Jump to content
The Education Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'michele metta'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to the Education Forum
    • Forum Information, Development and Communication
    • Biographical Details
    • News, events and member notices
  • Curriculum Subjects
    • ICT
    • Music
    • Media Studies
    • Government and Politics
    • Economics and Business Studies
    • Chinese
    • EFL
    • English
    • Mathematics
    • Design and Technology
    • History
    • Geography
    • Science
    • Modern Languages
    • Social Sciences
    • Art and Design
    • Physical Education
    • Philosophy
    • Dance and Drama
    • Health and Social Care
  • Educational Issues
    • Government Initiatives
    • E-Learning
    • Debates in Education
    • Pastoral Care
    • Special Educational Needs
    • Learning Outside School
    • Cross Curricular Teaching Resources
    • International Schools
    • Non-Academic Discussions
    • Flexible Learning
  • Educational Conferences
    • Schools History Project
    • Learning Technology Conference (LT04)
  • European Virtual School
    • Information
    • Resources
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • History Department
  • International Projects
    • E-Help
    • ENIS
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • Student Collaboration
    • Spring Europe
    • E-HELP
    • E-HELP Seminars
    • Citizenship Project
  • Association of Teacher Websites
    • Information
    • Member Web sites
    • ATW Departments
  • Teacher Training
    • Student Teacher Support
  • European Languages Forum
    • Deutsch
    • Forum en Français
    • Svensktalande
    • Sección en español
    • Nederlands
    • Ellinikos tomeas
    • Italian Speakers
    • Ceská a Slovenská cást fóra.
    • Latin, the Language, the Inscriptions, and the Use
  • Controversial Issues in History
    • JFK Assassination Debate
    • JFK Research
    • JFK Questions
    • JFK Discussions
    • JFK Book Discussions
    • JFK Deep Politics
    • JFK Online Seminars
    • Political Conspiracies
    • 11 September 2001 attacks
    • The Apollo Moon Landings
    • History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
    • Watergate
    • Jack the Ripper
    • Robert Kennedy
    • Cold War
    • Nazi Germany
    • The Death of Marilyn Monroe
    • Martin Luther King and Civil Rights
    • Chappaquiddick
    • Political Discussions
    • TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENCY DISCUSSION
  • Educational Research
    • JFK Debate
    • Environmental Issues
    • Black History
    • Cold War
    • Oral History of the Olympic Games
  • Historical Association
    • News
    • Teaching History
    • Local History
  • Ask an Expert
    • History
    • ICT
  • Online Games
    • Welcome to Online Games
  • Holiday Guide
    • Holiday Recommendations
  • Women's Studies

Product Groups

  • Widgets
  • JFK Items for Physical Sales on the EF E_Store
  • JFK Items for Digital Sales on the EF E_Store

