him or coming to me and asking me a question, and then going to Dave Phillips and asking him the same thing and going to other people and putting it all together and he had nine people describing the elephant.

      Q. Okay.

      A. So it was for that reason that he had one person do it.

      Q. Would it be fair to say then that all of the CIA discussions or all of the CIA discussions with other U.S. entities in Mexico City all went through you during the 1963 period?

      A. Well, that was in theory, but that was not really the way it happened, because there were some people who continued to talk to them. Now, Win Scott was one of them, Dave Phillips did the same thing and the deputy chief of station met with them and it’s only fair to say that when it came to file traces where they asked for specific information about individuals, and most of those things, I think all of them, but I wouldn’t want to say all of them, because when it came to file traces, I was the central spot.
      . . . . . . . . . .
      Pg. 21-24

      Q. During 1963, is there anyone else to whom you reported directly as someone who was your supervisor in addition to Mr. Scott?

      A. Well, the chief of station was overall responsible. He was the boss. His deputy also was my boss. Now because these two projects that I was working on at the time were so dear to Winston Scott, it was seldom that the deputy chief of station came to me. He may come in — he might come and ask me about the project, but he didn’t ever attempt to supervise what Win Scott was doing.

      Q. Which…

      A. Which is what it amounted to because I was the postman and Win Scott directed the projects himself. He met with the officials and what he said to them, I’m not always… I didn’t always know. Sometimes he would write a report of his meetings, other times he might just say, well, I met so-and-so and we talked about so-and-so, but if something came up and they said Win Scott promised me this, this, this and this, and I would say, well, we have to take that up with him.

      Q. When you’ve been referring to Win Scott’s deputy, is that Alan White you’re referring to?

      A. Yes.

      Q. During the 1963 period; is that right? A. Right. He’s a very conscientious man and I think he probably would have a good memory. I don’t know if you’ve talked to him yet or not.

      Q. Is there anyone else other than Mr. Scott and Mr. White, somewhat indirectly, to whom you had a responsibility to report during 1963?

      A. I can’t think of anyone.

      Q. For example, did you have any responsibility to report to Mr. Phillips?

      A. No.

      Q. Did you have any responsibility to report directly to anyone at headquarters?

      A. As I told you when I first went down there, I worked on a project for a short period of time. Now that project was of special interest to the CI staff, but I came under the supervision of chief of station. I didn’t have any special relationship with someone in Washington.

      Q. So in 1963 then, you did not report directly to anyone at headquarters; is that correct?

      A. No.

      Q. That is correct?

      A. That’s correct.

      Q. Did you report directly or indirectly to anyone at JMWAVE during 1963?

      A. No.

      Q. During the period of 1963, did you have any responsibility for coordinating surveillance between Cuban activities and Soviet activities?

      A. No, not really. .I it — it might have been kind of — there may have been times when someone came through that they wanted placed under surveillance by someone with official credentials, and that person could have gone to both the Cuban embassy and the Soviet Embassy and other places, but from the standpoint of coordinating activities between the two places, I don’t recall ever doing that.

      Q. During any time that you were in Mexico City, did you have a particular responsibility for involvement in activities related to communists in Mexico?

      A. Well, before 1963, there were taps on communist activities, and those were translated by the FBI and they processed the leads from those taps and we filed them and indexed them and things like that. But other than that – the other communist activities, there were’–. there were cases when the communist party officer asked for surveillance of people and in one incident I asked him if he had anyone else surveilling — if they were under any other surveillance and he said no and the -. I don’t remember the details, but my guys picked up his guys is what it amounted to because he had another surveillance. He was — he had a group watching a person of interest covered and the [redacted] he said he wanted them went out and they saw picked them up and took them off to jail and we had to get them out and that was an operation that involved the Communist Party.

      Q. Did you have any particular responsibility involving American communists living in Mexico City?

      A. The only thing is what I have told you.
      . . . . .

    • [Continuing Goodpasture]>>

      Q. In 1963, if there had been surveillance of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities in Mexico City, who in the station most likely would have had responsibility for that surveillance?

      A. Well, my guess would be that it would have been someone in the Cuban branch who would have been in charge of the operation and they would have given leads to either the — to either me, I mean, they would have said we want your people to check out this address or investigate the activities of this person, and then when those reports came in, we would have given it to them and they would reported on it or [redacted] or the [redacted] team,

      Q. When you are referring to you and your people and your team, by that do you mean people doing the surveillance of Soviet activities?

      A. No, what l’m talking about is the project and we had a project called LITEMPO.

      Q. L-I-T-E-M-P-O.

      A. They used official credentials, they had a surveillance team and they had access to other government facilities. The other project was the TYPIC operation and when I refer to my people! as far as surveillance is concerned, I’m referring to that group that used official credentials.

