Jump to content
The Education Forum

Leonardo DiCaprio takes on JFK film


Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

I have to say Tom, that that is not a bad summary of Ruby's mobster background by Weberman.

Its fairly complete and inclusive.

The thing about Jack Ruby that can never be forgotten is the title I think Henry Hurt gave him: a pimp for all seasons.

Although Ruby was tied to the Mob, Ruby was also related to the Dallas cops, the CIA, and also tangentially to military intel (the Nancy Perrin Rich testimony).

This made him an all-purpose utility man. There was no better person on the ground and in the web to get into the DPD HQ than Ruby. I mean who can forget that indelible image of him on the night of the 22nd, scribbling away and then actually correcting Wade as to Oswald's one man FPCC group in New Orleans.

And the thing is, as Larry Hancock was telling me over last weekend, if you follow Ruby's emotional roller-coaster that weekend--and if you dismiss the whole weeping for Jackie Kennedy fig leaf--then you begin to understand that Ruby is being jammed in between a rock and a hard place. But who else was in better position to do it? The guy knew more Dallas cops than anybody outside the force. I would not be surprised if whoever was the contact man to him, that person told him about Oswald's attempt to call John Hurt. And then impressed upon him that it was either do or die. That's the way these guys work.

I hear you Jim, I posted this the other day on the Jack Ruby thread, and by the way...do you know any good sources for background on Nancy Rich's Col. Castorr?:

The set up and the follow through of the hit on Oswald really was a work of art in its execution. The lighting required for televised reporting of Oswald's transfer, taking place in a basement, put the security force responsible for protecting Oswald at a disadvantage since the bright lights made it more difficult to see who was emerging from behind those lights.

Ruby himself was a Trojan horse in that basement, as he had cultivated a presence at the DPD HQ and was a familiar and uneventful face to so many of the DPD personnel; he was at the friday night press conference, and spotted in the hall that night, as well.

Finally, what other way could Oswald have been taken out that would have so effectively eliminated the incredulity that naturally followed the shooting of Oswald, than to televise the crime, live, coast to coast, while a huge number of the citzenry had the eyes glued to their TV screens for the third day in a row?

A hit designed by geniuses, so well thought out that its impact was blunted, in advance, to the extent that it could possibly be, the lights that permitted the televised record that was the ultimate insurance against too many doubts as to how it could possibly happen, were the same lights that helped to mask Ruby's approach.

Genius in its design that also made it impossible to thoroughly investigate the angle of a conspiracy, vs. random luck amidst an unconnected series of coincidences? But, since in its own way it was so brilliant in its planning and execution, if it was planned, how could it all have been coincidence, right down to Ruby just being probably the most likely man for the job, purely by happenstance, chosen by no one, acting on spontaneous impulse...the official narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with Waldron's thesis, and really all the theories that proclaim "Cuba" to be the overriding reason why JFK was assassinated, is that it is totally contradicted by what happened afterwards. If we surmise that JFK was killed because he was "soft" on Castro, or even if we accept the flawed (imho) view that he knew of the plots to kill Castro, but was insufficiently hard line about it, then presumably those who decided to assassinate him expected our Cuban policy to change significantly as a result.

The reality is, Cuba (and Castro) practically vanished, as an American political issue, after Kennedy was killed. Why didn't LBJ, or Nixon, plan a second Bay of Pigs-type operation in the years that followed? Instead, the Cuban leader's power grew, and the same livid anti-Castro forces that despised Kennedy for his attempts at rapprochement apparently felt no hostitily at all towards LBJ or Nixon, for what should have been seen as a complete failure to accomplishment the supposed "mission" behind the assassination of JFK. If anti-Castroites were responsible for planning the murder of JFK, they had to have been mightily disappointed at American foreign policy in the years that followed. Any way you look at it, if "Cuba" was the driving force behind the assassination, then those who planned and executed it had to have considered the whole thing to ultimately be a failure.

