I couldn't agree more, and by the way Tim you are not the only one who has had posts ignored on this subject (Joan Mellen's book, not your "critique" of it,) which is OK because it hasn't even been out that long and many Forum members still haven't read it; my concern is that there is an agenda behind all of the negative comments, which is to trash it so much that nobody will give the book a chance, John Simkin has been very civil regarding his comments, and I am not saying that anybody hasn't been civil, because I don't consider judging people or their intentions to be central to JFK research. I have always had a great deal of respect for the Forum and the integrity of it, which I still do. But the reaction to this book has left me wondering what the hell is going on here. I think the issue of the identity of "Angel" as far as criticism of A Farewell to Justice is a valid one, in fact I think there is a very good chance that John Simkin is right. But that doesent make the book any less credible overall, has there ever been a single book about the JFK Assassination that everyone said didn't contain a single mistake in it? .

Considering that before this book came out she had written books considered cutting edge about
the feminist movement, Japanese cinema, The Battle of Algiers, and biography's about Lillian Hellman & Dashell Hammett, Bob Knight, Marilyn Monroe etc...etc....I can't help but see the same dynamics between reaction to her book and reaction to Jim Garrison. And I sure don't feel like being her apologist. Anybody that wants to spend time bashing Joan Mellen can go right ahead, because I sure as hell won't lose any sleep over it. One thing I've learned in my lifetime, is that if you worry about what people think about you, youre setting yourself up to have a very encumbered existence, I generally have positive feelings about almost everybody on the forum, and even those whom I don't I would not wish them ill. Having said that I don't care what anybody thinks, especially in relation to a book that dared to challenge the status quo in regards to items such as confirming the fact that Oswald was working as an intelligence operative, and that there was definitely conspiritorial designs on Kennedy emanting from the CIA's Dept. of Clandestine Services.
But practically nobody has mentioned that, except in a very generalized way.

The Mob Did it Issue - I hope if no-one pays any atttention to this post they at least read this, because you will LEARN SOMETHING UNDENIABLE. After 43 years of intense research by many, many people some good, some great, some not so great, some gosh-awful. There is a dynamic that has arisen, and that is with some eight different angles to "who killed Kennedy" (God, I can't believe this) LBJ, The Mafia, the Military Industrial Complex, The Cuban's, Right-Wing Extremists, Big-Oil and the FBI or the CIA. The research into the assassination has reached a stage where it has almost become (pardon the analogy) "The JFK Assassination by Numbers Game" take your favorite 'theory/agenda/propoganda' and fit the 'pieces/facts/circumstances' in the 'light/context' most to your liking and Voilla! You have completed your very own "JFK Assassination Snapshot," suitable for framing. I think a large, large percentage of the books research on this subject is sincere, well intentioned and quite good, BUT there are a few books that have been written with no other purpose than to confuse, obfuscate and decieve people, yea the Very thing that people are accusing Joan Mellen of. Give me a break.

The one thing that really irritates me is the "footnote issue." For Pete's sake, that whole subject has been approached by a lot of people who have commented on it as:

A deliberate effort on Joan Mellen's part, to cover up crappy research, or deliberate effort to obfuscate issues central to the assassination; One local Einstein mentioned "she had trouble finding a publisher," Gee if that's true maybe "somebody" decided to wreak havoc with her book at a critical juncture between "the publisher having the final product and the actual printing of the book," But God forbid anybody suggest such a punch in the gut "in that direction." Recently their has been so many comments about the "ludicrousness of the CIA's having been involved in the JFK assassination" and "Jim Garrison protecting Carlos Marcello" that it makes me want to puke. Anybody want to contact G. Robert Blakey and see if they can collaborate on the definitive "Mob Killed JFK Classic," maybe you can get Gerald Posner to write the introduction.
Draw your own conclusions.

Owen wrote:

Your behavior in relation to this book is very strange. When you had the pre-review copy, I didn't sense that you had any misgivings with it whatsoever. Now that its officially released, you can't stop picking at real and percieved [sic] nits.

Owen, as I stated above, I was ethically prohibited from posting on the book until its release date.

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody.

Why did Beckham not come forward to the authorities? Why was he not eliminated? You answer your first question with the second. Beckham did not tell his HSCA story to the Grand Jury because Fred Chrisman, and later A. Roswell Thompson, had threatened his life. It was only after he learned of Chrisman's death that Beckham really spilled his guts to the HSCA. Stephen Roy/Blackburst had raised a similar objection in alt.assassination.jfk, apparently not bothering to read Beckham's stated reason for the difference. He also noted that "even" Jack Martin warned the HSCA off Beckham, apparently not realizing that this is perfectly understandable as Beckham's testimony implicates Martin. It seems to me that questions about Beckham's testimony are usually best answered by paying attention to his testimony. I find Beckham's testimony compelling because it fits well with all I have learned about the assassination, and it explains aspects of his life well, the "church" activity, his relationship with Col. Lowry, the specialized knowledge of Jack Martin displayed in his Grand Jury testimony, etc.

As for Shaw's sexual behavior, this is usually a part of the testimony of some of the homosexual informants (like David Logan and William Morris) with information relevant to the assassination, or information about his sexual activities is sometimes used to corrobate these very witnesses. In addition, Shaw's homosexual activities are pretty well tied in with his alias, Clay Bertand. They also reveal his more violent tendencies, which undermine Shaw's carefully constructed public image.

I think you would do well to drop the cannard about Garrison believing the assassination was a homosexual thrill-killing (the source for this, James Phelan, has been revealed to be unworthy of anyone's trust), even if you do add a qualifier. Mellen shows just how ahead of his time Garrison was on the issue of "crimes against nature." In fact, just read On the Trail of the Assassins to see this. Garrison does not mention that Ferrie and Shaw were homosexual once, and thoroughly removes any traces of homosexual content from the accounts of David Logan and William Morris.

I have already dealt with the objections to the "loan theory" (it isn't a theory if it's based on eyewitness testimony, you know this).

The most virulent criticisms of Garrison did not originate, as you state, with respected assassination researchers but dubious "news men." Since you have read the book, you should know this. You say you do not "endorse" it, but by falsely stating that the most virulent criticism of Garrison comes from respected assassination researchers, you lend it legitimacy.



Yes, but your general comments about it seemed pretty positive.

[quote name='Owen Parsons' date='Nov 23 2005, 11:39 PM' post='46202']
It was only after he learned of Chrisman's death that Beckham really spilled his guts to the HSCA. Stephen Roy/Blackburst had raised a similar objection in alt.assassination.jfk, apparently not bothering to read Beckham's stated reason for the difference. He also noted that "even" Jack Martin warned the HSCA off Beckham, apparently not realizing that this is perfectly understandable as Beckham's testimony implicates Martin. It seems to me that questions about Beckham's testimony are usually best answered by paying attention to his testimony.

Please note that my post was written quite sometime before the book came out, before I read it.

But now, having read it, it is clear that the difference between what Beckham testified to under oath to a Grand Jury in 1968 and what he stated recently, not under oath, is like night and day. There are two possible explanations:

One is that Beckham lied in 1968 because of fear, but is now telling the truth.

The other is that Beckham told the truth in 1968 but is lying or exaggerating now.

The same choice applies to why Jack S. Martin, Beckham's friend (and perhaps more) told HSCA that Beckham was a liar, a dead end: One possibility is that Martin feared he would implicate him. The other is that Martin was correct, Beckham was a teller of tall tales.

Owen wrote:

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody.

The first point I wish to make is that if what Beckham says is true, it implicates Marcello (through Gill) not Shaw. Any evidence linking Marcellos or Gill to Shaw is doubtful at best.

So Beckham's story is really consistent with my conclusions re who the conspirators were (Trafficante and Marcello).

Be that as it may, I still tend to doubt Beckham's story.

First, I do not think the Mafia normally involves its attorneys in its criminal enterprises. If the attorney is good, the Mafia wants to keep him clean so he is available for legal defense.

Second, your argument that Beckham was being set up as a backup patsy sounds good at first, but not if you give it any thought. Beckham was going to be set up as an alternate patsy through his delivery of the documents? How so? Who was going to prove that he had delivered such documents? Only another conspirator could so so. So do you think Gill of Ferrie was going to come forwward and say, "I did it, but Beckham helped"? How would that make him a patsy?