      Q. We will come back later to the time of Oswald’s visit in Mexico City, but after the Oswald visit, did you yourself have any responsibility while you were in Mexico City to conduct any investigations related to Oswald or the Kennedy assassination?

      A. I don’t recall any. Now, the only thing which I might have done would have been if Win Scott said would you get-me information on so-and-so or write this up for Washington, I probably would have gone to the records and gotten it and prepared whatever it was that he wanted, but I don’t remember any investigations. Now, the Warren Commission people were there, but he dealt with them.

      Q. He being Mr. Scott?

      A. Right. There were requests that came down from the legal attache office, the FBI office, for information about names and things, I don’t remember what they were, but they were just like individual memoranda, and they were working on it, but I never talked to those people who came down, and unknowingly I may have prepared, what I mean by that, I may have prepared correspondence without knowing that it was really for somebody as a part of an investigation, but I wasn’t responsible for any investigation that I recall.

      Q. Do you remember anyone at the station besides 19 h4r. Scott who had responsibility for investigation 20 related to the assassination?

      A. Not specifically, of course there could have been post like addresses or post office boxes or something like that that could have been checked out, but I don’t recall anything specific for the assassination or for that investigation rather.

      Q. Do you recall what the reaction of Mr. Scott was when he first heard about the assassination?

      A. Well, I don’t — I don’t know when he frost heard about it and I don’t know where he was and I don’t remember Dave Phillips being there. I’m not too sure who all were there. I think I heard about it from a phone call from our outside person on the phone tap operation, and I believe it was around lunchtime when there weren’t too many people there and as they all filtered back in, there was office gossip, but I have l tried to remember. I’ve heard so many people say I can remember, I was standing at the telephone or I was in the drugstore, or I was in church and I really don’t remember who all were there at the time. Dave Phillips said that someone from the military attache’s office came up and told him about it and I don’t remember that.

      Q. Do you remember anything about the reaction of Mr. Phillips to the assassination?

      A. No, I don’t even remember him being in the station at that time.

      Q. Okay.

      A. Now his office was not located right next to mine. We had mountains of paper to deal with to get rid of every day and his group of people were over on the opposite side of our floor and I went over there and I got rid of the stuff, it was for them, and I really — we didn’t have the water cooler conversation. There was rumors that swept through the office and a lot of the stuff that I remember came from rumors but I can’t answer that because I really don’t remember.

      Q. When is the first time you remember having connected Oswald with the visit to the Soviet Embassy and to the assassination?

      A. Well, now I was the person that picked up the transcript. The outside person called me and I think I had to — I think it was a special meeting when I went out and picked it up, I could be wrong.

      Q. If I could interrupt you just for a moment. When you refer to the transcript, are you referring to the October 1st telephone interception?

      A. Yeah, the only transcript that I read was the one that his name was mentioned.

      Q. Okay.

      A. Generally we had 50 pages or more every da when they came in. I didn’t pretend to try to read those. I separated them and I took them and I got rid of them, but when somebody’s name was mentioned and the person outside called and said I’ve got something and you need to pick up go out and get it and he said somebody named Jones or whatever, he’s on the phone with the Soviet Embassy, and I would get a copy of that transcript in a reel, a copy of the tape, and bring it back in and give it to the Soviet people, and that I would remember. Now, that’s my memory of the transcript.

      Q. Okay. But in terms of after the assassination, do you recall when you first remembered or recalled

      A. Connected.

      Q- — or connected Oswald to the Mexico City visit?

      A. In the aftermath of the assassination, there was a general uproar throughout, the whole embassy because people from the outside were arriving and calling. Kennedy was very popular in Mexico, and Mexicans were rushing to the embassy to find out what the details were. It came over the radio, not in the station again, I think someone called, and my first reaction was somebody by that – guy by that name went to the Soviet Embassy and we checked the cards. I remember whether I checked the cards or whether . [redacted] checked them, but I think I was talking to [redacted] I may have — there may have been a group of us standing around, but when we heard that, the first thing that happened was we ran and checked the cards and then someone told Win Scott and he fried off a cable to Washington. He may have made a phone call, I’m not sure, but the embassy communications went down, the State Department did not come back in until late in the afternoon. The ambassador went down to the U.S. Information Office, USIS, and he waited there to try to get official word, but it came in to the embassy through the Iocal radio before we got official word.