I have always thought that "Cuba" was a smokescreen for researchers to waste their time on, much as the "mafia-did-it" theories are. Instead, I think we should look at the Secret Service, LBJ, Hoover and other powerful figures in America at that time, the CIA, the entire military-industrial complex and the way our Viet Nam policy obviously, dramatically changed after the assassination (in contrast to how our Cuban policy didn't). At least that's my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Waldron's thesis, and really all the theories that proclaim "Cuba" to be the overriding reason why JFK was assassinated, is that it is totally contradicted by what happened afterwards. If we surmise that JFK was killed because he was "soft" on Castro, or even if we accept the flawed (imho) view that he knew of the plots to kill Castro, but was insufficiently hard line about it, then presumably those who decided to assassinate him expected our Cuban policy to change significantly as a result.

Don, I think the idea was to use Kennedy's murder as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. When Oswald was captured alive that pretext fell apart and the Castro-did-it cover-up was quickly nixed by the blue-bloods in Washington led by W. Averell Harriman.

Harriman had more influence over American policy in Vietnam and Cuba than Kennedy himself,

or so I'll argue going forward.

The reality is, Cuba (and Castro) practically vanished, as an American political issue, after Kennedy was killed. Why didn't LBJ, or Nixon, plan a second Bay of Pigs-type operation in the years that followed?

Because the people they worked for -- the interlocking Rockfeller/Harriman dynasties -- had their hands full with Vietnam.

Instead, the Cuban leader's power grew, and the same livid anti-Castro forces that despised Kennedy for his attempts at rapprochement apparently felt no hostitily at all towards LBJ or Nixon, for what should have been seen as a complete failure to accomplishment the supposed "mission" behind the assassination of JFK. If anti-Castroites were responsible for planning the murder of JFK, they had to have been mightily disappointed at American foreign policy in the years that followed. Any way you look at it, if "Cuba" was the driving force behind the assassination, then those who planned and executed it had to have considered the whole thing to ultimately be a failure.

Absolutely, except for their personal satisfaction in seeing JFK murdered. Otherwise, the operation was a failure.

I have always thought that "Cuba" was a smokescreen for researchers to waste their time on, much as the "mafia-did-it" theories are. Instead, I think we should look at the Secret Service, LBJ, Hoover and other powerful figures in America at that time, the CIA, the entire military-industrial complex and the way our Viet Nam policy obviously, dramatically changed after the assassination (in contrast to how our Cuban policy didn't). At least that's my take on it.

I highly respect all your views, Don. But I will argue going forward that there was a link between Vietnam and Cuba policy during the Kennedy administration. And the not-so-hidden hand behind both was W. Averell Harriman.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

The problem with Waldron's thesis, and really all the theories that proclaim "Cuba" to be the overriding reason why JFK was assassinated, is that it is totally contradicted by what happened afterwards. If we surmise that JFK was killed because he was "soft" on Castro, or even if we accept the flawed (imho) view that he knew of the plots to kill Castro, but was insufficiently hard line about it, then presumably those who decided to assassinate him expected our Cuban policy to change significantly as a result.

Don, I think the idea was to use Kennedy's murder as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. When Oswald was captured alive that pretext fell apart and the Castro-did-it cover-up was quickly nixed by the blue-bloods in Washington led by W. Averell Harriman.

Harriman had more influence over American policy in Vietnam and Cuba than Kennedy himself,

or so I'll argue going forward.

The reality is, Cuba (and Castro) practically vanished, as an American political issue, after Kennedy was killed. Why didn't LBJ, or Nixon, plan a second Bay of Pigs-type operation in the years that followed?

Because the people they worked for -- the interlocking Rockfeller/Harriman dynasties -- had their hands full with Vietnam.

Instead, the Cuban leader's power grew, and the same livid anti-Castro forces that despised Kennedy for his attempts at rapprochement apparently felt no hostitily at all towards LBJ or Nixon, for what should have been seen as a complete failure to accomplishment the supposed "mission" behind the assassination of JFK. If anti-Castroites were responsible for planning the murder of JFK, they had to have been mightily disappointed at American foreign policy in the years that followed. Any way you look at it, if "Cuba" was the driving force behind the assassination, then those who planned and executed it had to have considered the whole thing to ultimately be a failure.

Absolutely, except for their personal satisfaction in seeing JFK murdered. Otherwise, the operation was a failure.