Third, why would the conspirators set Beckham up by giving him the plans for the assassination, thereby risking ruination of the plan if Beckham was caught? I am sure that if indeed (as I and most suspect) Oswald was a patsy: 1) he had not met the actual conspirators; and 2) had he for whatever reason been "caught" before November 22nd, I am sure he had no documents on him from which the assassination plans could have beeb inferred.

Fourth, you state Beckham lied before the jury because Chrisman had threated his life. But the only substantiation to that threat comes from Beckham himself. You can hardly use the statement of the man himself to bolster his credibility.

Finally, you stated that "the whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody". If by that you are refering to the Gill client who claimed she saw Gill's attorney going through his desk drwer to clean it up of incriminating documents, that story is, I submit, as preposterous as Beckham's. An attorney as skillful as Gill would leave in his desk documents incriminating him in a murder? And even if he had, rather than disposing of the documents himself he has his secretary do it, and do it in front of a witness? For heaven's sake, Owen, if you can believe that, I can now understand how you could belive Shaw was guilty.

I'd hoped to see this thread go off into some of the hugely important implications of Joan's
work such as the Silva interview, the Clinton implications, Oswald's FBI and customs
associations, etc.

However since it has veered off into Beckham and Chrisman I would strongly encourage
anyone following that path to do some real homework (a friend of mine out in Washington
State and I spent about three years on those two so I claim a bit of experience). It is
clear that Beckham had some association with Bannister's crew and with Oswald (I
pointed out Beckham in the lefleting photo to Joan some time ago...a broader version
of the photo shows three young Latin girls, one of whom I belive to be his wife....she
was young enough that he had a rape conviction related to that marriage).

There are many areas of Chrisman's background which are fascinating....the underground
robots in telepathic contact with him are an example as is his UFO report which almost
let to charges by the Air Force. Beyond that his association with Beckham after the
assassination has some entertaining aspects.....it's hard for me to see that two men
involved in killing a President would later be involved in scams including placing fake
donation jars in bars in Tacoma Wa. Not to mention a variety of similar low end
scams. Of course Chrisman's effort to show that the CIA was involved in undermining
the activities of local school boards is also problematic. I can tell you that our inteview
with his principal clearly showed he was in school on November 22, 1963 - even though
the Principal had little good to say about him and thought him a bad influence on his
students.

To repeat, Beckham did know that Oswald was not what the WC presented him to be...from
first hand experience. It's too bad he didn't do something simple for Garrison like
associate Oswald with Bannister. However for everyone who wants to go further with
Becikham should do some in depth research on both Chrisman and Beckham. Including
Chrisman's demonstrated abilities at forging documents on government stationary.

-- Larry

---merged with bottom post---

I think you should note that Beckham also places Shaw in Gill's offices at the time the assignment was given. I don't really know how you can say his story doesn't implicate Shaw.



People don't always think ahead or operate at the peak of their mental faculties.



Beckham was also being endowed with a dubious profile through his checking into mental hospitals at Jack Martin's urging, part of the "sheep dipping" process. If Beckham were to come forward, he could easily be discredited with this information. This is what I am getting at when I talk about him being set up as a backup patsy.



I don't think that there is a great deal of chance that he would be caught for delivering an envelope. And even if he was "caught" the conspirators had already succeeded in making him look like a nut. I think Beckham would be a pretty safe bet. Also, there is quite a bit of evidence placing Oswald in the presence of conspirators. As an example, I think most researchers credit the Antonio Veciana story, and you yourself have said that Mellen did good work on the Clinton incident.



I didn't say it bolstered his credibility, but its a perfectly feasible answer to your objection.



Read her story again. It is Ferrie's material that is being cleaned out of the office, not Gill's. Gill apparently went into panic mode after Ferrie was taken into custody, and quickly moved to sweep everything relating to Ferrie up. Apparently it occured to him that Ferrie might not have been so careful as he was. I am also impressed with how well this story supports Beckham's, though it is independent of it.

Larry: Oh, believe me, I'm quite familiar with Crisman's various activities and life story. I have a few thoughts on it. I think its quite likely that the UFO-spewing-molten-slag story was just cover for something more prosaic, namely the dumping of toxic waste. Mellen suggests this and I think Crisman himself later said as much. I would also note that his tales of fighting robots ("Deros") in underground caverns sent via letter to one of Raymond Palmer's magazines, came right on the heels of the UFO story, before any real investigation of it had started, and were later mocked in a major magazine, Harper's, seemingly to impeach the value of his UFO testimony further.

I don't know about his demonstrated ability to forge documents on government stationary (I wouldn't put it past him), but I assume you are talking about the "Easy Papers," which speak of Crisman's alleged efforts to undermine the Tacoma School Board on behalf of the CIA. First, these aren't, to my knowledge, on government stationary, second, though probably written by him, they have not been successfully linked to him. I would note that the Easy Papers seem to have been produced shortly after he was called before the Grand Jury in Re: Garrison's investigation and after Garrison's office had called him an "industrial espionage agent," or something to that effect. It would appear to me that the purpose of this document is to make suggestions that he is an intelligence agent appear absurd. Crisman actually talks about these (probably self-perpetuated) allegations in his autobiography, Murder of a City, Tacoma, noting how silly they are. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of method in Crisman's madness.

Crisman's whereabouts on November 22 are really only of importance if one believes Crisman was one of the tramps (which I don't). Crisman had always maintained that he was in school on November 22. Beckham's story does not place him elsewhere, nor does Crisman need to be elsewhere.

A member of this Forum, Mel Ayton (who of course is a LN advocate but that does not make all his thoughts invalid) posted a highly unfavorable review of AF2J on Amazon. I thought it worthwhile pointing out the following paragraph because it relates to another member of this Forum, Don Bohning. Perhaps Mr. Bohning would like to comment.

From the Ayton review on Amazon:

Branding authors who reject JFK conspiracy theories as 'CIA assets' is Mellen's favourite smear tactic in the book. It is a common tool used by JFK conspiracy writers - it is also 'McCarthyite' in nature. Don Bohning, a former Miami Herald reporter and author of 'The Castro Obsession' (2005) is incensed with references made by Mellen that he was a 'CIA sponsored' reporter. Bohning contacted the book's publishers, suggesting it was libelous. They contacted Mellen and said she agreed to change the description to 'CIA linked.' The reference is still extremely misleading, Bohning said. " (I)...never took a cent from the CIA and was outraged by the implication - along with the terms 'writer asset' and 'utilized'." (Email to Mel Ayton, 3.10.2005)....Top editors at the Herald were well aware - and approved - of my contacts with the CIA during the 1960s."(Email to Mel Ayton 9-10-05).

The CIA certainly thought Don Bohning was an asset ("AMCARBON-3"), even if Bohning disagrees with them. Mellen draws a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the documents.

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

Owen, first, there are instances of Chrisman using government stationary, entirely different
from the Easy papers (although those are indeed positioned to be official papers regardless
of the lack of stationary); however, it seems to me that you've satisfied yourself on these issues
so I don't intend to belabor the point. You probably have Beckham's actual police arrest
record, the details of his going AWOL from Fort Leonard Wood and a host of other documents
pertaining to the Beckham and Chrisman scams....my intent was to advise readers to check
into such things and draw their own conclusions. Looks like you have, your'e satisfied and
I'll leave it to others to pursue or not...

-- Larry

uote name='Owen Parsons' date='Nov 24 2005, 04:59 PM' post='46273']
[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz'] Owen wrote:

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody.

The first point I wish to make is that if what Beckham says is true, it implicates Marcello (through Gill) not Shaw. Any evidence linking Marcellos or Gill to Shaw is doubtful at best.

So Beckham's story is really consistent with my conclusions re who the conspirators were (Trafficante and Marcello).[/quote]

I think you should note that Beckham also places Shaw in Gill's offices at the time the assignment was given. I don't really know how you can say his story doesn't implicate Shaw.

[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz']First, I do not think the Mafia normally involves its attorneys in its criminal enterprises. If the attorney is good, the Mafia wants to keep him clean so he is available for legal defense.[/quote]

People don't always think ahead or operate at the peak of their mental faculties.

[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz']Second, your argument that Beckham was being set up as a backup patsy sounds good at first, but not if you give it any thought. Beckham was going to be set up as an alternate patsy through his delivery of the documents? How so? Who was going to prove that he had delivered such documents? Only another conspirator could so so. So do you think Gill of Ferrie was going to come forwward and say, "I did it, but Beckham helped"? How would that make him a patsy?[/quote]

Beckham was also being endowed with a dubious profile through his checking into mental hospitals at Jack Martin's urging, part of the "sheep dipping" process. If Beckham were to come forward, he could easily be discredited with this information. This is what I am getting at when I talk about him being set up as a backup patsy.