      Q. When you say the ambassador went to USIS, was that Mr. Mann or was that Mr. Boonstra?

      A. I think that was Tom Mann. Now I didn’t see him go down there but his secretary was a friend of mine and I recall that she said that they had trouble getting confirmation, and I think she said he had gone down there to be there when the message came in, when the information came in.

      Q. There is some question, at least in my mind, whether Mr. Thomas Mann, who was the ambassador at the time, was in Mexico City on the day of the assassination or whether Clarence Boonstra was acting 23 that day?

      A. I thought Tom Man was there but I could be wrong, but he would know when you interview him.



    • Q. I would like to change the direction of the questions for a few minutes and talk about some things related to the CIA organization generally, so this now would be outside of simply the Mexico City context. First, are you aware of an entity within CIA that is known by the abbreviation SIG?

      A. No.

      Q. Does it help if I — if I say Special Investigations Group within counterintelligence?

      A. Now when I went back to Washington after I left Mexico, I was assigned to CI staff, after I wrote the history of Mexico. I went to work for – in CI operations for the Far East area, but I don’t think there was ever any SIG there.

      Q. So prior to today, you don’t recall having heard of SIG previously?

      A. I may have seen the initials but I didn’t know what they meant, at least I don’t remember it if I ever did.

      Q. Are you acquainted with the name Ray Rocca?

      A. Yes, he was deputy director for. James Angleton.

      Q. Are you aware of the name Birch O’Neal?

      A, Birch O’Neal was in [redacted] when I was in [redacted] just before I went down there. [redacted] took over as chief of station when I went down there, and I think Birch O’Neal came home. I knew him but I don’t recall ever working him.

      Q. Do you know the name John Horton?

      A. John Horton?
      Q. Yes.

      A. Yes, John Horton was — he was in the Far East. He also was in Mexico. He was in WH Division : and then he was chief of station in Mexico.

      Q. Do you know of his having ever been involved in counterintelligence staff?’

      A. John Horton?

      Q. John Horton?

      A. Oh, I don’t know. I just know that he was , he was one of the senior officers of WH Division when I came back from Mexico;and I believe Bill Breaux was the chief of the division at that time and then went to Mexico, not as the chief of Scott, but he replaced a man named [redacted] but I believe he was there for a tour – in fact. I think John Horton was in Mexico when Win’Scott died. .I wasn’t there,at that time, but I think Horton was chief of station there.

      Q. Other than Mr. Horton, do you remember Mr. O’Neal or Mr. Rocca ever having been in Mexico City while you were there?

      A. No.

      Q. Do you remember James Angleton ever having been in Mexico City while you were there?

      A. He may have been down there but I don’t call meeting him. I think he and Win Scott were friends from maybe World War II days and he could have been there but I don’t recall it.

      Q, Would you have known Angleton by sight in 63?

      A. 1963? I should have, yes. I think in 19… let’s see. Before I went to Mexico in ‘57, well, it’s simple. I worked in CE division, I can’t remember the exact years now, and there was a project there that I worked on that was of special interest to Jim Angleton’ and we took the material down there to his office. The man that I worked with in division later became a deputy – an executive officer for Jim Angleton and he talked about him a lot. I never knew him socially;but I knew a lot about him because this friend of mine had talked about him a lot, and I’m sure that I had seen him but he was an elusive individual and a lot of people didn’t recognize him.


  68. Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2016 6:01:37 AM PDT
    Magus Maverik says:

    “Hank Sienzant says:
    “12. Lack of evidence can mean lack of evidence.”

    Hyperbole and recitation of prefab scripts seems to be the routine habit of this murder of crows, who are low on testosterone and high on methane gas.
    The proposal that CIA most likely destroyed any obvious smoking guns is not to suggest that there is no evidence. Evidence has been discussed here in great detail. These jackals from the Warren Cult hand wave any evidence they dislike and then spin like toy tops.

    Such as this totally made up nonsense from Hanky Panky;

    “..more than eager to leave Jane Roman and Anne Goodpasture behind after acknowledging there was no evidence of a CIA cover-up, Magus Maverik changes the subject once more.”

    Asserting that I acknowledged that there was no evidence of a CIA cover-up is simply another flat out lie by this vile and disingenuous propagandist. Hanky’s assertion that bring up DRE is “changing the subject” proves that the pretender doesn’t understand the subject, as all of this evidence thus far discussed ties into JMWAVE station Miami, and George Joannides who ran DRE from that point.

    Hanky can’t keep up because Hanky is too consumed in attempting to frame the discussion here in the pretext of his propaganda manual.