I have always thought that "Cuba" was a smokescreen for researchers to waste their time on, much as the "mafia-did-it" theories are. Instead, I think we should look at the Secret Service, LBJ, Hoover and other powerful figures in America at that time, the CIA, the entire military-industrial complex and the way our Viet Nam policy obviously, dramatically changed after the assassination (in contrast to how our Cuban policy didn't). At least that's my take on it.

I highly respect all your views, Don. But I will argue going forward that there was a link between Vietnam and Cuba policy during the Kennedy administration. And the not-so-hidden hand behind both was W. Averell Harriman.

I think that Cliff Varnell has pretty much nailed this with his explanations. The murder of John Kennedy was definitely a provocation to go into Cuba. But LBJ screwed the other plotters because he had other reasons for killing JFK. Namely, staying out of jail and having his on obsession of becoming president realized. From that point on the Rockefeller foreign policy was to go fight a war in Vietnam, which LBJ executed, killing millions in the process.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I wish I could pitch my adaptation of a certain true, intel-based JFK conspiracy book. Sadly, the blame-the-mob angle may not only be a political directive, but "sexier" in Hollywood story terms.

I would like to know your take on the Assassination. Who killed President Kennedy 47 years ago today?

Why did Ruby kill Oswald - on his own or ordered to by the mob?

I feel that since you ha a screenplay you probably have a definite opinion of who was responsible and why.

Kathy C

whatpricefame.blogspot.com

One of the smartest things ever said about the assassination was a brief remark Jim Marrs made in Crossfire, easy to lose amid the anthologizing of like and dislike plot elements digested there, for which the book is valuable.

Marrs wrote that the Kennedy assassination was not a leftist or a rightist motion, but a "centrist action." That is, it was approved and subscribed to by such a variety of interests, high and low, that it had to be permitted and then established as natural to the American people. Why not, since it must have felt natural to the licensors and licenses of election and assassination? But I'm expanding on Marrs here. His view is consonant with Fletcher Prouty's and Oliver Stone's "It was in the wind" explanation of how the plot (or, to extrapolate, plots, as in Chicago and Tampa) was authorized.

There was, I think, so much of an open contract on Kennedy in 1962-1963 that parties within the sphere of Washington's influence (including Oswald, at one of the lowest levels) grew worried about their culpability in the weeks before the event and in the months after - and it's there that I want to go with my film adaptation. But that's only part of the story that I'm focusing on. As I said, the ultimate JFK assassination film perhaps has to have Kennedy as a character in it, played by an actor. And that's different from what I'm doing - but I'd love to do that sometime, too.

Who dunnit? They all bloody dunnit, and covered for each other, like in Agatha Christie's Murder On the Orient Express. Meanwhile, we wrack our brains, and can't get off this accursed, snowbound train!

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

david quote ''Who dunnit? They all bloody dunnit, and covered for each other, like in Agatha Christie's Murder On the Orient Express. Meanwhile, we wrack our brains, and can't get off this accursed, snowbound train! ''

that reminds me of reading in more than one book, that within the halls of washington, the news, gossip was rampant that jfk was going to be hit on the tour to Texas, the secret was out, many knew of it, then the but comes to the front again, nothing was done and even though he himself and those closest around him were very aware, neither did he nor they..do a thing to avert such...as has been said at times, was it a death wish ?? or simply, was it meant to be. all preplanned out within his life's cycle...his ''i have a rendevous with death'' poem one of his favourites, which he had Jackie read to him often,also makes us ponder his thoughts...thanks dave take care, very interesting b..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

The scenarios advanced need to be more ambitious than the pre-planning and successful execution of "multiple Oswalds". A "centrist" plot harkens to the planning and installation of a "front man" by the PTB. The changing face of the "product" offered up by the PTB as the best choice for front man in any given election cycle, is simply a device anticipated as required to attract the most votes while eliciting the least skepticism that it is "same old, same old". This is unpalatable to the PTB, so they do not often choose a big departure, a young, Roman Catholic, in JFK's case, or a much greater, outwardly perceived departure, in the selection and promotion of Obama.

No matter what is conveyed to the public to win election, the front man is required to be a cooperative component of the presentation. In the case of JFK, that cooperation waned over time to the point that it he went off the reservation and it was decided to remove him, while in the example of Obama, he has turned out to perform in a manner even beyond the most optimistic, PTB expectations.

