David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Myra Bronstein]

"In 1967, Sheridan went to New Orleans to check into the Jim Garrison investigation, to see whether the flamboyant prosecutor really had cracked the JFK case. (Sheridan was working as an NBC news producer at the time, but he reported back to RFK, telling him that Garrison was a fraud.)"

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05...ers/index1.html

Well that explains why Bobby and Sheridan wouldn't cooperate with Garrison.

But why on earth would they think he was a fraud?

I hope Talbot explains that in his book.

They were flat out wrong.

I wonder what Talbot thinks of Garrison and his investigation...

Myra:

I totally agree. I have the book on order but it now won't arrive til next week. Seems to me Bobby and Garrison were both on the same trail. Of course I also think the LBJ stuff is true, that he was in on it.

Dawn

Definitely Dawn. LBJ's legal problems dictated the timing of the assassination. Without a doubt.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

[John Simkin]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

[Pat Speer]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

[Myra Bronstein]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

[William Kelly]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

And that hasn't happened yet.

Kiddoos to David Talbot for setting the stage for the next Act in the greatest political drama of our times.

The best is yet to come.

BK

Edited May 5, 2007 by William Kelly

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

I agree with Myra's assertion that the charge that "his (Garrison's) list of suspects was evolving and expanding" should not alone be used to label him a fraud. When one considers the context in which he was trying to conduct the investigation, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE HIS LIST NOT CHANGING AS THE INVISTIGATION CONTINUED. Here was a local DA being probed by the CIA, NBC, CBS, Newsweek and his own invesitgative team had been infiltrated. Under such heavy cannon fire how much stability in presentation did you expect from Garrison's SS Minow? Then there was Sheridan. If we are to believe Joan Mellon, he was sicked on Garrison by Bobby Kennedy with malicious intent.

Do members agree with Mellon's assessment of the relationship btw. Bobby--Sheridan--Garrison? She implies-- if I am not mistaken-- that Bobby believed in a conspiracy, but could not allow Garrison to find out about it in his way, because his own 1963 Cuba fingerprints would come out in Garrison's investigation.

I had been looking forward to Talbot's book for a long time, and then I read the article from 2003, that seemed to use the old Marcelo smear tactic against Garrison, and I worried that perhaps Talbot would take a Mafia limited hangout. It seems that Talbot's views have evolved a lot since he wrote that article and I have become reassured by the comments of of John, Bill Kelly and others who have read about thirty times as much as me on the assassination.

Garrison may well be a fraud. But if he is I still need a lot of convincing. In the tumultuous context of his 1967 investigation, the surprising thing would be if his list of culprits did not change.

[Sid Walker]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

Well said Nathaniel. Unless I've missed something major, use of the term 'fraud' to describe Garrison is wholly inappropriate. He was a very brave man indeed, IMO - operating in the most difficult of circumstances.

Regarding The Spotlight, it was first published in the mid 70s, and yes, the writer must have been referring to the Plausible Denial saga, also covered in Final Judgment (Michael Collins Piper worked for The Spotlight).

Victor Marchetti's Spotlight article that prompted Hunt to sue was published in 1978.

Interestingly, although Piper believes Hunt was probably in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination, he doesn't believe Hunt was one of the killers of JFK.

This discussion would be well served, IMO, by consideration of Chapter 16 of Final Judgment.

_______________________

On a related but separate matter, I read the short article by David Talbot in Salon.com. Thanks to whoever provided the link.

It concludes thus:

In late March 1968, during his doomed and heroic run for the presidency, Kennedy was addressing a tumultuous outdoor campus rally in Northridge, Calif., when some boisterous students shouted out the question he always dreaded. "We want to know who killed President Kennedy!" yelled one girl, while others took up the cry: "Open the archives!"

Kennedy's response that day was a tightrope walk. He knew that if he fully revealed his thinking about the assassination, the ensuing media uproar would have dominated his campaign, instead of burning issues like ending the Vietnam War and healing the country's racial divisions. For a man like Robert Kennedy, you did not talk about something as dark as the president's assassination in public -- you explored the crime your own way.