    And just because Hanky gets so perturbed by the little poems and satirical sketches done of him…here is another little ditty for kitty:

    Hanky Panky is a crank
    Hanky Panky doesn’t rank
    Hanky Panky pulled a prank
    Hanky Panky needs a spanky – doesn’t Hanky Panky?
    Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2016 6:12:10 AM PDT
    Magus Maverik says:

    ‘I was hoping to have a substantive discussion on the issues on this thread. I would think as adults, we should be able to restrain ourselves from the standard food fights that take place in these forums.’

    Yes indeed and when I posted this it was a comment of disappointment that my hopes are unfulfilled, that I have again been confronted with the scurrilous garbage of a gang of propagandist shills running on prefabricated templates and standardized ‘talking points’ like the obedient apparatchiks they have turned out to be.

    There is no sense in taking such stooges seriously, therefore all they deserve is contempt and rebuff, humorous or biting satire, and on occasion the serious rebuke such as this. As I said, they are enemy propagandists, and accessories after the fact. They are the psychopaths who are counter-blessed by the fact of this being an unjust system that suckles such jackals as they.
    Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2016 9:46:38 PM PDT
    Magus Maverik says:
    How to convince me a conspiracy is real by Tomtomkent (Philosopher)

    So I started reading this playbook for stooges. I found it to be entirely trite and unoriginal. I have run into these same arguments, verbatim for more than a decade. It simply bleeds arrogant bias…just like most shills one encounters in these circles.

    And let us be clear about the terms “shill” – “stooge” – “toady” etc. This is claimed to be ad hominem by these pseudo skeptics, where as the terms “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracist” are deemed merely characterizations of a mind set. The fact is ALL of these terms characterize a mind set and an MO, or a personality profile. Ergo, it you claim that saying that you are a stooge in “calling names” but are shocked when it is pointed out that YOU are calling names as well if that is to be the definition thereof, then YOU are a bloody hypocrite.

    Ad Hominem is using ridicule in place of an argument. Ridicule on its own, and in pointing out that a person is ridiculous, is NOT an argument and is not framed as one. It is an INSULT and nothing else as it does not attach to argument directly. This is called justified ad hominem, whether you can find that in any of your playbooks or not.

    See: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Ad-Hominem.htm

    Now I have to say this about labeling Hanky and Mongrel and Androidson as ‘stooges’ has to do with my own expertise in argumentation for so many years now. There is a very standardized psychological profile of an authoritarian stooge. It is a template just like any other profiling, such as the profile of a “psychopath”, a “sociopath”, a “neurotic”, a “rapist”, a “terrorist” a “dissident”, etc… There are niches for each breed of pigeon.

    Individuation is a more difficult profile to establish. A hard core individualist will frustrate and baffle most other pigeons in a pecking order, if you follow my metaphor. The free thinker will in fact enrage most of his indoctrinated members of his society. His mindset is a mystery to them.

    The free thinker’s knowledge base will likely be incomprehensible to most as the free thinker is by impulse autodidactic and tends towards the meme of the polymath. The free thinker has not become a member of a specific specialty but is expert in many fields by self study and a insatiable thirst for knowledge. This type of personality is often charged as being “narcissistic”, while in fact it is a healthy self confidence that is rare and off putting to those who have prostrated themselves before authority and peer pressure.

    These dynamics are all present in one degree or another on the internet forums, and this one is no exception.


  69. More Mexico Mysteries
    Rex Bradford — May 2002

    “It is difficult to overstate the importance of what is usually called the “Oswald in Mexico City” affair. Certainly the topic was an important one to the CIA-probably a third of the roughly 45,000 pages in the Russ Holmes Work File collection of CIA documents are devoted to it. The Mexico City story is important because it shows that there was a sophisticated operation which served to “set up” Oswald prior to the assassination, something beyond the wherewithal of Mob figures or anti-Castro Cubans acting alone. It is also important because it finally provides an explanation for why men like Earl Warren, who certainly weren’t part of any conspiracy and normally wouldn’t engage in such a stark cover-up, were put in the position where they did so. Mexico City is indeed the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination.

    The most easily understood aspect of the Mexico City affair remains the tapes of an Oswald, who apparently was not Oswald, calling the Soviet Embassy in late September and early October of 1963. John Newman spoke in some detail about these at the 1999 November in Dallas conference, and discussed some of the evidence which shows that the FBI did indeed listen to these tapes in the early morning of November 23, 1963. They determined that it wasn’t Oswald’s voice on the tapes, an inconvenient fact that began to be covered up that evening, even before Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby.”
    The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald [See excerpt in HSCA staff report entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City:



    • [The following is taken from the HSCA testimony of David Phillips, 11-2876, pp. 39-40]:

      By 11 pages later in the interview transcript, though, Phillips had backed pretty far off the original story, and was talking about a conversation which was mainly about a visa:

      Mr. Sprague. I do not want you to give an answer based upon what anyone else says. I do not want you to give an answer trying to square your answer with what you believe is on somebody else’s transcript or anything else. I want this to be your own answer as best you can recall, of what was the purport of that first intercept.