Something went wrong after the pre-selection and grooming of actor Reagan for the part, and the PTB did not have a suitable patsy ready in '88. PTB principal, Bush, had to take on the assignment himself, to be relieved by the successfully groomed and presented Clinton. A longer gap in the talent pool must have occurred in 2000 and in 2004, requiring the installation of son Bush to bide time to get back on track, with Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I couldn't disagree with the Agatha Christie parallel more.

It was one of the themes of my talk at Lancer. And it is one of the great deceptions of that classic piece of disinfo the Torbitt Document which mislead everyone for so many years.

Not everyone killed Kennedy. That is not the way a clandestine operation works.

Once one understands the way the Power Elite works in this country, then one can see how the assassination was carried out. The work of writers like Donald GIbson and Fletcher Prouty is valuable in this regard.

To say that everyone was involved is to say that no one was involved, since it is as misleading as the WC idea.

Once one studies this case in depth, it becomes clear how the assassination was carried out.

The setting up of Oswald almost at the same time that Thomas Vallee was being set up and the design of the plot so alike in both places.

The warnings in advance by Rose Cheramie, Nagell, Sylvia Odio, and an FBI informant named "Lee".

The many pieces of evidence that put David Phillips in the milieu before the fact, the instant cover story about Oswald by Hal Hendrix, the aborted autopsy etc.

These things are all evidence of what happened in advance. ANd what happened in advance is the best indication of who was involved.

I want to re-emphasize HOW IMPORTANT Cuba policy was to the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Just because the Vietnam quagmire soon eclipsed Cuba after the JFK assassination, does not mean it was the central force for the coup. Vietnam was certainly a reason - just look at the NSAM 263 to NSAM 273 lightening quick change. But Cuba was bigger in the killers' minds on 11/22/63.

The JFK assassination was a part of Operation Northwoods - maybe not officially, but de facto. The JFK Assassination was were Operation 40 intersected with Operation Northwoods and it was followed up by Operation Mockingbird.

Another point - the JFK asassination was from the Depraved Middle politically. It was not the far right (say Goldwater), certainly not the liberals. The CIA/CFR/Rockefeller establishment and the Western Rim Texas oil/military guys were all FOR the JFK assassination. The political center of the power elite was to slaughter John Kennedy. JFK was murdered MORE by the Establishment - I would consider LBJ, Hoover, Allen Dulles, the Rockefellers, Texas oil barons - the "Establishment" - than by a pure right wing coup. Yes, it was a coup; yes, the CIA/military was involved; yes, they used right wingers to pull the trigger and shoot the guns - but it was the Establishment that FOSTERED, SET UP and COVERED UP the JFK Assassination, i.e. the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Finally, as to Jim's point about numbers involved. I disagree. I think a LOT of high level players in Texas oil and the CIA/CFR knew the JFK assassination was in the works. But because they were not operationally involved, they did not get their fingerprints all over it like a Edward Lansdale (TSBD photo ... hello!!) David Atlee Phillips, Angleton, Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, David Morales, Johnny Roselli ... I think people like Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, LBJ's close friend Hoover, George Herbert Walker Bush - I bet almost ALL of those had prior knowledge and where enthusiastic about the coup - but they were not doing the nitty gritty of getting shooters, logistics, etc. But they were involved. Ditto HL Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr. Now that I think about it, George Herbert Walker Bush may very well have been operationally involved.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

There were two confrontations during the Cuban Missle Crisis. The mindset and the "advice" of the majority of his own Ex-Com advisers convinced JFK that they were a much larger threat to National Security than the Soviets, and that Kruschev was less insane an adversary than LeMay and Lovett. (Was Forrestal's last night at

Bethesda and the investigation of it, the results buried for 55 years, a dress rehearsal?)

Moat of JFK's Ex-Com group believed JFK backed down and negotiated away as good an opportunity as any for the unavoidable nuclear exchange with the Soviets, as their minds were made up to settle the question of military superiority, once and for all.

