Nigel Turner: The Men Who Killed Kennedy Options

[John Simkin]

Nigel Turner is the producer of the television series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Made for the Central Independent Television company, it started off a two-part documentary broadcast in October, 1988: The Coup d'Etat and The Forces of Darkness. Three more installments were made two years later: The Cover Up, The Patsy and The Witnesses. The sixth episode, The Truth Shall Set You Free, was added in 1995.

These documentaries have been highly controversial. In the documentary broadcast in 1988 Stephen Rivele argued that the assassination of John F. Kennedy had been organized by Antoine Guerini, the Corsican crime boss in Marseilles. According to Rivele, Lucien Sarti fired from behind the wooden fence on the grassy knoll. The first shot was fired from behind and hit Kennedy in the back. The second shot was fired from behind, and hit John Connally. The third shot was fired from in front, and hit Kennedy in the head. The fourth shot was from behind and missed. As well as Sarti, also named Sauveur Pironti and Roger Bocognani as being involved in the killing. However, Pironti and Bocognani both had alibis and Rivele was forced to withdraw the allegation.

In another episode, Charles Harrelson, who some investigators believed was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, told Turner that "on November 22, 1963, at 12.30, I was having lunch with a friend in a restaurant in Houston, Texas." He also told Turner that he would not have accepted such a contract as he knew that if he had, he would have ended up, like Lee Harvey Oswald, being killed by the Mafia.

In the sixth episode, The Truth Shall Set You Free, May 1995, Daniel Marvin claimed to have been solicited by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency to "terminate" William Pitzer.

For the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Nigel Turner produced three more installments: The Love Affair, The Smoking Guns and The Guilty Men.

The Love Affair was an account by Judyth Vary Baker of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro.

This programme was followed by The Smoking Guns and examined the research carried out by people such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Douglas Weldon, Jack White and Vincent Palamara.

The third programme was called The Guilty Men and looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from the book by Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Rick Russo, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham.

The Guilty Men was immediately banned and has not been seen on television since, although it is possible to get a copy on e-bay.

What do you think of the series? Does anyone know if Nigel Turner is still interested in the JFK assassination. If so, maybe he would like to join the forum.

[Mark Valenti]

I thought the series was very well produced and had value as a repository for numerous hard-to-find photos and film clips. It raised many thoughtful questions, both pro and con conspiracy, and should be required viewing for any serious JFK researcher.

The segment that sticks out in my mind is when Gordon Arnold cried upon being shown the alleged photo of himself. He reacted with shock, tears, grief, etc. But there was something incredibly false about him. I did not believe then and do not now believe that Arnold was in Dealey Plaza that day.

But he reacted with such emotion! There he was, supposedly looking at a photo of himself! It was too much for him to bear!

I believe that anyone with an even tiny BS detector could see through his histrionics. I felt badly for him, he was obviously a guy in turmoil. But there that day? No. Obviously not.

This is one of the reasons why, to me, it's not enough to find shadowy outlines in grainy photos.

[Jack White]

Opinions are not research. If Arnold was lying, prove it.
Don't just use an imaginary BS detector. Yours is defective.

Jack

[Mark Valenti]

Opinions are not research. If Arnold was lying, prove it.
Don't just use an imaginary BS detector. Yours is defective.

Jack

Jack,
I respect the work you have done and the thousands of hours you have spent in your endeavors. However, my opinion, my deduction based on film evidence and eyewitness testimony, is that it didn't go down as he said.

As I said, I have empathy for him, he seemed like a tortured guy. I don't know and can't fathom why he would say what he said. But numerous other still photos and films trump his assertion and the Badge Man theory.

In my opinion.

[Chuck Robbins]

Opinions are not research. If Arnold was lying, prove it.
Don't just use an imaginary BS detector. Yours is defective.

Jack

Jack,
I respect the work you have done and the thousands of hours you have spent in your endeavors. However, my opinion, my deduction based on film evidence and eyewitness testimony, is that it didn't go down as he said.

As I said, I have empathy for him, he seemed like a tortured guy. I don't know and can't fathom why he would say what he said. But numerous other still photos and films trump his assertion and the Badge Man theory.

In my opinion.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us, based on your deductions, how it did go down?

I, for one, have always eagerly awaited the definitive explanation of what actually happened that day.

Please, if you would be so kind?

[J. Raymond Carro...]

I thought the series was very well produced and had value as a repository for numerous hard-to-find photos and film clips. It raised many thoughtful questions, both pro and con conspiracy, and should be required viewing for any serious JFK researcher.

The segment that sticks out in my mind is when Gordon Arnold cried......

What sticks in my mind is the interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. If I recall his words correctly, he said he will always remember Lee Oswald as "a kind and loving man."

