Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gaeton Fonzi and the Veciana Allegations


Recommended Posts

This article, which is the first in a series on the Maurice Bishop affair, will show that Fonzi was not an objective investigator by the time of his interviews with Veciana. Using primary sources, I will also demonstrate that Fonzi shaped facts to fit his own CIA-did-it theory of the JFK assassination.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

W. Tracy Parnell writes:

<quote on>

Fonzi interviewed Arlen Specter in 1966 and come away disbelieving the single bullet theory and accepting a conspiracy. He confirmed his bias in an article discussing Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History when he wrote “I was never a “conspiracy theorist.” I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy believer.” 8 In 1996, Fonzi again admitted his lack of objectivity in an interview with researcher Steve Bochan “It's true. I had already made up my mind years ago as a result of the investigation and as a result of the work I had already done on the Kennedy assassination.”

<quote off>

Why did Fonzi "come away disbelieving the single bullet theory and accepting conspiracy"?

Because Specter himself could not reconcile the physical evidence of the case with the SBT.

It wasn't because of any "bias" that Fonzi accepted conspiracy -- it was a matter of empirical observation that the bullet holes in the clothes were too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

When confronted with the physical evidence Specter had a meltdown.

Starts at the 15:50 mark:

Any objective person can verify the fact that when one raises one's arms to wave (a la Kennedy in the motorcade) such a posture causes the fabric along the shoulder-line to INDENT.

It's bias that keeps Lone Nutters from accepting obvious facts.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Cliff,

What I meant was that as a conspiracy believer, he was not an objective investigator. He didn't believe the SBT, ok-that is his right. But it makes him a poor choice to be an investigator for the HSCA or Church as others also believed.

He accepted the fact of conspiracy because he made an objective observation, something you apparently are incapable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

...Fonzi was not an objective investigator by the time of his interviews with Veciana... 

Tracy,

I agree that the great Gaeton Fonzi slipped from the right path of reason, and fell into the mud pit of the CIA-did-it CT. 

The objective interpretation of the meeting of David Atlee Philips, Antonio Veciana and Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963 was the one factor which they all had in common -- namely -- the burning desire to assassinate Fidel Castro.

This was -- actually -- the main motivation that gathered most of the denizens of 544 Camp Street in New Orleans, and at Carlos Marcello's paramilitary training camp near Lake Pontchartrain.

It was only in retrospect -- with the name of Lee Harvey Oswald -- that people began to impute a JFK plot to EVERYBODY associated with 544 Camp Street.

Jim Garrison was guilty of that fall.  Mark Lane was guilty of that fall.  Harold Weisberg was guilty of that fall.  Ed Epstein was guilty of that fall.  Why not Gaeton Fonzi?

Without the data of Dick Russell, Larry Hancock, Edwin Lopez and Bill Simpich (all closer to the 21st century) it was virtually impossible to get a clear handle on the Radical Right plot to kill JFK and LHO -- as demonstrated by Dr. Jeff Caufield (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I kind of thought this would be Parnell's objective.  First, he brings up a Church Commitee report which he masks as an HSCA report.

Then he says that well, hey, Veciana does not say Southland Center at first. As if there is some kind of significance to that.

And of course, Fonzi passed away and no one can phone him.  

Anyone who knows Fonzi will tell you that the turning point in his whole reporting career was his meeting with Arlen Specter.  He had known Specter as a very efficient prosecutor in Philadelphia for a number of years.  When he went to interview the noted lawyer, he was dumbfounded at how much he floundered and backpedaled and became speechless when Gaeton asked him some simple questions about the Single Bullet Fantasy.  

I hate to tell TP this but 1.) Specter invented the whole idea, got that?  Or at least that is what he said!  And he is hapless in defending it.  Is that not a mite suspicious?  2.) It is an invention of necessity. That is, if there is no Magic Bullet, there is no Warren Report.  You can throw the whole 888 pages into the river. And start over.

Then he says, it is Fonzi's right not to believe the Magic Bullet!   Geez Tracy, how generous of you to say he actually has the right not to believe an absurdity that masks a tragedy.  Like, who really killed President Kennedy? 

