Jump to content
The Education Forum

The JFK Assassination: Its Impact on America’s History


Joan Mellen

Recommended Posts

I know that Joan totally believes Murgado, but I and many others feel she was taken in, first by Hemming, who streered her to Murgado, then by the man himself. As for Walter Sheridan, he was doing the CIA's bidding, not RFK's. This could have been a great book, in fact on the Garrison parts it is, imo. But, no matter how many critics disagree with her, such as Peter Dale Scott, Lisa Pease, JimDiEugenio- who wrote a brilliant review of this book- she holds steadfastly to her very anti- RFK views. When asked who killed RFK and why she has no viable response. And I REALLY like this woman, so this is not an attack on her, just that I feel she was conned.

There is copious correspondence from Walter Sheridan to Herbert J. Miller asking permission to report on Garrison's investigation to the CIA. See the National Archives. Miller denies Sheridan's request and insists that he, Miller, be the intermediary. This seems to be irrefutable evidence that it was not the CIA that sent Sheridan to New Orleans, but the man for whom he worked, Robert F. Kennedy.

On the Murgado credibility, I can say no more. He was the most reluctant witness in the world. Hemming has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Dear Myra Bronstein,

I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader.

Joan Mellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Dear Myra Bronstein,

I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader.

Joan Mellen

I am sure James Richards will be pleased to hear this news. If he was involved in the murder he would have had to explain to his headmaster where he was that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Dear Myra Bronstein,

I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader.

Joan Mellen

Ms Mellon,

Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure.

The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it.

Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly.

And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded.

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Dear Myra Bronstein,

I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader.

Joan Mellen

Ms Mellon,

Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure.

The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it.

Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly.

And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded.

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms Mellen,

Would you please expand on this statement from your speech?

"I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination."

Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder?

Dear Myra Bronstein,

I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader.

Joan Mellen

Ms Mellon,

Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure.

The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it.

Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly.

And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded.

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO.

Of course you may say so Pat. I welcome civil input from about anyone. I don't welcome uncivil input of the type displayed by Ms Mellen, and the fact that she's a published author doesn't give her license to cop a huge attitude. Furthermore the traits she exhibited in her speech and most recent post mirror the traits that have lessened her effectiveness as an author.

By the way, what is the logic behind your reference of me as a "relative" newbie? Does that mean she does have to justify herself to wily veterans?

And your comparison of a baby with a book doesn't work. Babies aren't expected to be reviewed by second parties, and no one is looking for reviews to guide them on whether or not to purchase a certain baby. Whereas authors must expect to have their books reviewed, and many people look to the reviewer for guidance on whether or not to bother with a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Joan totally believes Murgado, but I and many others feel she was taken in, first by Hemming, who streered her to Murgado, then by the man himself. As for Walter Sheridan, he was doing the CIA's bidding, not RFK's. This could have been a great book, in fact on the Garrison parts it is, imo. But, no matter how many critics disagree with her, such as Peter Dale Scott, Lisa Pease, JimDiEugenio- who wrote a brilliant review of this book- she holds steadfastly to her very anti- RFK views. When asked who killed RFK and why she has no viable response. And I REALLY like this woman, so this is not an attack on her, just that I feel she was conned.

There is copious correspondence from Walter Sheridan to Herbert J. Miller asking permission to report on Garrison's investigation to the CIA. See the National Archives. Miller denies Sheridan's request and insists that he, Miller, be the intermediary. This seems to be irrefutable evidence that it was not the CIA that sent Sheridan to New Orleans, but the man for whom he worked, Robert F. Kennedy.

On the Murgado credibility, I can say no more. He was the most reluctant witness in the world. Hemming has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Oh my, this is your PROOF? Ok, so Sheridan is asking permission of an assistant attorney general under RFK to report TO THE CIA on the Garrison inverstigation. The very agency that Garrison took on in the murder of our president. So, because there is some corespondance of Miller's saying "no" - how very convenient- you leap to the conclusion that it therefore MUST have been RFK who sent Sheridan to sabotage Garrsion??? I am beyond incredulous.

Ms. Mellen I really, really like you and I admire the project that you undertook tremenously. Jim Garrison has been a major hero of mine my whole life...so anyone who furthers his work, and , like you, proves just how right he was has my upmost respect. But when such a leap of faith is required one must expect some critical questions. PLEASE do not take this as a personal attack.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO.

Of course you may say so Pat. I welcome civil input from about anyone. I don't welcome uncivil input of the type displayed by Ms Mellen, and the fact that she's a published author doesn't give her license to cop a huge attitude. Furthermore the traits she exhibited in her speech and most recent post mirror the traits that have lessened her effectiveness as an author.

By the way, what is the logic behind your reference of me as a "relative" newbie? Does that mean she does have to justify herself to wily veterans?

And your comparison of a baby with a book doesn't work. Babies aren't expected to be reviewed by second parties, and no one is looking for reviews to guide them on whether or not to purchase a certain baby. Whereas authors must expect to have their books reviewed, and many people look to the reviewer for guidance on whether or not to bother with a book.