But Kennedy respected college students and their passions -- and he was in the habit of addressing campus audiences with surprising honesty. He did not want to simply deflect the question that day with his standard line. So, while dutifully endorsing the Warren Report as usual, he went further. "You wanted to ask me something about the archives," he responded. "I'm sure, as I've said before, the archives will be open." The crowd cheered and applauded. "Can I just say," continued Kennedy, "and I have answered this question before, but there is no one who would be more interested in all of these matters as to who was responsible for uh…the uh, uh, the death of President Kennedy than I would." Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, long used to Kennedy ducking the question, was "stunned" by the reply. "It was either like he was suddenly blurting out the truth, or it was a way to shut down any further questioning. You know, 'Yes, I will reopen the case. Now let's move on.'"

Robert Kennedy did not live long enough to solve his brother's assassination. But nearly 40 years after his own murder, a growing body of evidence suggests that Kennedy was on the right trail before he too was cut down. Despite his verbal contortions in public, Bobby Kennedy always knew that the truth about Dallas mattered. It still does.

Frank Mankiewicz is also cited as a source earlier in Talbot's article.

There are grounds for thinking Mankiewicz, fomerly a PR man for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, who in later years became Vice-Chair of the PR company that sold the first Gulf War to the world on the basis of a pack of lies, is not a trustworthy source.

Indeed, some believe he had a hand in the assassination of RFK - see THIS previous discussion on the forum.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Myra Bronstein]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

And that hasn't happened yet.

Kiddoos to David Talbot for setting the stage for the next Act in the greatest political drama of our times.

The best is yet to come.

BK

This is fantastic. A big thumbs up. I can't wait to read it, don't have a copy yet.

BK, how much does Talbot focus on LBJ's complicity?

[Myra Bronstein]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

...

BK

Even the death of everyone involved will not negate the need for the truth about President Kennedy's murder.

Determining and reporting the truth is a critical goal.

Seeking and obtaining justice is another worthy goal, but a very separate one.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Rex Bradford's interview with David Talbot is on the Mary Ferrell website.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._6_-_Transcript

Seems McNamara told Talbot that JFK always wanted his epitaph to be "He Kept the Peace." Wonder why McNamara did not broadcast this at the time of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and why McNamara allowed himself to become a tool for the warmongers.

The Auschwitz defense, I suppose. Just following orders.

[Myra Bronstein]

Rex Bradford's interview with David Talbot is on the Mary Ferrell website.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._6_-_Transcript

Seems McNamara told Talbot that JFK always wanted his epitaph to be "He Kept the Peace." Wonder why McNamara did not broadcast this at the time of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and why McNamara allowed himself to become a tool for the warmongers.

The Auschwitz defense, I suppose. Just following orders.

Great article. Thanks for the link.

Thought this part was interesting:

"REX: I'd like to switch forward because there's been some more recent news in the 43-year-old murder, and you've been involved in some of the news. Shane O'Sullivan, of BBC Newsnight, last fall put out a story that three high-level CIA officials were present at the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was killed. You and Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley then started tracking down the story. Can you tell us about that?

DAVID: Yeah, I think it's a fascinating episode in Kennedy research. As you say, a young filmmaker named Shane O'Sullivan went on the air - on the BBC - in November, with a startling report alleging that David Morales, George Joannides, and a fellow named Gordon Campbell - and the first two have long been connected in research circles to Dallas - were caught on camera at the Ambassador Hotel the night Bobby was killed in Los Angeles. He showed clips of news footage and still photographs that were taken that night and identified them as these three men, three CIA officials who were connected, again, to the Agency's secret war on Castro. Well, this was a kind of "holy xxxx" moment, because if that was the case, then you're connecting the same people who might have JFK to the people who might have killed RFK.

So I was in the finishing stages of my book, but I felt this had to be looked into before I sent my book off to the publisher, so Jeff Morley and I got an assignment from The New Yorker to look into it. With the New Yorker's resources, we were able to criss-cross he country, going from Miami to Northern California, Arizona and Washington and New England, and talked to a number of people to pin down whether or not these three CIA agents were indeed there. Well, unfortunately for Shane, and those who believed the story, we found that it simply wasn't true. Gordon Campbell - the person he identified as Gordon Campbell - turned out to be a U.S. Army official who had been attached to the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami, but he had died in 1962, so of course it was impossible for him to show up in 1968 at the Ambassador.

We also found, finally - and I'm actually looking at these photographs right now - excellent photographs taken of David Morales around 1968. We've only had a very kind of rudimentary photo of him for the most part, that was taken out of a Cuban newspaper - and it's even in my book because I wasn't able to get these other photos in time - and so we weren't able to really get a good sense of what David Morales looked like until now. And if you compare these new photos that we now have in our possession - Jeff Morley and I, we've seen four photos of Morales from that period - it's clearly not the man in the news footage at the Ambassador Hotel. The physical characteristics are just completely different. People who knew him well say the same thing when they look at Shane O'Sullivan's report and these photos.