The Ex-Com hawks walked away from the Cuban crisis week fearing what JFK might do next to further weaken the U.S. posture, if not the actual U.S. military fundamentals. They also walked away perceiving JFK as weak enough

to make the prospect of assassinating him less daunting of an option to set into motion.

JFK commenced to go around them in earnest, motivated somewhat out of fear of their irrational conclusions of what level of provocation justified responding with preemptive nuclear strikes.

JFK correctly assessed the threat to U.S. security posed by men with irrational POV of Soviet intentions and levels of reluctance to engage the U.S. in a nuclear exchange. JFK seemed to make the fatal mistake of not taking an immediate and proactive role in significantly increasing the levels of his own physical security, as he was dealing with Ex-Com advisors and their allies who showed almost no hesitation to urge JFK to set a course that would have resulted in a nuclear exchange to settle the confrontation over Cuban missiles and, costing the lives of millions of Americans, in the process. The advice JFK received from these men in October, 1962 chilled him into action on the foreign and military policy fronts, but evidently not enough to take the steps required to save himself from them and their bias towards a strategy of nuclear offense instead of deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This new development is really distressing.

Can DiCaprio be as dumb as Tom Hanks?

Do the American people deserve these two fictional tales at the 50th?

Please read the notice and let us begin Project Educate Leo on JFK.

Jim:

Can you please tell me what (in your opinion) would be the best works or books to read regarding this controversial subject? I know its a long list of theories, failed investigations, possible suspects and motives... numerous side-plots and many "rabbit holes", almost mind-boggling in its breadth and depth. While an admitted amateur but nonetheless earnest student of the assassination, I realize that there are many agendas, personalities and dis-information. I've read several books and many articles (including your fine work in CTKA and Probe), monitored the threads in this (and other) Forum, and seen many of the televised specials. I am fond of Dick Russell's work and that of Larry Hancock, both of whose books I've read. What is the best source and read on this subject?

Best,

Gene Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat:

If I recall, Waldron does not have Oswald as the assassin from behind.

His Mob did it hypothesis is just that. The Mob did it. With Marcello as the main culprit.

End of story.

But taking it further into absurdity is the whole supplementary thesis that RFK covered it up because he had to keep C Day a secret--the non-existent invasion.

The one that no one knew about.

Forget the peripheral issues. I don't buy Waldron's theory about Bobby trying to keep the invasion secret either, although there is really no doubt that the invasion was in the works. The La Fontaines confirmed that long before Waldron did, BTW.

"begin with the last week of November against the Cuba mainland"[emphasis added, initially with an "extended series of small size commando type raids," followed by "a large scale amphibious operation."

FBI file No.105-125147-7, airtel, Nov.1, 1963 (pp.3-4).

What is important is, that Marcello did indeed tell the informant that he ordered the assassination and that Ferrie was his accomplice and introduced him to Oswald at his brother's restaurant.

As we both know, Ferrie was murdered almost immediately after Garrison announced that he would be the key suspect in his investigation. Forget the "proloid" thing; that was BS. But there was only one man in New Orleans then who owned a considerable number of public officials and had the power to insure that the coroner would declare Ferrie's death was by "natural causes".

And it was within three weeks after he told the Washington Post that the mob ordered Oswald's murder that Johnny Roselli was found in little pieces, floating in an oil drum off the coast of Miami.

And then there were the mob people who didn't quite make it to testify before the HSCA after being permanently detained. And another guy named Braden who just coincidentally happened to be with Ruby the night before the assassination and in the best possible sniper location on the day of the assassination, who also had connections to Marcello and Ferrie.

Marcello swore he would have JFK killed, before the assassination and admitted that he did it, afterward. Mafia lawyer Frank Ragano also confirmed that. Yes, the mob was connected to the CIA then, as were at various times, both Ferrie and Oswald, so I would not be at all shocked to learn that members of the CIA were in on it in some way, but the ONLY direct evidence I have seen so far, of participation in the murder has been by people in organized crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This new development is really distressing.

Can DiCaprio be as dumb as Tom Hanks?

Do the American people deserve these two fictional tales at the 50th?

Please read the notice and let us begin Project Educate Leo on JFK.