[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz']Third, why would the conspirators set Beckham up by giving him the plans for the assassination, thereby risking ruination of the plan if Beckham was caught? I am sure that if indeed (as I and most suspect) Oswald was a patsy: 1) he had not met the actual conspirators; and 2) had he for whatever reason been "caught" before November 22nd, I am sure he had no documents on him from which the assassination plans could have beeb inferred.[/quote]

I don't think that there is a great deal of chance that he would be caught for delivering an envelope. And even if he was "caught" the conspirators had already succeeded in making him look like a nut. I think Beckham would be a pretty safe bet. Also, there is quite a bit of evidence placing Oswald in the presence of conspirators. As an example, I think most researchers credit the Antonio Veciana story, and you yourself have said that Mellen did good work on the Clinton incident.

[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz']Fourth, you state Beckham lied before the jury because Chrisman had threated his life. But the only substantiation to that threat comes from Beckham himself. You can hardly use the statement of the man himself to bolster his credibility.[/quote]

I didn't say it bolstered his credibility, but its a perfectly feasible answer to your objection.

[quote post='46253' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:59 AM' name='Tim Gratz']Finally, you stated that "the whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody". If by that you are refering to the Gill client who claimed she saw Gill's attorney going through his desk drwer to clean it up of incriminating documents, that story is, I submit, as preposterous as Beckham's. An attorney as skillful as Gill would leave in his desk documents incriminating him in a murder? And even if he had, rather than disposing of the documents himself he has his secretary do it, and do it in front of a witness? For heaven's sake, Owen, if you can believe that, I can now understand how you could belive Shaw was guilty. [/quote]

Read her story again. It is Ferrie's material that is being cleaned out of the office, not Gill's. Gill apparently went into panic mode after Ferrie was taken into custody, and quickly moved to sweep everything relating to Ferrie up. Apparently it occured to him that Ferrie might not have been so careful as he was. I am also impressed with how well this story supports Beckham's, though it is independent of it.

Larry: Oh, believe me, I'm quite familiar with Crisman's various activities and life story. I have a few thoughts on it. I think its quite likely that the UFO-spewing-molten-slag story was just cover for something more prosaic, namely the dumping of toxic waste. Mellen suggests this and I think Crisman himself later said as much. I would also note that his tales of fighting robots ("Deros") in underground caverns sent via letter to one of Raymond Palmer's magazines, came right on the heels of the UFO story, before any real investigation of it had started, and were later mocked in a major magazine, Harper's, seemingly to impeach the value of his UFO testimony further.

I don't know about his demonstrated ability to forge documents on government stationary (I wouldn't put it past him), but I assume you are talking about the "Easy Papers," which speak of Crisman's alleged efforts to undermine the Tacoma School Board on behalf of the CIA. First, these aren't, to my knowledge, on government stationary, second, though probably written by him, they have not been successfully linked to him. I would note that the Easy Papers seem to have been produced shortly after he was called before the Grand Jury in Re: Garrison's investigation and after Garrison's office had called him an "industrial espionage agent," or something to that effect. It would appear to me that the purpose of this document is to make suggestions that he is an intelligence agent appear absurd. Crisman actually talks about these (probably self-perpetuated) allegations in his autobiography, Murder of a City, Tacoma, noting how silly they are. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of method in Crisman's madness.

Crisman's whereabouts on November 22 are really only of importance if one believes Crisman was one of the tramps (which I don't). Crisman had always maintained that he was in school on November 22. Beckham's story does not place him elsewhere, nor does Crisman need to be elsewhere.
[/quote]

REPLY:

With all due respect to Larry, a good researcher and a good guy, it has been no secret for a long time that Beckham was acquainted with Martin and Banister in 1961. Beckham said as much in his 1968 grand jury testimony. (And Banister indicated an acquaintence with him in his 1963 testimony at Ferrie's EAL hearing.) But Beckham's 1968 testimony UNDER OATH and under danger of a perjury rap is dramatically different than what he says today, not under oath or legal danger. One of the two accounts must be a lie.

And Beckham does seem to lie on occasion. If Gus Russo's account is accurate, that Beckham lied to him about composing a classic song, then admitted his lie, this would indicate an inclination to lie to puff up his own importance.

I don't agree that it is clear that Beckham had a relationship with Oswald. The people in the ITM films have not been identified, and I don't see enough resemblance with Beckham to make a definitive ID. That leaves us with Beckham's identification of himself in the films. IF his 1968 testimony is true, and his current account (and the reasons for the discrepancy between the 1968 and current accounts) are not true, then his identification of himself in the ITM film is suspect. I can't swear that it's NOT him, but I am not convinced that it is an undisputed fact.

And this IS an issue, as Beckham plays a substantial role in the book.

Many of us in this field have seen people peripherally connected to this case (and some not), who have seen the Stone film, read the books, seen the notoriety that sometimes comes to claimants, come forward with exaggerated claims. It happens, and we need to use a fine filter to insure that we are not diverted in wrong directions.

I suggest that interested persons go to History Matters and read Beckham's 1968 Grand Jury testimony. His current explanation, that he lied in 1968 because he was fearful, may be true. But it may not.

None of the defenders of this book have yet responded to my Post 37 in this thread, so I will repeat them and renew my request for a response from Professor Mellen, Owen, Howard or anyone else:


In the last chapter of the review copy of "A Farewell to Justice" Professor Mellen writes:

"The CIA's efforts in the cover-up continue. At the millenimum a committee of archivists and librarians was convened by the National Archives. Its purpose was to examine some sealed records relating to the Kennedy assassination and recommend whether they should be open to the public. Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked."

I assume before the book went to press someone rectified the grammatical problem in the fourth paragraph (refering to a group as "they"). But I have some substantive comments:

What group is she possibily talkling about?

It sounds like the Assassinations Records Review Board. But the AARB commenced its work in the mid-nineties, not at the millenium.

"No one talked"? Well, at least one person did. She cites her source as an employee of a major research library who prefers to remain anonymous.

If she is refering to the ARRB, she is incorrect, as you all know, that its purpose was solely to make recommendations re what documents should be made public. It had the authority to order documents made public and it did so--millions of pages of records.

Obviously, the unidentified representative of the CIA (did he or she not identify himself or herself to the board members?) was not warning the board not to discuss records it ordered opened to the public. If the representative was warning the board members not to disclose the contents of records that the board decided not to declassify, well, that was certainly a legitimate request that no one can legitimately characterize as part of a continuing cover-up.

It sounds like she is attempting to convert a legitimate request that the the members of the ARRB maintain the confidentiality of records that it had decided still required confidentiality for purposes of natiional security or other legitimate purpose into a "cover-up". It is a bit hard to tell because the book does not identify the group to which she refers.

"His visit was perceived as a threat by them all." What does this mean? Did she talk to more than one member? The citation seems to indicate an interview with only that one anonymous member. Did he tell her they all felt threatened? Why did she not talk to the other board members to confirm if they all felt this way? There were less than ten members if I recall correctly.

"His visit was percveived as a threat by them all. No one talked." Apparently the board was not intimidated: it voted to release millions of pages of records, often over the objection of the CIA.

What in the world is going on here? I am hoping Professor Mellen will elaborate on this paragraph and my questions without breaching her apparent pledge of confidentiality to the research librarian. I am tempted, however, to write to every board member to try to get to the bottom of this claim.

A CIA media asset isn't pledged to do whatever the CIA tells them. The CIA is satisfied that they will report in the way the CIA wants them to and feeds them information accordingly. The issue of whether or not Bohning was being paid by the CIA or whether or not his editors knew and approved of his CIA contacts is pretty irrelevant. Bohning had a cryptonym (AMCARBON-3), Covert Security Approval, and was DDP approved. If this doesn't make someone at least "CIA linked" (which is the actual word Mellen uses) or "CIA sponsored" (the original word), I don't know what does.

Ayton doesn't mention any of this and trys to make it sound like Mellen has made a totally baseless, McCarthyite charge, supposedly because Bohning is inconvenient to her thesis (which he isn't). His entire review (and just about everything else he has written relevant to the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations) is like this. Mel likes to ignore inconvient information (like when he talks about the LAPD and Sandy Serrano re: the RFK case) and make emotional appeals (he talks about Mellen "play[ing] with people's lives..." in alt.assassination.jfk). He also calls Mellen's book, in one of his posts, "a complete fabrication from start to finish."