Its very clear from reading The Last Investigation how Fonzi suspected the CIA as a main culprit in the JFK case, and its interesting that Parnell never refers to that fine book.  If one reads about the first hundred pages of the book, you will see that Fonzi starts investigating for Schweiker and he begins to run into deliberate cul de sacs and false leads.  One being Clare Booth Luce.  Another being the whole Sturgis/Hemming gang.  He then begins to think that there might be something to the fact that they are trying to mislead him.  He then connects Luce to the whole William Pawley/Bayo raid.  He then began to map out a plan of investigation into this lead.

A week later, Pawley was dead.

But he decided to pursue the angle and he focused on the DRE and Bringuier.  This lead to the press release the DRE issued the night of the assassination, the whole Oswald as an agent of the commies etc.  Fonzi found out that the press release was issued after a consultation with the DRE's CIA officer at Jm Wave. (Fonzi, p. 58)  Who, of course, we all know today, was the guy who the CIA brought back under false pretenses to stymie Eddie and Dan on Mexico City.  Fonzi later found out that Luce was informing on his progress to the CIA Director Bill Colby.  And that Luce was a member of the newly formed AFIO, which had been created by a "retired" David Phillips.  About which Marchetti told me that when Phillips met with him, "See Dave was retired, but he wasn't really retired."

If you can't connect those dots, then you must believe the SBT.

So who is "biased"?  I'd say its Parnell.  The telltale McAdams sign?  He leaves this out.

                                       

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

...

Anyone who knows Fonzi will tell you that the turning point in his whole reporting career was his meeting with Arlen Specter.  He had known Specter as a very efficient prosecutor in Philadelphia for a number of years.  When he went to interview the noted lawyer, he was dumbfounded at how much he floundered and backpedaled and became speechless when Gaeton asked him some simple questions about the Single Bullet Fantasy.  

...

So who is "biased"?  I'd say its Parnell.  The telltale McAdams sign?  He leaves this out.

Is there a telltale DiEugenio sign?

In the past JD has bragged about ignoring the clothing evidence and here he leaves it out again.

What makes you incapable of citing the clothing evidence specifically, Jim?

Lone Nutters, Seepy Tease (Conspiracy Pet Theorists) not a dime's worth of difference when it comes to the Weaponized Fact of Conspiracy -- the salient fact that the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to account for the throat wound.

When pointed at LNers and CPTs the Weaponized Fact of Conspiracy induces one of two states of mind  -- they'll either babble incoherently (like Specter) or STFU (like Parnell).

Works every time.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracy, I invite you to perform the following exercise:

1) Turn your head to the right and glance down at your shirt on your shoulder-line.

2)  Casually raise your right hand and wave to the folks on Elm St.

3) Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

That's the salient fact of conspiracy literally under your nose.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one takes a look at the Fonzi chapter on this, which is chapter 2, its not until the last three pages where he gets into the clothing evidence.

For the period of 1966-67, it was useful.

Today its 2017.

What on earth a CPT is, I have no idea.  I think its the point were Varnell meets Trejo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If one takes a look at the Fonzi chapter on this, which is chapter 2, its not until the last three pages where he gets into the clothing evidence.

So what?

What does that have to do with the historical significance of the Fonzi-Specter interview -- which you were touting, not many posts up.

Quote

For the period of 1966-67, it was useful.

Today its 2017.

Why would it be any less useful 50 years later?

Aimed at Specter the Weaponized Fact reduced him to babble nonsense.

When I pointed it at you on Deep Politics you wrote: "Most researchers respect the clothing evidence."

Any murder case starts with an examination of the physical evidence -- which officially occurred in Specter's office.

Quote

What on earth a CPT is, I have no idea.

Those who ignore the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Started with Six Seconds in Dallas, the Seepy Tease playbook.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In chapter 6 of Reclaiming Parkland, I spend about 39 pages on this.

Leave it to Varnell and Trejo to hijack a thread about Fonzi for their own agendas

Hey maybe Harriman knew Walker?  How about that for a script, "When Averill met Edwin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

In chapter 6 of Reclaiming Parkland, I spend about 39 pages on this.

And that is the problem, right there.

It doesn't take 39 pages -- it took Fonzi less than a minute.  I can state the Weaponized Fact in 15 words.

That's your problem, Jim -- you coined the phrase "superhumanly complex" to describe this case and that's bullshi.

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

...agenda...

I'm not promoting a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physical evidence tells us a lot more than 2+ shooters.  There was a wound in JFK's back 4 inches below his collars around T3, the round didn't exit. and no round was found there during the autopsy.  Throat wound, no exit, no round recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

CPTs never ask

The SBT is a distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know, I kind of thought this would be Parnell's objective.  First, he brings up a Church Commitee report which he masks as an HSCA report.