This post has been edited by J. Raymond Carroll: Jul 6 2006, 11:28 PM

[Mark Valenti]

I thought the series was very well produced and had value as a repository for numerous hard-to-find photos and film clips. It raised many thoughtful questions, both pro and con conspiracy, and should be required viewing for any serious JFK researcher.

The segment that sticks out in my mind is when Gordon Arnold cried......

What sticks in my mind is the interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. If I recall his words correctly, he said he will always remember Lee Oswald as "a kind and loving man."

I'm sure LHO had his soft, sweet side. But he also was a wife beater, a liar, a restless crybaby who wanted more than anything to "be" somebody.

That doesn't mean he shot JFK but it sure sounds like he had his issues.

[Mark Valenti]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us, based on your deductions, how it did go down?

I, for one, have always eagerly awaited the definitive explanation of what actually happened that day.

Please, if you would be so kind?
[/quote]


I think LHO was a bright but psychologically damaged guy. His brains were too big for his britches and his upbringing gave him few life skills. He had dreams of grandeur, he wanted to make his mark on the world.

He pushed himself to an extraordinary degree into worlds where his skills failed him. Therefore he screwed up nearly everything he attempted. He wasn't content to be an average schmo, he wanted to be important.

I think he got himself involved in some of the hot issues of the day with shady people in New Orleans and Texas. I believe people saw that he was someone who could be manipulated easily.

I believe these people were involved in Cuban affairs and that some or most of them had to be connected to U.S. clandestine services in one way or another.

I wish I could know whether he was told specifically that JFK was the target, or that he should participate in the shooting at all, or that he should do more than bring his rifle to work that day. It's all speculation but one of those scenarios seems to fit.

I believe all of the shots came from one or two windows in the TSBD. I believe that it's possible that one of the shooters was either a Dallas cop or someone wearing the uniform of a Dallas cop.

After the shooting, it's clear that LHO was fleeing the TSBD, possibly looking for a contact or just some way to get out of Dallas. I don't believe he was in the Texas Theater to meet someone. The location seems too random.

I believe that LHO's demeanor, post-arrest, was genuine. He talked himself into thinking that he was a patsy because he was the only one caught. He was clearly nervous but he was more angry than fearful. From an emotional point of view, this seems to be an indication that whatever his role, he realized that somebody lied to him. His dreams weren't going to come true. He was a patsy.




Naturally there are more gaps than details but that's it in a nutshell.

[Jack White]

[quote name='Mark Valenti' date='Jul 6 2006, 10:47 PM' post='67438']
Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us, based on your deductions, how it did go down?

I, for one, have always eagerly awaited the definitive explanation of what actually happened that day.

Please, if you would be so kind?
[/quote]


I think LHO was a bright but psychologically damaged guy. His brains were too big for his britches and his upbringing gave him few life skills. He had dreams of grandeur, he wanted to make his mark on the world.

He pushed himself to an extraordinary degree into worlds where his skills failed him. Therefore he screwed up nearly everything he attempted. He wasn't content to be an average schmo, he wanted to be important.

I think he got himself involved in some of the hot issues of the day with shady people in New Orleans and Texas. I believe people saw that he was someone who could be manipulated easily.

I believe these people were involved in Cuban affairs and that some or most of them had to be connected to U.S. clandestine services in one way or another.

I wish I could know whether he was told specifically that JFK was the target, or that he should participate in the shooting at all, or that he should do more than bring his rifle to work that day. It's all speculation but one of those scenarios seems to fit.

I believe all of the shots came from one or two windows in the TSBD. I believe that it's possible that one of the shooters was either a Dallas cop or someone wearing the uniform of a Dallas cop.

After the shooting, it's clear that LHO was fleeing the TSBD, possibly looking for a contact or just some way to get out of Dallas. I don't believe he was in the Texas Theater to meet someone. The location seems too random.

I believe that LHO's demeanor, post-arrest, was genuine. He talked himself into thinking that he was a patsy because he was the only one caught. He was clearly nervous but he was more angry than fearful. From an emotional point of view, this seems to be an indication that whatever his role, he realized that somebody lied to him. His dreams weren't going to come true. He was a patsy.




Naturally there are more gaps than details but that's it in a nutshell.
[/quote]

SO...ANOTHER LONE NUT THEORIST REVEALS HIMSELF. Valenti
obviously has never studied the evidence. I suggest two books
for starters...CROSSFIRE, by Marrs, and HARVEY&LEE by Armstrong.

Read those and get back to us, in a few months.

Jack

[Mark Valenti]

[/quote]

SO...ANOTHER LONE NUT THEORIST REVEALS HIMSELF. Valenti
obviously has never studied the evidence. I suggest two books
for starters...CROSSFIRE, by Marrs, and HARVEY&LEE by Armstrong.

Read those and get back to us, in a few months.

Jack
[/quote]

Oh Jack, Jack, Jack,

I said one or two shooters from one or two windows. How did you miss that? It was right there in black and white...unless somebody snuck in and altered the image of my post.