The simplest answer to this is that she is not talking about the ARRB. There are quite a few difference between this National Archives effort and the ARRB. Its as easy as reading the paragraph and yet its exactly that hard. I didn't bother responding to this before because I thought it would be fairly obvious to the casual reader, nothing to do with avoiding it. Talking to ARRB members would probably get you nowhere.

"Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked." This passage makes it quite clear that the warning was given before any declassifying work had started. It is not about the ARRB, and it is not a request to ARRB members to keep quiet about documents they had not declassified. "No one talked" means that this abortive National Archives declassification effort was not made public, obviously. Try paying closer attention to what you are reading.

I too would welcome more information from Mellen, however.

Owen, thanks for your reasoned responses re: CIA media assets.

When I was checking out the source of numerous CIA leaked stories thru Scripps-Howard, I found a recent one in which the reporter couldn't believe that the CIA had leaked a report through them - they must consider SHNS a virtual pipeline, except the report said the Al Quada suicide bombers were getting better from experience, which if not an oxymoron is something eqilivant.

As for more info from JM,

I emailed Joan Mellen, requesting a formal, on the record interview, and she's agreed, but needs to wait a few weeks until school is out, as she is a prof (Teacher of the Year, 2004). While she is still promoting her book and keeping up teaching duties, I hope she can check in with this forum in the meantime.

Bill Kelly

----------------------------------

Bill:


It is quite evident that we have very few "C-SPAN "Junkies" amongst the members on this Forum !!

However, "I be one of dose" and this addiction goes back almost 25 years.


Last month I twice watched the "Q & A" segment hosted by Brian Lamb. This is the replacement for the previous "Book Notes" series. [on C-SPAN-1 - which was moved to C-SPAN-2 and is unavailable here].


This segment had Lamb doing an "in-depth" interview of the Director of the N.A.R.A., who has held this post for many years. Evidently, Lamb was quite interested in exactly how he [or the "staff"] handles very highly classified documents.


He inquired as to the protocols and "formalities" "they" utilized when faced with deciding to declassify or NOT declassify, sensitive government documents? Said inquiry included the personal ["private"] diaries, letters, journals, etc. -- of Presidents; and many of the other VIP members of ALL branches -- especially wherein said items in the collection might have impinged upon the necessary requirements of LAWS and/or REGULATIONS !!


[Pursuant to the Federal Adminstrative Procedures Act: When an Agency of government has been delegated "specific authority" by the Congress, ALL of said "Rules", "Policies", etc. are considered (by SCOTUS) "....To effectively carry the full weight of the Law...and ARE comparable to, and carry the full weight and authority of....any "Act or Law"....which has been enacted and signed into Law by the President...!!"]


I would respectfully suggest that the FEW [law school graduate] members of this Forum reacquaint themselves with this utterly boring, tiring, and definitely non-remunerative specialty area of legal practise !!


Brian Lamb made very specifically interested inquiries of this gentleman, and amongst the many: He asked whether "his" board members did convene in the fashion of the Supreme Court justices, especially where it when it came time to "deliberate" on decisions, i.e., all of the SCOTUS law clerks are not permitted to remain in the chamber, and participate in those forums ??!!


Upon Lamb's amending this question, with the use of the words "voting to declassify"; the NARA "Bossman" retorted quite strongly that: The statutes controlling both the NARA and "Intelligence Community" agencies/ bureaus -- mandated that HE ALONE is the person authorized with this responsibility. Moreover, he insisted that: He was lawfully delegated to be the only entity which decided whether to continue archiving files, douments, etc. as classified -- or make a determination whether to fully and/or partially declassify ANY and ALL such materials.

Moreover, he insisted that: Despite the fact that many of his "staff" held high security clearances, there was never a legal requirement that he even request nor take any "collective" judment decisions; but that the sole authority rested with him, and him ALONE !!


So where is this aforementioned "Board" coming from?? And since this long-term "Director" has stated elsewhere that: The only way that any of his employees [or advisory parties] learn of HIS decisions -- is only after he issues his "Edicts" on those respective issues.


As for all of this "Op Mockingbird" bullshit; I would also direct my contemporaries to the nearest Law Library and, and thereup, and without-a-doubt, and for the first time in their "confused" lives -- might well read the entirety of the 1947 "Government Re-Organization Plan", including ALL of the rarely read "Statutes-at-Large" components of same. Said "Plan" culminated in the 1947 Defense Act which, inter alia, created the US Air Force. the CIA, etc. !!

As amended by the Congress since 1947, the parameters of ALL agencies of the "Executive Branch"
are quite explicit -- and save for the sections wherein the broad jurisdiction and charters were "Explicitly" drafted [and enacted as law] are requireed to be read as "Implicitly Authorized"!!

Long before I was "Outed" by Miami Herald reporter Dom Bonafede [May 1961], I had been at extremely strong "odds" with the CIA; and not just with the WH desk, but even more bitterly with the REMFs at JM/WAVE.

[Bonafede was not just some "scribbler" who collaborated with the CIA as many "police beat" reporters continue to do with law enforcement personnel. And moreover, he didn't have an "AM" Digraph as I did, and quite possibly -- was the case with the Herald's Al Burt, Jim Buchanan, John Dorschner, et al.!!

That this was the case with our fellow member Don Bohning, remains subject to speculation -- as I have yet to see a sworn statement [or Congressional testimony], not even some "Agee" type "Fessin' up" for that matter. Bonafede was one of the "few" who had a "JM" Digraph, and this was NOT the equivalent of a 'AM/CARBON" type cryptonym, but this definitely identified Bonafede as a CIA employee, not just some CIA "asset" utilizing "journalistic cover"!!]


In fact, the pogues at the Miami Station put several of our lives at risk, as we became the focus of many of the both "friendly" and "hostile" intelligence services. We were forced to spend an inordinate amount of time "checking-out" our associate's and a considerable number of the trainee's bona fides -- and where necessary, communicate our suspicions to the FBI, ONI, or other agencies.

When it became very obvious that the goverment field employees weren't abiding by the regulations and the laws, I went to D.C. to brief HUAC, Subversives Activities Control Board, etc. folks [1962]. When they reported frequent episodes of "stonewalling", I went to some Senators, Congressmen, and other VIP "Insiders" to finally gain some resolution.


You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies" -- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia, and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! The "fortunate? amongst your ranks will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!


Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones, giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.


Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:


[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,


[B] You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!


Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.


Chairs,


Gerry Patrick hemming
__________________________

YO! GERRY, YOU TALKIN' ABOUT ME HERE?

....You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies"

IF SO, YOU GOT ME PEGGED WRONG. I'M NOT OUT AGAINST THE CIA, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE NAVY SEALS, I PERSONALLY KNOW F-16 PILOTS WHO WENT UP ON 9/11, AND I LIVE NEXT TO FORT DIX/MACGUIRE AFB/LAKEHURST, THE FIRST ARMY/AF/NAVY SUPERBASE, WHERE ALMOST ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WORK, AND MY FATHER WAS A CAMDEN, N.J. POLICE DET./LT./WWII 8TH AF VET, SO MY PWERSONAL AND PREFERRED ENEMIES ARE NOT CIA, ITEL, LAW ENF. OR MIL., SO GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

-- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".
WHILE I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PERSOANL SEAVIORS, MY MENTORS ARE MORE HUMAN - PETER DALE SCOTT, BILL TURNER, TONY SUMMERS, VINCE SALANDRIA, JOHN SIMPKIN....

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies

I NAMED THE FIRST UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON THE GADFLY - SO YOU GOT THAT RIGHT

; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia,

I'M NOT THREATENING ENOUGH, YET, TO BE PARANOID. WHEN THAT COMES I'LL NOW I STRUCK A NERVE AND AM ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! ARTY KOESTLER? I'M HONORED THAT YOU MENTION HIM IN THE SAME THREAD AS ME.

The "fortunate? amongst your ranks

MY RANKS? WHO ELSE IS WITH ME? I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO HAS SIGNED ON TO MY MISSION.

will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!


Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones,

I DON'T CARE IF MY PHONE IS TAPPED - MAYBE THEY - WHOEVER THEY ARE, WILL LEARN SOMETHING.


giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.

WHOSE GOT GOOD DRUGS AND ARE HOLDING OUT?

Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,

MAYBE SO, AND I KIND OF LIKE BEING A NOBODY BUT MY CIRCLE OF FRIENDS/ASSOCIATES HAS BEEN GROWNING QUIETLY AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE THERE WHEN WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOVE.