      Mr. Phillips. Okay. All right. Obviously after so long I can’t remember it word for word, but I remember that the thrust of the conversation was Oswald saying to the Soviet he talked to in the Soviet Embassy, “What have you heard about my visa, what news do you have?” “What have you heard about my visa, what news do you have,” something like that. I also recall that Oswald was saying “What’s wrong, why don’t you do this?” And I recall something in that conversation that I can only call an intimation that he said “Well, you really should talk to me,” or something like that. Now, it seems that I recall that, and that is all that I recall with absolute clarity.
      Win Scott, the CIA Mexico City station chief, was another whose account does not square with “the record” as it exists in CIA documents. In a manuscript entitled Foul Foe, Scott complained about the Warren Commission’s account of the Oswald visits. Writing about the lack of a photograph of Oswald, for instance, he wrote: “persons watching these embassies photographed Oswald as he entered and left each one, and clocked the time he spent on each visit” [see the relevant chapter of Scott’s manuscript along with detailed CIA analysis/rebuttal at RIF #104-10419-10314]. The HSCA uncovered this manuscript, whose contents were disputed by the CIA, but HSCA investigators were less sure that Scott was in error. Writing to DCI Stansfield Turner on October 13, 1978, HSCA Chairman Louis Stokes wrote a letter which began “I am writing you with regard to a matter of grave concern to the House Select Committee on Assassinations,” and went on to describe problems with the CIA’s story regarding photo surveillance. Regarding the Scott manuscript, Stokes wrote “Scott’s comments are a source of deep concern to this Committee, for they suggest your Agency’s possible withholding of photographic materials highly relevant to this investigation.” [Letter from HSCA Chairman Louis Stokes to DCI Stansfield Turner, 10-13-78, at RIF #104-10406-10425]

      The Tarasoffs’ 1976 testimony is clear and believable, despite the memory lapse exhibited by Boris Tarasoff more than a year later. This “missing call” might have occurred on Monday, September 30, a day suspiciously lacking in activity in the official record (though it should be noted that the earliest post-assassination records, including the November 23 FBI memo to the White House and Secret Service, refer to an October 1 call). No one’s memory of such a call includes any ultra-sinister discussion such as a plot to kill Kennedy. But what is remembered of the call gives it a more sinister import than those now in the record. Besides Oswald’s offer of information and assertions that “I know you can pay my way,” the lengthy call might have contained indications that the Russians knew Oswald and had dealt with him before. This would probably only be the case if the call was a complete fabrication, with neither Oswald nor the real Soviet Embassy officials on the other end, but there are many indications that the September 28 “Saturday” call is such a fabrication (among other things, both supposed parties to the call deny that such a call could have taken place on that day, when the embassies were closed). [See Deep Politics II, Peter Dale Scott, p. 15]

      Perhaps it is this “third call” which prompted Lyndon Johnson to bandy about the figure of “40 million Americans involved” in a nuclear exchange, and prompted a cover-up of more than just visa talk.



  70. Leading The Witness
    n. asking a question during a trial or deposition which puts words in the mouth of the witness or suggests the answer, which is improper questioning of a witness called by that attorney, but is proper in cross-examination or allowed if a witness is declared by the judge to be a hostile or adverse witness.
    See also: cross-examination hostile witness leading objection adverse witness .
    . . . . .
    In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question or suggestive interrogation[1] is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. Their use is restricted in eliciting testimony in court, to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented. Depending on the circumstances, leading questions can be objectionable or proper.

    For example, this question is leading:

    Were you at KC’s bar on the night of July 15?
    It suggests what location the witness visited on the night in question. The same question in a non-leading form would be:

    Where were you on the night of July 15?
    This form of question does not suggest to the witness the answer the examiner hopes to elicit. Leading questions might instead name a particular person rather than asking “who?”, indicate a specific time rather than asking “when?”, and so on.

    Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes-no questions are leading). The propriety of leading questions generally depends on the relationship of the witness to the party conducting the examination. An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination (to elicit testimony which the witness might be reluctant to volunteer), but not on direct examination (to “coach” the witness to provide a particular answer).

    Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions (such as “Have you stopped beating your wife?” indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point).
    . . . . .

    Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
    Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
    (a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:

    (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth;

    (2) avoid wasting time; and

    (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

    (b) Scope of Cross-Examination. Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

    (c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:

    (1) on cross-examination; and

    (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.

