John Simkin Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 John, could you be thinking of Patrick J. Frawley Jr. Christian and Turner have this to day about him in thier RFK book. The context is about right wingersin LA area (some actual Birchers) who were trying to feed a trail of planted bread crumbs to the media, the purpose being to depict the basically apolitical Sirhan as a leftist with links to Castro: In time the LAPD discredited Duarte's identification of Sirhan by producing a look-alike Iranian student who had been at the leftist meeting and recalled being involved in the altercation. However, the entire scenario struck us as all too familiar. In August 1963 lee Harvey Oswald was accosted by an anti-Castro exile while handing out pro-Catro-litterature on the streets of NO. Shortly after the scuffle Oswald was invited to participate in a radio debate on the subject. In the evening of the day John Kennedy was shot, taped excerpts were broadcast nationally Oswald was heard by millions proclaiming, "I am a Marxist!" Both the debate and the assassination-evening ariring of the excerpts were arranged by Edward S. Butler, who headed a right wing propaganda outfit in New Orleans called the Information Council of the Americas. By 1968 Butler had moved to Los Angeles, where he carried on with financial aid from PATRICK J. FRAWLEY JR.. cheif executive officer of the Schick Safety Razor Company. For years Frawley generously supported hard-line conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sam Yorty. (p.59) This part I found especially intersting. Sam Yorty and Frawley both belonged to the American Security Council. So did Senator Dodd. Dodd's committee was investigating the inter-state gun sales that just happened to have Oswalds papers ready and waiting. Might these LA locals have been involved on the California end, coordinated with Dodd via the American Security Council? What a weirdo was Dodd! Thank you for this information. Edward Haslam clearly made a mistake by calling him William Fawley in "Dr. Mary's Monkey". I will try to produce a web page on him today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Every President has allowed documents, concerning the assassination of JFK, to be withheld. Allowing secrets to remain, is, in my mind, participation in a cover-up after the fact. I agree. So do I. The government's refusal to release all data, 44 years after the assassination, essentially creates a presumption of conspiracy which must be rebutted by Bugliosi, Posner et al. In civil matter in the US, the loss or destruction of evidence by a party (i.e. spoliated evidence) creates a legal presumption that the same is contrary to the interests of such party. What secrutiy interest of the US would be breached if it is revealed that: (a) JFK was assassinated by factions of the CIA who colluded with some Mafia dons and anti-Castro Cubans, ( LEO was a CIA asset (in Japan, the USSR, Mexico City, New Orleans and Dallas), © Gerald Ford believes that the neck area extends half-way down to the tail bone, (d) Ted Kennedy and the rest of the family really don't buy the WC as the final word on JFK's assassination, (e) LBJ and some of his oil buddies/benefactors may have had prior knowledge of the assassination, or (f) the AG and the CIA were conspiring with the Mafia to hit Castro? Do Congress and the President really think that they have any remaining credibility that would be lost by any such revelations? Perhaps all 535 members of Congress could take a break from their busy earmark efforts to give this issue some legislative attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Every President has allowed documents, concerning the assassination of JFK, to be withheld. Allowing secrets to remain, is, in my mind, participation in a cover-up after the fact. I agree. So do I. The government's refusal to release all data, 44 years after the assassination, essentially creates a presumption of conspiracy which must be rebutted by Bugliosi, Posner et al. In civil matter in the US, the loss or destruction of evidence by a party (i.e. spoliated evidence) creates a legal presumption that the same is contrary to the interests of such party. What secrutiy interest of the US would be breached if it is revealed that: (a) JFK was assassinated by factions of the CIA who colluded with some Mafia dons and anti-Castro Cubans, ( LEO was a CIA asset (in Japan, the USSR, Mexico City, New Orleans and Dallas), © Gerald Ford believes that the neck area extends half-way down to the tail bone, (d) Ted Kennedy and the rest of the family really don't buy the WC as the final word on JFK's assassination, (e) LBJ and some of his oil buddies/benefactors may have had prior knowledge of the assassination, or (f) the AG and the CIA were conspiring with the Mafia to hit Castro? Do Congress and the President really think that they have any remaining credibility that would be lost by any such revelations? Perhaps all 535 members of Congress could take a break from their busy earmark efforts to give this issue some legislative attention. Wouldn't that be just swell? And since, per Pelosi, "impeachment is off the table," the table has plenty of room for the critical business of finally exposing the truth about President Kennedy's murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Every President has allowed documents, concerning the assassination of JFK, to be withheld. Allowing secrets to remain, is, in my mind, participation in a cover-up after the fact. I agree. So do I. The government's refusal to release all data, 44 years after the assassination, essentially creates a presumption of conspiracy which must be rebutted by Bugliosi, Posner et al. In civil matter in the US, the loss or destruction of evidence by a party (i.e. spoliated evidence) creates a legal presumption that the same is contrary to the interests of such party. What secrutiy interest of the US would be breached if it is revealed that: (a) JFK was assassinated by factions of the CIA who colluded with some Mafia dons and anti-Castro Cubans, ( LEO was a CIA asset (in Japan, the USSR, Mexico City, New Orleans and Dallas), © Gerald Ford believes that the neck area extends half-way down to the tail bone, (d) Ted Kennedy and the rest of the family really don't buy the WC as the final word on JFK's assassination, (e) LBJ and some of his oil buddies/benefactors may have had prior knowledge of the assassination, or (f) the AG and the CIA were conspiring with the Mafia to hit Castro? Do Congress and the President really think that they have any remaining credibility that would be lost by any such revelations? Perhaps all 535 members of Congress could take a break from their busy earmark efforts to give this issue some legislative attention. Wouldn't that be just swell? And since, per Pelosi, "impeachment is off the table," the table has plenty of room for the critical business of finally exposing the truth about President Kennedy's murder. I don't expect [sadly] to see it in my lifetime.....the Empire is too intact and the Serfs too passive. I agree. The issue isn't even particularly newsworthy to most Americans. And Congress, the CIA and the FBI are not going to try to unravel (or cooperate with the solving of) the mystery at this juncture. Maybe it will get a little attention on the 45th anniversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now