[B] You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!
Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.

NOW YOU'RE HITTING BELOW THE BELT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHO I AM OR WHAT I'M ABOUT. I MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME RING AS YOU ARE, BUT I'M KEEPING SCORE AND I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND I DON'T PREJUDGE PEOPLE BEFORE I GET TO KNOW THEM.

AND THANKS FOR BEING SO UP FRONT AND FORTHRIGHT, INSTEAD OF HIDING LIKE THE OTHER RATS IN THIS GAME.

BK
BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM




Chairs,


Gerry Patrick hemming
__________________________
[/quote]

Bill wrote:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

Come on, now, Bill, your stated goal is to indict the bastards, is it not?

[quote name='William Kelly' date='Nov 27 2005, 07:19 AM' post='46578']
YO! GERRY, YOU TALKIN' ABOUT ME HERE?

....You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies"

IF SO, YOU GOT ME PEGGED WRONG. I'M NOT OUT AGAINST THE CIA, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE NAVY SEALS, I PERSONALLY KNOW F-16 PILOTS WHO WENT UP ON 9/11, AND I LIVE NEXT TO FORT DIX/MACGUIRE AFB/LAKEHURST, THE FIRST ARMY/AF/NAVY SUPERBASE, WHERE ALMOST ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WORK, AND MY FATHER WAS A CAMDEN, N.J. POLICE DET./LT./WWII 8TH AF VET, SO MY PWERSONAL AND PREFERRED ENEMIES ARE NOT CIA, ITEL, LAW ENF. OR MIL., SO GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

-- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".
WHILE I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PERSOANL SEAVIORS, MY MENTORS ARE MORE HUMAN - PETER DALE SCOTT, BILL TURNER, TONY SUMMERS, VINCE SALANDRIA, JOHN SIMPKIN....

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies

I NAMED THE FIRST UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON THE GADFLY - SO YOU GOT THAT RIGHT

; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia,

I'M NOT THREATENING ENOUGH, YET, TO BE PARANOID. WHEN THAT COMES I'LL NOW I STRUCK A NERVE AND AM ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! ARTY KOESTLER? I'M HONORED THAT YOU MENTION HIM IN THE SAME THREAD AS ME.

The "fortunate? amongst your ranks

MY RANKS? WHO ELSE IS WITH ME? I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO HAS SIGNED ON TO MY MISSION.

will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!


Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones,

I DON'T CARE IF MY PHONE IS TAPPED - MAYBE THEY - WHOEVER THEY ARE, WILL LEARN SOMETHING.


giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.

WHOSE GOT GOOD DRUGS AND ARE HOLDING OUT?

Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,

MAYBE SO, AND I KIND OF LIKE BEING A NOBODY BUT MY CIRCLE OF FRIENDS/ASSOCIATES HAS BEEN GROWNING QUIETLY AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE THERE WHEN WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOVE.

[B] You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!
Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.

NOW YOU'RE HITTING BELOW THE BELT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHO I AM OR WHAT I'M ABOUT. I MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME RING AS YOU ARE, BUT I'M KEEPING SCORE AND I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND I DON'T PREJUDGE PEOPLE BEFORE I GET TO KNOW THEM.

AND THANKS FOR BEING SO UP FRONT AND FORTHRIGHT, INSTEAD OF HIDING LIKE THE OTHER RATS IN THIS GAME.

BK
BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM




Chairs,


Gerry Patrick hemming
__________________________
[/quote]
[/quote]
---------------------------------
Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullshit about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!!

Maybe you just haven't noticed this "Stalinist" ranting against either specific individuals, or an agency in general. And where is the "solid" evidence ?? All of this rant about the "Evil doers",and the "Rogues", and it is so very easy to forget about what our enemies were all about -- the Gulags, psycho experimention [so-called "mental institutions"]; and what exactly is the big bitch?? Oh ! We started operating just like the "Bad Guys"!! The problem here is that far too many have identified themselves with the "Heroic Soviet Forces" that alone won WWII; and we nasties dropped "The Bombs" on the poor innocent Japs -- who, according to the latest "wet dream"; were just begging to surrender ??!!

NOT that the "Code of Bushido" General's weren't about to stage a coup even immediately after Hiroshima; and which involved the assassination of Hirohito -- and that the Soviets slaughtered Jap Army divisions when they were attempting to surrender in Manchuria and northeast China -- and that Soviet troops sat across the river and allowed the Wehrmacht to slaughter the rare warrior Jews of the Warsaw Uprising, and on, and on !!

The ONLY current debate I might have with you is: Exactly how to proceed with a multiple grand jury operation on these matters [JFK, RFK, MLK. Jr., et al.] -- and why in the end you might face some situations that have never appeared in public heretofor, and are of current interest with regard to the Geneva Protocols, detainees, The Rules of Land Warfare, International treaties, and why our Contitutions forbids specific compacts with foreign nations, yet permit "pre-emptive military actions !!

Let me know if you are interested. Leave the diatribe to be absorded by those antagonist who have posted absolutely NADA, and just are here to TROLL !!

Chairs,

Gerry
______________________

Good post, Gerry.

It is indeed interesting that it would seem that to several Forum members the CIA was the focus of evil in the Cold War. Scant attention is paid to the KGB, the intelligence arm of what Ronald Reagan correctly designated "the evil empire". The Soviet dictators killed more people than Hitler did. Which of course is no defense of Hitler. Both Naziism and Communism were totally evil dictatorships that crushed the liberties and often the lives of their subjects. But the focus here on the misdeeds and excessivies and in some cases criminal acts of some officers of the CIA while totally ignoring the KGB would be similar to a focus on the misdeeds of the OSS to the exclusion of the SS and Nazi storm troopers.

Freedom and democracy were as much at stake in the Cold War as they were in the war against Nazi Germany. We ought not forget that.

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullshit about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!......

The ONLY current debate I might have with you is: Exactly how to proceed with a multiple grand jury operation on these matters [JFK, RFK, MLK. Jr., et al.] -- and why in the end you might face some situations that have never appeared in public heretofor, and are of current interest with regard to the Geneva Protocols, detainees, The Rules of Land Warfare, International treaties, and why our Contitutions forbids specific compacts with foreign nations, yet permit "pre-emptive military actions !!

Let me know if you are interested. Leave the diatribe to be absorded by those antagonist who have posted absolutely NADA, and just are here to TROLL !!

Chairs,

Gerry


GERRY,

I KIND OF LIKE THE KID. HE'S GOT WISDOM BEYOND HIS AGE AND EXPERIENCE.

AND I'M SURE I'M GOING TO FIND MYSELF IN SOME SITUATIONS IF MULTIPLE GRAND JURIES PROCEEDINGS SUCCEED, BUT GRATZ WILL PROTECT MY REAR.

BK

DARN RIGHT I WILL, BILL!

And I agree with you 100% that what is needed is a legal proceeding in which an honest prosecutor will ask the necessary questions to the witnesses and suspects who are still living--and indict when appropriate.

How to accomplish that is the ultimate question, of course. One would think that almost any prosecutor would like to have a place in history as the person who solved the "crime of the century" but the countervailing consideration would be to fail and subject oneself to public ridicule.

Oh, give it a rest Gerry. There is nothing "Stalinist" about what I posted. I just pointed out that there is no reason why Bohning shouldn't be called "CIA linked," in answer to Tim's objections. I don't think that makes Bohning, or anyone else the CIA wants to utilize, a bad person. Nothing to do with "Enemies" or "Evil doers."

----------------------------

Yeah, and we should send this "Kid?" to Stanford, or maybe "Hashbury-Berkeley". You seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that the big "slur" was that LHO had a "201 File"; and that, according to Weberman and his fellow snitches -- this was sufficient enough proof that: "Indeed LHO was NOT just an informant [or had been the subject of a "00" Domestic Contact Service interview]; but had been an salaried employee [viz: Contract Agent"] -- or even a "Career Intelligence Officer" !!


Those fantasizing whacko CT clowns discovered that: While an enlisted Marine has an S.R.B. [Service Record Book] -- only officers of the Corps have "201 Files"; which contain the almost complete history of their USMC and/or other branch previous military service. NOT amazing at all that we continue to hear very similar rants [from identical-twin] eminating flatulently from multiple orifices.


NOW, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that: Should an individual [entity or group] have a cryptonym, that is a sure fire "Gore-in-tree" that said "subject-of-interest" was linked to the CIA, or snitched for the CIA, or did propaganda work for the CIA.