Jim:

Can you please tell me what (in your opinion) would be the best works or books to read regarding this controversial subject? I know its a long list of theories, failed investigations, possible suspects and motives... numerous side-plots and many "rabbit holes", almost mind-boggling in its breadth and depth. While an admitted amateur but nonetheless earnest student of the assassination, I realize that there are many agendas, personalities and dis-information. I've read several books and many articles (including your fine work in CTKA and Probe), monitored the threads in this (and other) Forum, and seen many of the televised specials. I am fond of Dick Russell's work and that of Larry Hancock, both of whose books I've read. What is the best source and read on this subject?

Best,

Gene Kelly

This is my current Top Ten list

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/top_ten.html

If you want to skip all the stuff that rips apart and wrecks the Warren Commission, on the grounds that today it is overkill, then that leaves the following:

Anthony Summers Conspiracy

Phil Melanson Spy Saga

Gaeton Fonzi The Last Investigation

Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease The Assassinations

Bill Davy Let Justice be Done

Jim Douglass JFK and the Unspeakable

In several ways, the Melanson book has been superceded by Newman's Oswald and the CIA and Armstrong's Harvey and Lee. But the former is not an easy read, Melanson's book is. And Armstrong's book--though chockful of information--is 900 pages long. (After Bugliosi, Horne, and Waldron, I am anti most books that long.)

Summers' book is rather old, but in my view, I still think he has the best handle on how the conspiracy actually worked on the ground level: with the CIA and Cuban exiles setting up Oswald, and then the Mafia used to call in Ruby to kill the scapegoat.

The other books, like Davy, Fonzi, and Lisa's and myself, amplify this skeleton and update it significantly with the ARRB and HSCA stuff.

The Douglass book is very good at the big picture.

I have always said, and will always say this: although there are over 900 books published on this subject, the vast majority of them are flotsam or worse. In my personal library I have about 45 books on the JFK case. THat is more than adequate to write all the reviews I do. (Supplemented with on line sources of course.)

In addition, one should have the following: GIbson's Battling Wall Street, Newman's JFK and Vietnam, Kornbluh's Bay of Pigs Declassfied, James Blight's VIrtual JFK, the May/Zelikow The Kennedy Tapes, and Mahoney's JFK:Ordeal in Africa.

These give you an idea of who Kennedy really was and why the Establishment had to have him killed.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OPERATION EDUCATE LEONARDO DICAPRIO http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_168201579877180

on facebook.

In the next couple of days I hope to have contact info for Mr DiCaprio and his production company.

It seems that in the Fifth Decade we will be trapped between Tom Hanks, and the Bug, and 'The Mob Did It'. With all of the Hollywood glitz and babble will we be heard?

I would like to see JFK and the Unspeakable adapted to film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob:

There is going to be a lot of stuff coming out about this issue.

There was no CIA/Pentagon invasion planned. They were contingencies. Period.

And to rely on one FBI report to say there was in really not professional. It depends on who the source is.

Marcello had Alzheimer's and was debilitated at the time.

Please read all those links I provided for.

Well, tell me what is going to be coming out? How can we weigh that evidence if we don't know the source or the content?

And the FBI airtel was from a totally different source than Waldron's. It was an internal FBI document. What evidence do you have that this was only a contingency?

As for Marcello's Alzheimers, that is supposed to make you forget, not conjure up new ideas :D And I am pretty sure that he didn't have it when he swore that he would have JFK killed.

Also, I am not at all convinced that he was suffering from Alzheimers in 1986 when he told the informant that he ordered the assassination. This is from Wikipedia,

"Early in the new year of 1989, he had suffered a series of strokes that had left him severely disabled, and by the end of March, he was obviously showing signs of Alzheimer’s disease."

Now I realize that Wikipedia is not error free but I would like to see your source that proves them wrong. How do you know that he was afflicted in 1986?

As a longtime Garrison supporter, you must believe that Ferrie was guilty, do you not? Put yourself in his shoes. Who is the one guy whom he was close to, who hated JFK as much as he did, and had the power to actually do something about it? To put it another way, if Ferrie was involved in the assassination, how could he NOT have been connected to Marcello?

And do you really think all those mafia guys who were murdered just before or just after talking about the JFK case, were the victims of coincidence?

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...