Then he says that well, hey, Veciana does not say Southland Center at first. As if there is some kind of significance to that.

And of course, Fonzi passed away and no one can phone him.  

Anyone who knows Fonzi will tell you that the turning point in his whole reporting career was his meeting with Arlen Specter.  He had known Specter as a very efficient prosecutor in Philadelphia for a number of years.  When he went to interview the noted lawyer, he was dumbfounded at how much he floundered and backpedaled and became speechless when Gaeton asked him some simple questions about the Single Bullet Fantasy.  

I hate to tell TP this but 1.) Specter invented the whole idea, got that?  Or at least that is what he said!  And he is hapless in defending it.  Is that not a mite suspicious?  2.) It is an invention of necessity. That is, if there is no Magic Bullet, there is no Warren Report.  You can throw the whole 888 pages into the river. And start over.

Then he says, it is Fonzi's right not to believe the Magic Bullet!   Geez Tracy, how generous of you to say he actually has the right not to believe an absurdity that masks a tragedy.  Like, who really killed President Kennedy? 

Its very clear from reading The Last Investigation how Fonzi suspected the CIA as a main culprit in the JFK case, and its interesting that Parnell never refers to that fine book.  If one reads about the first hundred pages of the book, you will see that Fonzi starts investigating for Schweiker and he begins to run into deliberate cul de sacs and false leads.  One being Clare Booth Luce.  Another being the whole Sturgis/Hemming gang.  He then begins to think that there might be something to the fact that they are trying to mislead him.  He then connects Luce to the whole William Pawley/Bayo raid.  He then began to map out a plan of investigation into this lead.

A week later, Pawley was dead.

But he decided to pursue the angle and he focused on the DRE and Bringuier.  This lead to the press release the DRE issued the night of the assassination, the whole Oswald as an agent of the commies etc.  Fonzi found out that the press release was issued after a consultation with the DRE's CIA officer at Jm Wave. (Fonzi, p. 58)  Who, of course, we all know today, was the guy who the CIA brought back under false pretenses to stymie Eddie and Dan on Mexico City.  Fonzi later found out that Luce was informing on his progress to the CIA Director Bill Colby.  And that Luce was a member of the newly formed AFIO, which had been created by a "retired" David Phillips.  About which Marchetti told me that when Phillips met with him, "See Dave was retired, but he wasn't really retired."

If you can't connect those dots, then you must believe the SBT.

So who is "biased"?  I'd say its Parnell.  The telltale McAdams sign?  He leaves this out.

                                       

 

 

First of all, this article has nothing to do with the SBT. It is about Fonzi's lack of objectivity and the facts that he made up. I mention why it matters regarding the Southland Center-some CTs are making hay out of that "fact" which is not a fact at all. I mention the Last Investigation-it's in the endnotes.

The whole point of the article which Jim D. apparently missed is Fonzi lacked objectivity which left him open to Veciana's tales. And the late August-early September timeline at the Southland building was created by Fonzi. Veciana never said that-only "summer" or July or August and said he couldn't be more specific regardless of what he is saying these days. This matters because you have people like Wynne Johnson coming out of the woodwork to "verify" these "facts" and I believe researchers should know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First of all, this article has nothing to do with the SBT. It is about Fonzi's lack of objectivity and the facts that he made up. I mention why it matters regarding the Southland Center-some CTs are making hay out of that "fact" which is not a fact at all. I mention the Last Investigation-it's in the endnotes.

The whole point of the article which Jim D. apparently missed is Fonzi lacked objectivity which left him open to Veciana's tales. And the late August-early September timeline at the Southland building was created by Fonzi. Veciana never said that-only "summer" or July or August and said he couldn't be more specific regardless of what he is saying these days. This matters because you have people like Wynne Johnson coming out of the woodwork to "verify" these "facts" and I believe researchers should know this.

But this "lack of objectivity" and bias is on YOU.

It was a supreme act of objectivity to notice the movement of clothing when imitating JFK's posture -- cuts to the chase.

You insist on framing the acceptance of conspiracy as an opinion, given to bias.

Tracy, that's an egregious mis-representation of the facts.surrounding Fonzi's historic confrontation with Specter.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...