    A party cannot ask his own witness leading questions.

    (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1936; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

    Leading Question
    A query that suggests to the witness how it is to be answered or puts words into the mouth of the witness to be merely repeated in his or her response.

  71. Keep in mind that there simply is no proof that reaches the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Oswald is guilty of murdering anybody.

    Everything is conjecture on that point, nothing is determined. [nihil – hilum trifle]

    You have the choice of using your own mind or continuing to make appeals to fraudulent authority.

  72. The CIA and the JFK Assassination, Pt. 1
    University of Georgia Professor of Law Emeritus Donald E. Wilkes Jr

    One month to the day after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, TX, former President Harry Truman recommended that the U.S. abolish the Central Intelligence Agency… In an op-ed column published in the Washington Post on Dec. 22, 1963, Truman never linked the CIA to President Kennedy’s murder, but the timing of the explicit and strongly worded column and complaint implied a connection.
    -Joseph Lazzaro

    The evidentiary record of the JFK assassination is so contaminated by pervasive misconduct on the part of the… CIA that the good faith of senior government officials simply [cannot] be assumed.
    -Jefferson Morley

    If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anyone.
    -The Godfather Part II

    I’m not privy to who struck John.
    -James Angleton, head of the CIA’s counterintelligence staff, 1954-75

    The assassination by hidden sniper fire of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 was a gigantic security failure by the Secret Service. (The best book on the unbelievable blundering by JFK’s protectors is Vincent Palamara’s Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy [2013].) The assassination was also a colossal intelligence failure by the Central Intelligence Agency, then the principal (and lavishly funded) government intelligence organization. As Jefferson Morley, former Washington Post reporter and now a leading authority on the assassination, observes: “[I]t seem[s] indisputable that the killing of a democratically elected chief of state in broad daylight constituted some kind of intelligence failure. It wasn’t supposed to happen and lots of people were paid good money to make sure it didn’t happen. But it did.”

    At the time President Kennedy was gunned down, the CIA could not possibly have been unfamiliar with the alleged assassin, ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald. Unless it was comatose, Oswald must have been a person of interest to the Agency long before the assassination. In 1957-58, Oswald had been stationed as a radar operator at the Atsugi Naval Air Base in Japan, where there was a major CIA station and from which the Agency’s U2 spy planes flew high-altitude missions over the Soviet Union; in 1959, the CIA knew, Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, announced he had secrets to turn over to the Soviets, and attempted to renounce his American citizenship. In late September/early October 1963, six weeks before JFK’s murder, Oswald had been under CIA surveillance when he visited Soviet and Cuban diplomatic facilities in Mexico City multiple times, supposedly to arrange a return to the Soviet Union (or to visit Cuba, or both).

    For years, critics have accused the CIA of suppressing information relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy. The Agency, they allege, even withheld pertinent information from both the Warren Commission (which investigated the assassination in 1963-64) and the U.S. House of Representatives Assassinations Committee (which reinvestigated the assassination in 1976-79).

    These critics, we now know, were right.

    What for many years seemed unthinkable has turned out to be true after all.

    There was a CIA cover-up. The CIA did suppress information. The CIA did stonewall both of the official government investigations of the JFK assassination. And as a consequence of this Agency misconduct, both investigations were compromised in important respects-particularly in regard to the fundamental issues of whether the assassination resulted from a conspiracy and whether Lee Harvey Oswald (alleged to be the sole assassin in the Warren Report and alleged to be one of multiple assassins in the Report of the House Assassinations Committee) was affiliated with the CIA.

    The CIA’s enormous intelligence failure, combined with the Agency’s appalling concealment of information from the officials in charge of investigating the murder of an American president, raises a number of issues. This Article will address two: (1) whether the CIA was involved in the assassination, and (2) whether Lee Harvey Oswald worked for or with the CIA. This Article will then examine two brand-new, bombshell revelations about CIA suppression of information on the assassination. The first revelation was on Sept. 16, barely two months ago. The second occurred last month, on Oct. 6. Finally, the reasons that the Agency concealed its CIA-Mafia murder plots from the Warren Commission will be explored.

    Possible CIA Involvement in the Assassination

    Almost from the moment JFK succumbed to his bullet wounds, there have been suspicions that, officially or unofficially, directly or indirectly, employees or operatives of the Central Intelligence Agency might have been involved in the assassination.