Myra, seasoned veterans in this case can make mistakes or jump to incorrect conclusions as fast as anyone else. I have a whole list of questions for Cyril Wecht, for example, regarding what I believe to be his mistakes. I'm painfully aware, on the other hand, that those who have published feel superior to those that have not, whether they admit it or not. I'm painfully aware, as well, that those who publish tend to feel protective of their earlier research. Those that believed that the dictabelt proved a conspiracy, for example, continue to avoid intelligent conversation on the Hughes film, which proves McClain was in no position to record the shots. It's hard for people to let go of theories and ideas they spent months or years developing, and hard for people to listen to criticism once they do let go. Look at Arlen Specter. I believe in his heart of hearts he KNOWS the Warren Commission was a cover-up, but he'll never admit this to himself. So much of his life is wrapped up in his belief that, all problems withstanding, he got it right, that he can't admit he was wrong, no matter how clear it is to anyone else. Like William Jennings Bryan after the Scopes Trial or George III after the American Revolution, his system can't accept his failure.

FWIW, many authors never read their reviews, as it screws with their heads. When it comes to books on the Kennedy case, this is especially recommended. If you go to Amazon right now, you'll see dozens of reviews of Vincent Bugliosi's book, from people who've never read it (including myself). If you go back to print reviews, you'll see that the best-reviewed assassination book probably ever was Case Closed, one of the most dishonest books written on the assassination. The reviewers knew bupkus on the case, and reviewed it on how well it was written and organized, as most of them lacked the wherewithall to review it on its research. They got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II'd suggest we save attacks for those who would bury the truth, not try to further expose it. If anyone thinks Joan Mellen is trying to do anything but help to expose the truth of the matter, they are sadly mistaken. I think her book and work, EVEN IF you don't agree with it in its entirety, is a monumental contribution and effort.

I agree Peter.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II'd suggest we save attacks for those who would bury the truth, not try to further expose it. If anyone thinks Joan Mellen is trying to do anything but help to expose the truth of the matter, they are sadly mistaken. I think her book and work, EVEN IF you don't agree with it in its entirety, is a monumental contribution and effort.

I agree Peter.

Dawn

Ok, makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been asked to post the following information/opinion and link by a fellow researcher

who isn't a member of this forum:

Walter Sheridan, Herbert J. Miller, Robert Peloquin, and William Hundley all worked under RFK as part of RFK's "Secret Team" inside the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. After they left the Kennedy Justice Department many of these guys (Sheridan, Peloquin, Hundley) went to work for INTERTEL the private security arm of organized crime chief Meyer Lansky's Resorts International in the Bahamas.

Joan Mellen points out that Walter Sheridan was sent to New Orleans by RFK. On this she is correct. And Garrison did not catch the CIA when he arrested Clay Shaw. What Jim Garrison had caught in Clay Shaw was the shadowy organization of Permindex led by Division Five head "Major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield" of which Clay Shaw was a Director under Bloomfield.

Permindex was also identified by French Intelligence as being the entity behind the 1962 assassination attempts on the life of French President Charles de Gaulle.

Jim Garrison was hood winked into pursuing the CIA by the circles around Lord Bertrand Russell and his British Who Killed Kennedy Committee.Lord Russell's minions were sent to New Orleans in order to get on the inside of Garrison's investigation to wreck it. This would include famed JFK researcher Mark Lane. This grouping around Lord Russell were able to get Jim Garrison off the trail of the real assassins (Permindex) and point him down a dead end leading to the CIA.

Interesting interview from 1998

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources..._law/miller.cfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been asked to post the following information/opinion and link by a fellow researcher

who isn't a member of this forum:

...

Translation, someone who has no credibility and/or no nerve wants to spread some story but deny forum members the opportunity to debate the details.

What they lack in nerve they make up for in agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been asked to post the following information/opinion and link by a fellow researcher

who isn't a member of this forum:

DAVE, THIS IS A BIT MUDDLED. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT A CANADIAN COULD BE HEAD OF ANY FBI DIVISION - SULLIVAN YES, BLOOMFIELD NO.

AND I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OAS - SECRET ARMY ORG AND ALGERIAN COLONIALISTS WHO TRIED TO ASSASSINATE DEGAUL IN 62, NOT PERMINDEX.

ITS MORE THAN JIM GARRISON BEING HOODWINKED HERE.

JUST MY THOUGHTS AFTER GIVING OUR ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTOR SOME SERIOUS ATTENTION.

I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD GIVE JOAN MELLON'S TALK AND THEME SOME SERIOUS ATTENTION.

BK

Walter Sheridan, Herbert J. Miller, Robert Peloquin, and William Hundley all worked under RFK as part of RFK's "Secret Team" inside the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. After they left the Kennedy Justice Department many of these guys (Sheridan, Peloquin, Hundley) went to work for INTERTEL the private security arm of organized crime chief Meyer Lansky's Resorts International in the Bahamas.

Joan Mellen points out that Walter Sheridan was sent to New Orleans by RFK. On this she is correct. And Garrison did not catch the CIA when he arrested Clay Shaw. What Jim Garrison had caught in Clay Shaw was the shadowy organization of Permindex led by Division Five head "Major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield" of which Clay Shaw was a Director under Bloomfield.

Permindex was also identified by French Intelligence as being the entity behind the 1962 assassination attempts on the life of French President Charles de Gaulle.

Jim Garrison was hood winked into pursuing the CIA by the circles around Lord Bertrand Russell and his British Who Killed Kennedy Committee.Lord Russell's minions were sent to New Orleans in order to get on the inside of Garrison's investigation to wreck it. This would include famed JFK researcher Mark Lane. This grouping around Lord Russell were able to get Jim Garrison off the trail of the real assassins (Permindex) and point him down a dead end leading to the CIA.

Interesting interview from 1998

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources..._law/miller.cfm

Edited by William Kelly
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...