The same is true of George Joannides. We also found good photos of Joannides taken around the same time, and again, it's simply not the man caught on camera at the Ambassador.

On the other hand, David Morales has told - before he died - he told his attorney Robert Walton, and he told a good friend, who I did interview again, that he was in Dallas and Los Angeles at the times of the assassinations. He went further with his attorney and told him that he played a role in it. He did tell his friend Reuben Carbajal, who again, I interviewed, that the CIA killed JFK. So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera. We have other evidence that Morales was connected to these assassinations, but these photographs or news footage that Shane used in his films simply don't corroborate it.

REX: It would certainly be the height of brazenness for three high-level CIA officials to be in the ballroom while planning that murder."

[John Simkin]

Comment from Shane O'Sullivan:

"I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy."

[Pat Speer]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

Well said Nathaniel. Unless I've missed something major, use of the term 'fraud' to describe Garrison is wholly inappropriate. He was a very brave man indeed, IMO - operating in the most difficult of circumstances.

Regarding The Spotlight, it was first published in the mid 70s, and yes, the writer must have been referring to the Plausible Denial saga, also covered in Final Judgment (Michael Collins Piper worked for The Spotlight).

Victor Marchetti's Spotlight article that prompted Hunt to sue was published in 1978.

Interestingly, although Piper believes Hunt was probably in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination, he doesn't believe Hunt was one of the killers of JFK.

This discussion would be well served, IMO, by consideration of Chapter 16 of Final Judgment.

_______________________

On a related but separate matter, I read the short article by David Talbot in Salon.com. Thanks to whoever provided the link.

It concludes thus:

In late March 1968, during his doomed and heroic run for the presidency, Kennedy was addressing a tumultuous outdoor campus rally in Northridge, Calif., when some boisterous students shouted out the question he always dreaded. "We want to know who killed President Kennedy!" yelled one girl, while others took up the cry: "Open the archives!"

Kennedy's response that day was a tightrope walk. He knew that if he fully revealed his thinking about the assassination, the ensuing media uproar would have dominated his campaign, instead of burning issues like ending the Vietnam War and healing the country's racial divisions. For a man like Robert Kennedy, you did not talk about something as dark as the president's assassination in public -- you explored the crime your own way.

But Kennedy respected college students and their passions -- and he was in the habit of addressing campus audiences with surprising honesty. He did not want to simply deflect the question that day with his standard line. So, while dutifully endorsing the Warren Report as usual, he went further. "You wanted to ask me something about the archives," he responded. "I'm sure, as I've said before, the archives will be open." The crowd cheered and applauded. "Can I just say," continued Kennedy, "and I have answered this question before, but there is no one who would be more interested in all of these matters as to who was responsible for uh…the uh, uh, the death of President Kennedy than I would." Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, long used to Kennedy ducking the question, was "stunned" by the reply. "It was either like he was suddenly blurting out the truth, or it was a way to shut down any further questioning. You know, 'Yes, I will reopen the case. Now let's move on.'"

Robert Kennedy did not live long enough to solve his brother's assassination. But nearly 40 years after his own murder, a growing body of evidence suggests that Kennedy was on the right trail before he too was cut down. Despite his verbal contortions in public, Bobby Kennedy always knew that the truth about Dallas mattered. It still does.

Frank Mankiewicz is also cited as a source earlier in Talbot's article.

There are grounds for thinking Mankiewicz, fomerly a PR man for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, who in later years became Vice-Chair of the PR company that sold the first Gulf War to the world on the basis of a pack of lies, is not a trustworthy source.

Indeed, some believe he had a hand in the assassination of RFK - see THIS previous discussion on the forum.

Sid, this is gar-bage. As detailed in Talbot's book, Mankiewicz was devoted to RFK, and pushed RFK to re-investigate JFK's death. He was the one Kennedy aide to work with Oliver Stone on JFK, and damaged his relationship to the family in doing so.

Any speculation that he was some sort of Israeli intelligence disinfo agent planted among the Kennedys and Stone to disguise Israeli involvement in the assassination is pure fantasy. Please find some evidence to back it up, beyond that he was Jewish and involved in pro-Israel activities.