    These suspicions are not without foundation. Appalled by various abuses and excesses committed by the CIA, embittered by CIA endeavors to deceive and manipulate him, JFK had fired a director of the CIA in 1961 and was struggling to rein in the Agency until the day of his death. After the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961, Kennedy is reported to have vowed that he would “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Conversely, top-ranking CIA officials despised JFK’s policies and politics. That the Agency, which specializes in deception, disinformation and plausible deniability, and which in those heady days was operating like a secretive criminal syndicate-covertly carrying out political assassinations (“executive actions”), successfully scheming to overthrow or destabilize foreign governments, and even plotting with the Mafia to commit murder-might have had something to do with the JFK assassination is not an unreasonable supposition.

    Those who suspect the CIA was somehow behind the assassination reject the lone assassin theory and believe the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. They disagree as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the conspirators. Many think he was the patsy.

    The first book by a serious researcher to suggest the likelihood of CIA connections to the JFK assassination was the late Harold Weisberg’s Oswald in New Orleans: Case of Conspiracy with the CIA (1967). Weisberg was one of the most prominent of the first generation of Warren Commission critics and published nine books on the assassination.

    The researchers who believe the CIA might have been involved in the assassination tend to think the involvement was unofficial. The assassins, they suggest, probably were lower or mid-level CIA employees (or ex-CIA employees) acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of the CIA leadership. This was the view, for example, of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (now deceased), who carried out his own official investigation of the assassination and authored two key books on the JFK assassination. (Garrison also believed that, to avoid embarrassment to the Agency, upper-level CIA officials not involved in the assassination conspiracy nevertheless knowingly participated in a cover-up designed to prevent the CIA-connected murderers from being identified.) Under this view, the assassins presumably murdered Kennedy because they were right-wing military hawks who hated JFK’s liberal politics and foreign policy.

    Other researchers who suspect CIA involvement are convinced that the assassination was arranged in the utmost secrecy by an entirely different set of right-wing, militaristic CIA employees-a small clique of high-ranking, JFK-hating CIA officials who acted in order to eliminate a president they firmly believed posed a dangerous threat to the national security. Mark Lane, author of Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK (2011), espouses this view.


    • Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

      Professor of Law Emeritus
      B.A., University of Florida, 1965
      J.D., University of Florida, 1969

      Criminal Procedure I
      English Legal History
      Postconviction Relief
      Habeas Corpus
      Dreyfus Seminar

      Biographical Information:
      Since June 1, 2013, Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. has been a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law. For over 40 years, from September 1, 1971 to June 1, 2012, Prof. Wilkes was a law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.

      Professor Wilkes is the author of nearly 300 published scholarly works, including 5 books (which have gone through a total of 25 second or subsequent editions), 2 book chapters, 14 law review articles, 3 law review book reviews, 5 encyclopedia articles, 2 bar journal articles, 20 book supplements, and more than 190 scholarly articles in magazines, newspapers, and professional journals. One of Prof. Wilkes’ books is a 3-volume treatise over 4,800 pages long. Another is a 2-volume treatise nearly 1,600 pages long.

      From 1969 to 1971 Professor Wilkes was a law clerk to the Hon. Ben Krentzman, United States District Judge in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. From 1975 to 1976, while on a leave of absence from the law school, Professor Wilkes was a Fellow in Law and the Humanities at Harvard University.

      Professor Wilkes is a nationally recognized authority in the fields of criminal procedure, capital punishment, and postconviction remedies. Professor Wilkes is one of the leading authorities in the world on the writ of habeas corpus, and in London, England has engaged in extensive research on the history of the writ at such research facilities as the British Library, the Public Record Office (now the National Archives), the University of London, the House of Lords Record Office (now the Parliamentary Archives), the Institute of Historical Research, and the Royal Historical Society. The Supreme Court of the United States twice cited one of Prof. Wilkes’ books, State Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook, in its opinion in Wahl v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011).

      Professor Wilkes also has spent time in Paris, France engaged in historical research on the renowned Dreyfus Affair, taught a seminar on the Dreyfus Affair, and has published 4 scholarly articles on the Affair.

      Professor Wilkes is the author of the seminal law review articles, The New Federalism in Criminal Procedure: State Court Evasion of the Burger Court, 62 Ky. L.J. 421 (1974), First Things Last: Amendomania and State Bills of Rights, 54 Miss. L.J. 223 (1984), and Habeas Corpus Proceedings in the High Court of Parliament in the Reign of James I, 1603-1625, 54 Am. J. Leg. Hist. 200 (2014).

      Professor Wilkes has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia and licensed to practice law in Georgia and in various federal courts since 1972.

      Professor Wilkes was born in Daytona Beach, Florida on July 30, 1944.