Now there is a big fat "war crime" for you -- a citizen collaborating with his "own country's" Intel/Services, the military, or law enforcement agencies. Just what I expect to hear from one of the "starving masses loafing about in "South Central Los Angeles, i.e.: "..Da POH-lice done did dat...done did dis..!!" NOT what you might well expect from ex-cons, probationers, and parolees who brag daily that: "... They are just going to work..." -- when queried as to which Korean convenience store they plan to rob that night !!


Sometimes I spent an entire shift, just sitting with I.A.D. at Parker Center in downtown L.A. -- and that was just so that I might enjoy hearing allegations that some minority pogue "felony-bender" had just got his ass whipped by the "Hollenbeck Goon Squad".


"...Well S/A Hemming..you were there...now tell us what 'really' happened..!!" Well, for some strange and unexplained reason, and no doubt due to early onset "old-Zeimers -- they never really ever got the "inside track".

What really happened was: That while putting one gang member [of several, who had been stopped from killing one another] into the back seat of a "Black & White". Thereupon, the doped-up dude quickly turned and kicked the dumb-ass rookie "Copper" in the balls. And then what did the now pissed-offrookie do?? Nothing more nor less than just "what-comes-naturally" -- especially to someone only partially recovering from excrutiating pain ?? He quickly put ON his lead-weighted "Sap-Gloves" and pounded the dog-shit out of said "misbehaving" miscreant !!


Now, back to the slurs against Bohning [and many other journalists]. Most often it is to get the bona fides of some person/source as to the verity of an Intel story being floated by a "disinterested?" party. NOT some "whistle-blower" [from within the ranks of the agency]; but too frequently from one of the sweating masses -- who do grunt work on the outermost periphery of some "proprietary".


Oftentimes it comes from some "day-laborer", who want to impress his boyfriends [and/or girlfriends] with tales of intrigue, and how important he is to this great nation's security. You know the type:
"Elderly-cynical-self-important-egotistical-low-life-wannabe-operator/SOFers" !!


ONLY the ignorant or ill-informed would doubt the lawful mandates of an Intel/agency, and which requires that it liaise with the media, and oftentimes "asking" either for a "temporarily-sit-on" or a complete "kill" of a proposed "minor expose". Most likely it is something which hostile services might add to their "sources & methods" chatter filters.


NOW, and because of 9/11 -- there is NO "asking" anymore. Should you be one who is without Diplomatic, Parliamentary, or Congressional immunities -- then you are soon going to experience the many pleasures of a "War Daddy" or ["Momma"] useing the moniker "Rocky" whilst you "sun and loaf" about in a distant "Cell-bar Inn" !!


Also, as John well knows -- there is an abundance of "Trolls" who front their kid's [or somebody elses kid's] personal identiites [including pictures and bios] -- just so as to "spoof" the gullible. These pesky critters know that: In this country it is against the law for unauthorized parties to garner information about pre-teen/teenage shool students.

Therefore, your personal photograph is a complete waste of time. Even your volunteering as to your school, personal ["job-type"] references would be inevitably of no avail.


Proof of that is the Khazar "snitch" A.J.W. -- he sent me e-mails from a "family member's account", and immediately thereafter, I received several inquiries as to my knowing the "true" identity of said author of said e-mails ?? And moreover, notifying me that they originated from an illegal account. Always a pleasure hearing from the Secret Service & the UCE.Gov folks during dinner-time !!


Do me a favor, and don't bother giving us that line: "...I are just a simple widdle "speed-reader" -- with a 200+ gigabyte PC my mommy bought me..!!" Yeah, THAT along with an alliance with Google surely provides one with a "personal collection" of the entirety of the Library of Congress !! That was AJW's dodge in his attempt to cover the illegal reality that he has not given up using "Captain Ball-Buster" as his personal "phone-freaker" when hacking into a Super Cray Mainframe.


Of course, one has to be more than wary of those who: Via personal contacts with some of the "good-guy" hackers; with just a little bit of your personal Bio might open the floodgates to volumes of realities


SO, give it a rest -- why don't ya "KID?" We already have hordes of anarchistic "doodlers" jamming up the band-widths in cyber-space !!,

Chairs,

GPH
_________________________

Gerry, I don't really care if you think I'm your arch-nemesis Weberman, Mellen's research assistant, or even (as Lynne Foster suggested) Nation Review hack Jonah Goldberg. None of it bothers me as I know, from personal knowledge, that my biography is correct. If you or anyone else wants to think otherwise, be my guest.

Owen wrote to me:

"Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked." [Quoting Mellen's book.] This passage makes it quite clear that the warning was given before any declassifying work had started. It is not about the ARRB, and it is not a request to ARRB members to keep quiet about documents they had not declassified. "No one talked" means that this abortive National Archives declassification effort was not made public, obviously. Try paying closer attention to what you are reading.

Owen, tell you what, let us stake our dispute whether Mellen's book is credible or not on your defense in the above post.

You claim that Mellen was refering to some "declassification effort" undertaken under the auspices of the National Archives [in the year 2000 as Mellen writes]. You state that this effort was "not made public, obviously" so by your analysis Professor Mellen was refering to a top-secret effort by the National Archives, so secret that not a soul in the assassination research community has yet heard of it. That claim is preposterous on its face. Moreover, the National Archives does not have any statutory authority to declassify documents. The only reason the AARB had such authority is that they were given it by Act of Congress.

I suggest you try paying closer attention to your brain! I know you are too intelligent to really believe what you just posted had you taken the time to think about it!

To everyone else: Is anyone aware of as highly secret effort by the National Archives to declassify documents?

I do not have the book with me but I understand it states on page 34:

Among the CIA's schemes to kill Castro under OPERATION MONGOOSE was
a plan concocted by Desmond Fitzgeald, chief of the Cuban Task Force, who
was encouraged by Robert Kennedy to affect the assassination o Castro,
already a CIA project.

Can someone who has the book verify this passage and what Professor Mellen cites in support of the proposition that RFK encouraged Fitzgerald's efforts to assassinate Castro?

Thanks!

The Philadelphia Inquirer review of "A Farewell to Justice":


Did U.S. help assassinate JFK?
A Temple professor's new book says the evidence that it did is "conclusive."
By Patrick Kerkstra
Inquirer Staff Writer


There are some subjects - and the web of conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy is certainly among them - that most members of the academic establishment avoid as much as
possible.

And then there is Temple University's Joan Mellen, whose new book, A Farewell to Justice, pins the murder on the U.S. government itself.

"Long live tenure," said Mellen, an English professor who has written an eclectic collection of 17 books.

Her latest, which was published last week, started out as a biography of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney whose investigation of the assassination was dramatized in Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK.

But in her research on Garrison, Mellen soon became fascinated by the assassination itself. After eight years of work, in which she says she conducted 1,200 interviews, Mellen concluded that Garrison had it
right, and that the CIA - with the help of other government agencies -orchestrated the assassination and worked to thwart the district attorney's investigation.

"Intra-government warfare caused the death of President Kennedy," she said. "The evidence is conclusive."
Mellen presents her evidence in a dense and highly detailed 386 pages, with 140 additional pages of careful citations and sourcing.

In a review of the book, Publishers Weekly praised it for bringing "an astonishing amount of information to light," but complained that the narrative "confuses an already bewildering case by shifting timelines,
authorial voices and locations with seemingly little cause."

For her part, Mellen considers the book a work of serious academic scholarship - even though she is a creative-writing professor and not a trained historian.

"If it weren't scholarship, it'd be worthless," she said.

Mellen, who was tenured in the early 1970s, said she was "not ambitious" and was unconcerned about any damage the book might do to her scholarly reputation.

Thus far, at least, Temple has been highly supportive of her work, Mellen said. The university public relations department has promoted her book, and university president David Adamany wrote her a letter
commending her work as a "public intellectual," Mellen said.

"The serious historians have run away from this case," she said. "They don't want the taint; they want to be in the mainstream."

But poll after poll has demonstrated that a large majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission's findings that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Despite that, the subject is "taboo" in most academic circles, Mellen said. It would also seem, if the reaction of publishers is any gauge, that the popularity of JFK assassination books is on the wane.

Mellen found no takers for her full 1,500-page manuscript, and only one - a specialist Virginia press called Potomac Books - for the whittled down version.

A Farewell to Justice will have to sell well if Mellen is to recoup the $150,000 of her own money she estimates she spent researching the book.