I've read those books, I own several dozen myself, including the ones you cited. That doesn't make them true. You're apparently an expert in many things but a lot of the stuff you post seems kooky.

I'm not a lone nut theorist. I'm an "LHO was at least partially involved" theorist.

I've studied the evidence - including yours - and I'm saying that some of it seems loony. When you say stuff like "valenti obviously has never studied the evidence" you're really saying that valenti has read what you and others peddle and didn't believe it.

The fact that you can surmise and be sure of your opinion about MY history without really knowing anything about me is very telling. Kinda seems like you jump the gun when you're forming an opinion. Like you form an instant opinion and then craft your evidence around it.

Do you do that, Jack? Do you think that's helpful?

I've studied the evidence and these are the theories I've pulled from them, ideas that are still coming together. I'm not arrogant enough to think I've got the answers, none of us may ever get to that place given the distance in time.

Other scenarios don't seem realistic to me. I'm saying there's room for error in my take on the thing - something you don't seem willing to admit.

So please knock off the world-weary "I've done it all, I've seen it all, I know it all" stance. It may impress the grandkids but I'll ask you again -

Can you point to any other instances where a clandestine agency altered film, photos or x-rays to craft public opinion?

If you can, then the image alteration theory seems plausible. Otherwise it just doesn't. It's really simple.

[David G. Healy]

I thought the series was very well produced and had value as a repository for numerous hard-to-find photos and film clips. It raised many thoughtful questions, both pro and con conspiracy, and should be required viewing for any serious JFK researcher.

The segment that sticks out in my mind is when Gordon Arnold cried......

What sticks in my mind is the interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. If I recall his words correctly, he said he will always remember Lee Oswald as "a kind and loving man."

I'm sure LHO had his soft, sweet side. But he also was a wife beater, a liar, a restless crybaby who wanted more than anything to "be" somebody.

That doesn't mean he shot JFK but it sure sounds like he had his issues.

Didn't believe it at first but this Valenti guy IS really new to this, about 10 years behind the curve so lets cut him a little slack --- "wife beater..." little creative license champ? lmao!

This post has been edited by David G. Healy: Jul 7 2006, 02:09 AM

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Mark Valenti' date='Jul 7 2006, 12:36 AM' post='67436']
[

I'm sure LHO had his soft, sweet side. But he also was a wife beater, a liar, a restless crybaby who wanted more than anything to "be" somebody.

That doesn't mean he shot JFK but it sure sounds like he had his issues.
[/quote]


The only evidence for this opinion of LHO is what I believe his wife was forced to say, under great durress and threats of deportation if she did not go along with the party line.

LHO was involved in a lot of extremely interesting matters, of the intelligence brand, and delving into those waters requires one to go very deep.

As to TMWKK, it was a fabulous series. I own all of it including the 3 censored hours and have had copies made for others. I was very much involved with the people featured in "The Guilty Men" . And my dear pal J Harrison had a good hand in the 2nd hour. (Forget the title, the one about JOhn Ligget) Barr McClellan is in the process of going after the history channel for both the censorship as well as the libelous follow-up by the "3 historains," who, curiously enough said ZERO about the allegations contained in these three hours of work, just ranted about how terrible Barr is and how LBJ was a great president. OF course Robert Dallek- who did an LBJ bio -was one of the three. It was garbage, but sadly this is what the history channel is currently pellding. (I call it the "Hitler channel")

Dawn

[Jack White]

Nigel Turner is the producer of the television series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Made for the Central Independent Television company, it started off a two-part documentary broadcast in October, 1988: The Coup d'Etat and The Forces of Darkness. Three more installments were made two years later: The Cover Up, The Patsy and The Witnesses. The sixth episode, The Truth Shall Set You Free, was added in 1995.

..........


The third programme was called The Guilty Men and looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from the book by Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Rick Russo, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham.

The Guilty Men was immediately banned and has not been seen on television since, although it is possible to get a copy on e-bay.

What do you think of the series? Does anyone know if Nigel Turner is still interested in the JFK assassination. If so, maybe he would like to join the forum.

John...I have an email address for Nigel should you want to contact him.
I doubt that he would be interested, but his wife Susan Winter is his
chief assistant and might be interested in doing something or answering
questions. On the other hand, because of litigation, they might not want to.

Jack

[Mark Valenti]

Didn't believe it at first but this Valenti guy IS really new to this, about 10 years behind the curve so lets cut him a little slack --- "wife beater..." little creative license champ? lmao!
[/quote]


Are you saying LHO never hit Marina? Are you going on record saying it never happened?

[Mark Valenti]

[/quote]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us, based on your deductions, how it did go down?

I, for one, have always eagerly awaited the definitive explanation of what actually happened that day.

Please, if you would be so kind?
[/quote]




Your turn.