  73. CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Social Media & Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information
    Susanne Posel — Occupy Corporatism — November 29, 2012

    In July of this year it became apparent through a flood of mainstream media reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) was “desperate to hire new hacking talent to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure” yet the NSA is notorious for its surveillance programs on American digital activity.

    David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, said at a summit for In-Q-Tel, that he was speculating on the “internet of things” and that “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies . . . particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.”

    Petraeus is seeking to better the CIA’s ability to create online identities for undercover spies. Currently, each internet user has a digital footprint that can trace the movements online to the person on the other end of the screen. Petraeus wants to utilize technology that will essentially erase a digital footprint; erasing all traces of anyone at the whim of the CIA.

    In a possible preparation for the ability of the CIA to spy on American citizens with their household items, the NSA’s Utah Data Center is located in the Utah desert in the foot hills of the Wasatch mountain range. This is the centerpiece of the Global Information Grid; a military project that collects yottabytes of data. They are listening to every conversation, reading every post, intercepting every text message under the false flag of terrorism.

    The facility has the technological ability to record and analyze every communication in the world. From emails to phone calls to text messages to chats; nothing is private anymore.

    Based on “threat Levels” the NSA can use all the technology at their disposal to obtain information on:

    • Finances
    • Stock transactions
    • Business deals
    • Foreign military
    • Diplomatic secrets
    • Legal documents
    • Personal civilian communications

    This information could be used at Fusion Centers for the DHS to create a more efficient profile on each and every American citizen. The implications are staggering. This ability to collect these types of data are a violation of the 4th Amendment guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. By collecting intelligence on every American citizen, the US government is treating everyone as if they were a potential foreign or domestic terrorist. Whether this assumption is valid or not, under the US constitution, Americans are supposed to be protected from intrusion of government; even if that government is their own.

    At the same time the NSA spy center was being constructed, Attorney General Eric Holder new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). These guidelines will allow the NCTC access to data on American citizens once held under right to privacy. The NCTC will focus on collecting and sharing information; regardless of whether or not there is the threat of terrorism. The will collaborate with local state officials, tribal courts and private partners; as well as the FBI and DHS and other federal agencies.

    The Obama administration empowered the NCTC with the authority afforded Obama under Presidential Executive Order 13354. This EO was codified by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The NCTC reports directly to the President and director of National Intelligence as instructed by the President and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Sen. John McCain was integral in the creation of this combination of military strength and governmental power culminating in all-encompassing tyranny.

    Both private and public corporations will be employed to mine the data. Silicon Valley and other technology giants in the private sector will have open access to private information on any and all American citizens.

    Since the manufactured attack on 9/11, the US government has created a “vast domestic intelligence apparatus” that spies on Americans and collects massive amounts of data to be profiled and used at the discretion of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), local law enforcement, DHS and military criminal investigators. The FBI and NSA house more than 1.5 billion government and private sector profiles. The information on average citizens includes all sources of criminal and non-criminal databases that assist the US government in creating a filing system on each American.

    The NSA has a comprehensive program to search out our schools into scouting grounds for a team of American grown hacker community. The Obama administration has made it a concern of theirs that the future of cybersecurity rest with the college graduates of tomorrow. The NSA is focusing on colleges and universities within the US. Four schools have already been singled out as official Centers of Academic Excellence in Cyber Operations (CAE-COP).

    The CAE-COP focuses on recruiting persons with “particular emphasis on technologies and techniques related to specialized cyber operations (e.g., collection, exploitation, and response), to enhance the national security posture of our Nation.”

    Those chosen for this program become vital researchers expected to assist the NSA in:

    • Global communications and computing networks
    • Developing a digital strategic advantage
    • Collaboration with the US government on cyber issues
    • Carry out directives on designated targets at the discretion of the US government

    These “cyber operators” are trained to become an elite team of “computer geniuses” that are experts in computer hacking, digital communications, cyber intelligence – for the purpose of spying on Americans; as well as conducting interactive digital psy-ops with users of the internet.

    Earlier this month, Janet Napolitano, in her blog entitled “Inspiring the Next Generation of Cyber Professionals”, would like future generations to learn about cybersecurity so that their contribution to the federal government is secure to “ensure their professional development.” The collaboration of the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency will support “the nation’s educational infrastructure by supporting Centers of Academic Excellence” to make sure that the “scope of cyber education” becomes an important function for those in the field as inspired by the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE).

    CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Social Media & Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information


  74. In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative

    Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal
    Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

    The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

    But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

    The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
    That all changed in the 1960s.

    Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

    The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

    The dispatch states:

    2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.


    The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

    3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

    a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

    b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.


    4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

    a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.


    b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent-and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …


    c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.


    d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.


    f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

    g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

    5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s