"It consumed my life, but I'd do it again," Mellen said. "It's my contribution to history."

Why are we staking our dispute on the credibility of an entire book on this one point?



This isn't what I claim. Its obvious that this is what she is referring to just by reading the text. I did not say it was "top-secret," this is a straw man you have built. I said it was "abortive." An internal NARA effort that never went anywhere. I suppose the reason the research community has not yet heard of it (until now) is because most researchers haven't bothered to interview NARA employees like Mellen did. Add to that the alleged veiled threats of the CIA man and I think you've got your answer. I don't know a lot about how the National Archives operates, having never been there, but they do unseal document. See Gerry's post [Gerry makes a point about how only the NARA director can declassify the documents, which is all fine and good, but this team's purpose was to make a recommendation, not to declassify], or, better yet, check out this example. In 1999, after the closure of the ARRB, NARA released this series of documents pertaining to the disposal of JFK's ceremonial casket off the coast of Maryland. You sure like making loud declarations about how "preposterous" things are.



Use your own brain, Tim. You're the one who spent your initial post implying that Mellen was spinning a tale about the ARRB, when she clearly wasn't. I pointed out to you what she was actually saying and suddenly I'm not utilizing my mental faculties.

Mellen generally cites the "CIA Inspector General's Report on Attempts to Kill Castro. May 1967. p. 77." I believe she stretched that section of the report that described a "booby-trapped sea shell" and other similar wild schemes, and made an assertion about RFK that is not at all contained in that 1967 report.

T.C.

It is now time (high time?) that I say something positive about "A Farewell to Justice".

For one thing, there are several passages that provide a rare and sympathetic look at Garrison's personal life.

There are other problems with the loan story as well. According to discussion on another JFK site, Ferrie had quite a bit of cash on hand given to him by Gill for his work on the Marcello case ($7,000) so he hardly needed a loan.

Even more problematical the book says that a few days before the assassination Ferrie produced Clay Shaw to co-sign the loan. Yet according to the opening statement of Garrison at the trial, Shaw had left for the west coast (allegedly to establish an alibi) on Friday, November 15, 1963!!

http://www.jfk-online.com/state2.html

Garrison: "The evidence will further show that the defendant in accordance with the plan and in furtherance of it, did in fact head for the West Coast of the United States -- ostensibly to make a speech -- on November 15, 1963. He remained there until after PRESIDENT KENNEDY's assassination on November 22, 1963, thereby establishing an alibi for himself for the day of the shooting."


I anxiously await Owen's response! Who was telling the truth, Garrison, or Professor Mellen's witness?

Still waiting for Owen (or Professor Mellen) to respond to Post #84 above.

The following sentence appears in my copy of "AF2J":

William Harvey would testify under oath before the Church Committee that on at least two occasions there was White House approval and "initiative" of the "specific Rosselli operation" to murder Castro. (In Ch. 11: John F. Kennedy, Jim Garrison and the CIA.)

Wow! This must be amazing news to every assassination researcher.

Well, I have news for you.

William Harvey never testified before the Church Committee.

He gave a tape-recorded interview to David Belin. Belin sent a transcribed copy to Harvey for his review.

No where in the interview does he ever state that the White House approved any plot to murder Castro.

How in the world did Professor Mellen get this wrong?

It is the most serious error I have encountered so far.

I knew the book had to be wrong in claiming Harvey so testified because, of course, the Church Committee could not decide if there was White House knowledge of the CIA/Mafia plots.

Owen, I am waiting to hear from you on this issue!

Harvey's interview can be found here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mony&docId=1390

In the same chapter, she writes:

Bobby instructed his "hero", General Edward Lansdale, to send a memo to CIA's William Harvey to come up with "assassination contingency plans" . . .

This again is rather amazing news. Professor Mellen cites as proof of this Helms' testimony before the Church Committee.

I am reviewing Helms' testimony but I sure do not remember any previous reports that RFK asked Lansdale to get a written memo from Harvey re assassination plans. If true, it would be incredible.

Did Professor Mellen get this wrong as well?

That's a whopper!. It's a wild claim to say that Harvey testified under oath that there was "White House approval and 'initiative' of the 'specific Rosselli operation' to murder Castro." I didn't want to beat a dead horse with more negativity about the Mellen book, but I can't help but wonder why or how Prof. Mellen would assert that Oswald "would even appear at Francis Gary Powers' trial" in Moscow. (p. 165). The notes generally reference some other books about the U-2 incident with which I'm familiar, but I don't know of anything more than baseless speculation that Oswald was anywhere near Powers, let alone definitively appearing at his extremely public "show" trial.

T.C.

I had noticed her claim about Oswald attending Powers' trial.

I respect Tim as a researcher and accept his word that there appears to be no documentation of this rather amazing story either. (I do remember that a fictional book put Oswald at the trial.)

I hate to put it this bluntly but it appears there may be some "creative writing" in this book!

I have never before even heard it rumored that Guy Banister was shot. According to the book, "Allen Campbell says a single round shot came in through the window, and that Delphine Roberts was present.... Mary Banister called her friend Ruth Lichtblau in terror. 'Guy's been shot!' she said.... Allen Campbell says he knows who shot Guy Banister."

T.C.

Professor Mellen also states that RFK "railroaded" Jimmy Hoffa.

Is this accusation valid?

Garrison is probably mistaken here (a common fault among humans). Shaw made arrangements for this trip on November 11. Shaw flew from New Orleans to Los Angeles on the 18th and took a train to San Francisco on the 20th [this is from Shaw's trial testimony, under oath. Before this, Shaw had given an account of his whereabouts during the assassination to NODA. In this account, Shaw places himself on the train when the assassination occurred. After his arrest, he told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he was in the St. Francis Hotel during the assassination, which is probably closer to the truth]. He arrived at the San Francisco World Trade Center on November 22, mid-morning. [As an aside, J. Monroe Sullivan, the director of the San Francisco World Trade Center, has a few interesting things to say about this. He said Shaw (whom he had never met) called him to set up the luncheon (whose purported purpose was to obtain tenants for the International House). Shaw would pay all the expenses and send out the invitations. This is contrary to Shaw's account, which holds that Sullivan called him. After Shaw had arrived at the Trade Center, a bulletin came in that Kennedy had been shot. Sullivan was shocked but Shaw exhibited no reaction. Sullivan asked Shaw if he would like to go ahead with the luncheon and Shaw replied in the affirmative. Makes one wonder what sort of Kennedy admirer Shaw really was]. Mellen's account only generally says that it was the week of the assassination that the loan was co-signed. If we are to be rigid about this, let us suppose that the loan was co-signed on the 17th, a Sunday, the week of the assassination.

I don't really know how Ferrie dispensed with his funds, but this is probably why Gill (who, according to Beckham, was the one who instructed Ferrie to rent a plane) did not bother to give Ferrie the $400 for the plane, since he had already given him $7000 not long before this. He would have assumed Ferrie already had the necessary funds and Ferrie may not have been inclined to press the matter. But no one can really know, of course.

I looked at the Stephen Roy post on alt.assassination.jfk, which seems to be the major source of your information. He raises another point, that Ferrie owned a Taylorcraft L-2 which was airworthy. Why didn't he use that? I did a little a digging and discovered from one of Stephen's own posts on this forum that Ferrie's Taylorcraft was disassembled in 1963. Since the instructions for the flight were pretty short notice, I doubt Ferrie would have had time to reassemble it.

And don't think I've been avoiding you. I have other things to deal with on weekdays (i.e. school work) and sometimes I just feel like taking a break from posting.

Also, weren't you wanting to end the discussion by staking the credibility of the entire book on the NARA thing? What ever happened to that?

I looked at the Stephen Roy post on alt.assassination.jfk, which seems to be the major source of your information. He raises another point, that Ferrie owned a Taylorcraft L-2 which was airworthy. Why didn't he use that? I did a little a digging and discovered from one of Stephen's own posts on this forum that Ferrie's Taylorcraft was disassembled in 1963. Since the instructions for the flight were pretty short notice, I doubt Ferrie would have had time to reassemble it.

I have a pretty detailed chronology of every scrap I've found about Ferrie. Many are from documents but some are from interviews. In that thread, I was noting that Ferrie's Taylorcraft L-2 was apparently disassembled in April 1963, at the time of the alleged Lambert/Diaz/Hidell flight plan. Here is what I have: He flew the Taylorcraft on September 9, 1962, apparently in connection with a funeral. Its certificate expired on December 31, 1962. The aircraft was towed to a service station "in early 1963" where its engine was removed for work, performed by a friend. On June 18, 1963 a student took his test flight in the Taylorcraft. In mid-1964, the plane was sold to the station owner. He was unsure of the date, but he said it was while Ferrie owned his own service station, between January 9 and November 30, 1964.

The record is sketchy, but it seems to indicate that the plane was flyable up to about early 63, went down for repairs and was flying again by June 63, until it was sold the next year. But upon reexamination of this record, I can't be completely certain the plane was flyable in either April 1963 or November 1963.

As noted elswhere, Ferrie also listed a Cessna 206 (probably owned by his longtime friend Lewis J. "Buster" Abadie) on an FAA application as available to him on November 11, 1963.

Did Ferrie ever get a new certificate for his Taylorcraft? A student taking a test flight in it is one thing, but travel across state lines seems another. Also, I think Ferrie may not have wanted to involve his friend's Cessna in assassination related activities.

BTW, it is apparent to me (and has been for some time) that you have done a great deal of serious Ferrie research (versus me, who just reads books). I look forward to your tome.

Owen wrote:

Shaw flew from New Orleans to Los Angeles on the 18th and took a train to San Francisco on the 20th [this is from Shaw's trial testimony, under oath.

Here is a link to the trial testimony:

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaw2.html

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaw3.html


Under direct examination, Shaw did not testify when he left NO.

Under cross, the ADA asked him the following question:

Q: Is there any particular reason why you left on November 15?

Here is his answer:

A: I had decided that I would take a two-week vacation in connection with this speaking engagement in Oregon.

This is of course consistent with Garrison's opening statement and my post.

Owen, I am not yet ready to accuse you of making a false reply to deflect my criticism. Let me just ask you at this time to post your source for the trial testimony of Clay Shaw that says he left NO on November 18th.

I also eagerly await your response to the apparent misquoting the testimony of Richard Helms and the interview with William Harvey (that she calls testimony) re JFK and RFK approval of assassination attempts.

--------------------------

During my 50+ years as a pilot, I have flown "every" model of light aircraft in existence, and many of the heavy commercial cargo and passenger [type rated] aircraft which should never have existed. My flying of some of these "Junkers" (and brand new birds) took me all over the world.


I have a few thousand hours flying all types of aircraft sans "Certificates of Air Worthiness". In the gun & drug running trade, the owner just wants to "lose" his heavily insured aircraft -- which usually doesn't have said "CAW" because he is too cheap and greedy to even do "I.R.A.N." !!


Much less the "major" overhaul necessary, because it will tend to diminish his expected returns from the insurance company's pay-out. Most often, I insisted upon "minimal" maintenance and repairs before even a test-flight of their birds. There are NO "Inspections Stations (@ State borders) in the Sky".


The only occasions where a pilot or owner might have to exhibit a "C.A.W." is:


[A] To the personnel of an F.O.B. (Fixed Operating Base -- repairs etc., and airport located), and then only when an S.T.C. required modification is requested, or a 100 or 1,000 hour check is to be performed;


[B] To a F.A.A. designee (C.F.I. - "Certified Flight Instructor") who is there to give somebody a "Check-Ride", i.e.: For logging "Dual Instruction", or for acquiring a "Rating" in an aircraft weighing over 12,500 lbs. (empty);


[C] To an F.A.A. "Inspector", or an N.T.S.B. "Investigator", and subsequent to a collision, failure (blown tire) which blocks a runway and causes a closure of that runway, or the entire airport, or a crash; and,


[D] When the owner, after being cited via an "Air Worthiness Directive" -- has to exhibit same to the F.A.A. Representative to show compliance with same !!


Every day of the year (according to the F.A.A., N.T.S.B., D.O.T., etc. websites) there are thousands of aircraft being flown without "CAWs", insurance, required "STCs", and many being flown by the hundreds of pilots with revoked, suspended, or voided "Pilot Licenses" and/or "Medical Certificates".


The F.A.A. relies on thousands of private-citizen "FAA Designees", because the Congress has refused to fund inspections over the last 60+ years !!


The few times I have ever had to show my licenses/cerificates -- was while undergoing "Dual Instruction", or when in a foreign country applying for one of their licenses, or validation of my U.S. or other foreign licenses.


For more than 25 years I flew "Black Ops" -- where an "Alias I.D." was necessary, so I acquired quite a few licenses (U.S. & foreign) under other names. Moreover, I finally just stopped making any entries in my "Log Books", as no evidence of flights (purpose, departure & destinations, routes, etc.) could be made as a permanent record.

This was the same case with parachute jumps. Since I never planned to have the "Top" rating -- A.T.P. ("Airline Transport Pilot" -- changed from A.T.R. "Airline Transport Rating", years ago.) in my own name; why the hell keep a record anyway ??!!


Chairs,

GPH

___________________

Tim: Ah, I missed that excerpt somehow. No intention of dishonesty whatsoever. I simply assumed that since it is stated therein that Shaw went from New Orleans to Los Angeles, and knowing that he went there by plane, that he arrived on the 18th, since Shaw said he was in L.A. from the 18th to the 20th under oath. I don't know of many plane flights that take three days to arrive at their destinations. Either way, I think you are being to rigid about when the loan was signed. While I think specific details may be easy to recall, dates fade quickly. It could be the week of, or maybe the week before. I know this from my own experience.

Also, I'm not going to bother to check up on the William Harvey issue, because I would not believe him even if he did say that. I'll leave that one to Mellen to handle.

Owen, how could you post that Shaw said in court under oath that he left NO on November 18th when the transcript clearly states Nobember 15th and now state you missed the transcript?

Please don't state anything as a statement of fact unless you have verified it or at least can cite a reference to a credible source that has.

I hope you may now begin to see many of the factual inaccuracies in the book.

Let's not forget as Tim Carroll pointed out that, apparently with no basis whatsoever, Professor Mellen says that LHO was at the trial of Gary Powers.

The book seems replete with factual errors, IMO.


*******************************


Owen also wrote:

Also, I'm not going to bother to check up on the William Harvey issue, because I would not believe him even if he did say that. I'll leave that one to Mellen to handle.

Owen, you miss the entire point.

The issue is not Harvey's credibility--it's Mellen's.

Mellen says that Harvey testified under oath to the Church Committee to a certain fact.

The facts are:

1) Harvey never testified to the Church Committee. He only gave an interview to staff counsel.

2) Even more important, in the interview he never made the statement Mellen attributes to him.

It's not a question whether Harvey should be believed on anything. It's a question whether Mellen should be believed on anything.

I didn't say I missed the transcript, I just missed that particular part. There was a certain inelegance to how I worded my reply, but you are really just nitpicking here, at the expense of the rest of my posts. Its a deduction I made from the transcripts. No need to sound so indignant.

I know its an issue of Mellen's credibility, but I don't feel its my job to deal with every problem you have with the book. Its really not something I have an urge to defend. Going through the entirety of Harvey's interview will probably take much more time than I am willing to devote to it.

Owen, it is not nit-picking.

I posted the issue of when Shaw left NO (per a post on another forum but I independently checked what Garrison said in his opening statement) to counter the allegation that he co-signed a loan the week of the assassination.

You then posted that Shaw testified that he had left NO on November 18th, which might erase the timing problem.

I checked it and his testimony was he left on November 15th.

You now state you were only drawing an inference. There are two MAJOR problems with that.

First, you cannot, of course, draw an inference which is contrary to his express testimony.

Second, if it was only an inference from his testimony, you should have so stated. But you clearly stated that he testified to his actual date of departure. This was very misleading on your part.


Finally, you say some things are best left to Professor Mellen. Here I agree with you completely. I find it interesting that she has not yet posted to respond to any of the numerous apparent factual inaccuracies in her book. I find her absence of a response of some interest.

Sorry I didn't word my reply properly. I said it is "from" his trial testimony, not that he said it. Yes, clumsy, but no misleading was intended. I should have said "derived" or something like that. There is still a disrepancy between when he supposedly left and when he arrived. Shaw actually says he was in L.A. from the 18th to the 20th. The 15th date is only mentioned in a question put to him. There really isn't any way he could have left New Orleans via plane to Los Angeles and arrived three days later. And like I said, the exact date isn't really all that important anyway.

I also note that you haven't taken any interest in the material I posted about Shaw's shifting alibi or J. Monroe Sullivan's account of the luncheon.

I assume the reason Mellen hasn't replied yet is because she is still teaching classes and doing a book tour. There is really nothing of interest about it.