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 7 results

  1. Glad to announce that thanks to Bart Kamp's invitation the Italian journalist Michele Metta will be part of the next Canterbury's DPUK conference. Metta will show his documentary, based on his book CMC. The Italian Undercover CIA and Mossad Station and the Assassination of JFK
  2. https://medium.com/@pazmarverde/laurie-dusek-sirhans-lawyer-explains-that-even-rfk-jr-believes-in-sirhan-s-innocence-dbbbf2e02119 Please, note: original of an article by Michele Metta also published in Italian here My today’s article is a conversation with Laurie Dusek. She is the lawyer of Sirhan Sirhan, the presumed assassin of RFK. Laurie, let me please thank you, since I am really glad you accepted to answer my questions. The first one of them is why you decided to become Sirhan’s lawyer. Robert Kennedy has been a hero of mine since I was a kid. In the very beginning, I thought Sirhan was guilty, as I saw him on TV with a gun in his hand but, the more I read over the years the more I became convinced that there was a lot more to the story. When I met Bill Pepper I was impressed with his knowledge of the 60s and when he asked if I would be interested in helping him represent Sirhan I jumped at the chance. 50 years later and the words, concerns and hopes of RFK are still relevant today! We, as a country, NEED to find the truth behind his death. When people question my dedication and determination to this case all I can say is we as a country, need to learn from our past, our history, but we can’t do that by hiding from it or ignoring it. Today, as a country we are questioning how we got where we are -politically, economically, ethically and morally. We hear about “Russian” interference in our last election but forgot about the “interference” in the election of 1968. In 1968 the leading candidate of the Democratic party was killed and the media and the masses turned their heads and refused to address the issue of who was responsible… RFK was not Killed by Russians, he was not killed by Sirhan B. Sirhan, he was Killed by forces from within our country and those forces are still active today. RFK wanted to help the poor and the disenfranchised. He wanted to stop the violence within this country and around the world. These are issues that have been largely ignored and thus still face us today. RFK was not a saint, he was a statesman who cared about our country and cared about those who were less fortunate. Let us honor his memory by helping those that are less fortunate and by finding the truth behind his death. As RFK said so eloquently, in a speech in S. Africa, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can strike down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Let’s send forth as many ripples as we can!!! Have you ever received threats, or insults, for being Sirhan’s legal representative? I personally have not received a threat. I can’t say that Bill Pepper or Dan Brown have been physically threatened but they have been subjected to harassment -especially Dan. Both Dan and Bill have had issues with the IRS after they started working on the case. Dan has been audited for 4 or 5 times and even though nothing is ever found they keep auditing him. He has a very interesting story regarding the audits… Dan also has an issue with his luggage when he flies. His problems started right after his first visit with Sirhan. In one incident Dan noticed an airline official taking his luggage from the baggage area and when Dan questioned them he was told by the person holding his luggage “I have instructions to take all luggage from the Kennedy party” to which Dan replied “I am not part of any Kennedy party… “and demanded his suitcases. Similar incidents have happened to him on subsequent occasions. Our phones were tapped for a while… As far as being insulted- people either think what I’m doing is great or they look at me as if I’m crazy and so I pay no attention. Which evidence exist that he is innocent? a. Eye-witnesses never put Sirhan close enough to the Senator to be responsible for the fatal shot, which was 1.5 to 2 inches from the Senator’s head when fired. Distance is known due to gunpowder residue on the Senators hair and clothing as stated in autopsy report. b. Sirhan was pinned to the steam table and his hand was held down after he fired 2 shots. Impossible for him to have shot the Senator. c. Witnesses placed Sirhan in front of the Senator but all wounds sustained by RFK were shot from behind him at an upward trajectory. d. The Pruszynsky tape (recorded by Stanislaw Pruszynski, a Polish reporter covering the Presidential election and overlooked for 40 years) shows there was a 2nd gun as 13 shots are heard on that tape. Shots 3 & 4 and 7 & 8 are too close to each other to have been fired from the same gun. Numerous tests were conducted on 22 caliber pistols and it’s physically impossible for 1 person to shoot 2 shots from the same gun in that time span. Said test were conducted by Phil Van Praag, an electrical engineer with over 35 years of experience. e. Too many victims (besides the Senator, 5 other people were wounded) and too many bullet holes in door jams and ceiling tiles to have been caused by Sirhan’s gun which could hold only 8 bullets. A lot, if not all of the tiles and doors with bullet holes were destroyed by the LAPD. And there are all the actions taken by the LAPD- destruction of evidence, Scott Enyart’s photos being taken from him, switching of bullets at trial (the bullet taken from RFK’s neck -Peoples exhibit 47- was marked “TN 31” by Dr. Noguchi when he removed the bullet but in 1975 in front of the Wenke Commission, Peoples exhibit #47 had “TNDW” as a marking…) The miss-conduct of DeWayne Wolfer, the chief criminalist at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division who was put in charge of the investigation of the ballistics. Right after the shooting- a couple who identified themselves as the Bernsteins were outside the Ambassador hotel and they saw a young woman and a man run by them shouting “we shot him” and when the Bernsteins asked “shot who?” the young woman replied “Kennedy; we shot him…” The Bernsteins reported this to LAPD Sergeant Sharaga who put out an APB (all point bulletin) only to be told by higher ups to retract the APB… What are Sirhan’s inside feelings today about the assassination of RFK? Sirhan’s feelings regarding the assassination in many ways have remained the same over the past 50 years. He has always stated that he liked RFK and wished what happened hadn’t. He now knows he did not kill the Senator, as for years he was told by his attorneys he was the killer, and that offers him some comfort and yet if he didn’t do it why is he still in jail??? When I went with RFK Jr. last December to see Sirhan, Sirhan expressed his shame about being associated with the death of Bobby’s father and Bobby patted Sirhan’s hand and told him “I know you did not kill my father.” I believe this gave Sirhan some comfort. Sirhan also told Bobby “Innocent or not, inside I feel guilty as your Dad should not have experienced that nor your family, it pains me…” We all for sure know Sirhan because of what happened in 1968. I would instead like to please know from you who intimately is the Sirhan you personally have known through these years of contacts with him. Sirhan is a kind, quite man who stays to himself inside prison. He’s articulate and stays abreast of current matters by listening to the radio. He used to read newspapers etc. but now says he has “lost interest” in reading. I like Sirhan and over the past 11 years I have become somewhat protective of him — especially the more I learn about how he and his family were taken advantage of by Grant Cooper and other legal officials who said they were there to help… What does he feel for still being in prison in spite of his innocence? Sirhan is very religious but in a quiet, personal way. I feel compelled to say Sirhan is a Christian, as many people believe he’s a Muslim and therefore a terrorist. I don’t understand that rationale but I have encountered it over the years that I have worked on the case. I believe it’s Sirhan’s strong religious faith that has sustained him over the past 50 years. The first time I met Sirhan, (June 6, 2007), he told me “if anything happens to me in here I didn’t do it…”. I am amazed at Sirhan’s inner strength and sometimes when I feel overwhelmed I think of him and my mind set changes. Sirhan is a Palestinian. Do you believe that who framed him chose Sirhan exactly because of his roots? Sirhan was a distraction that night-he caught the public’s attention and everyone focused on him and paid no attention to anyone else. It reminds me of a magician who tells the audience he’s going to make an elephant disappear and calls on an assistant to help. Well, we all know you can’t make an elephant disappear but you can distract the audience and divert their attention to a different part of the stage. Sirhan’s being a Palestinian was important and was successfully used by those in power against him. His being a Palestinian was offered as a reason behind his motive to kill the Senator. It made good reading and the media covered that aspect but failed to actually cover the real story. I find a lot of fault with the media for the way the public sees Sirhan — he was portrayed as a terrorist, as a deranged person and from the very beginning as the ‘SOLE’ gunman. The media helped cover up the truth. During my recent interview of Stephen Jaffe, a really preeminent member of Garrison’s staff, the DA thanks whose courage in 1967 the investigation on the assassination of JFK revived, Jaffe reveled that he was the organizer of an astonishing, secret rendezvous between RFK and Garrison himself, adding: “Before that meeting, I had a contact from a close friend of the Kennedy family who asked me to arrange the meeting. We also had help from another US Senator. RFK told Garrison in New York, at this very confidential meeting, that he was going to reopen the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy but only after he was elected President. Only with that power, he explained, could he do so.” Please, Laurie, what do you think about this revelation? I believe one of the main reasons Senator Kennedy was killed is because if elected President he would have reopened the investigation of the assassination of his brother, JFK. Those involved in Dallas couldn’t let that happen. You should read David Talbot’s book “Brothers” which goes into detail about this. I remember when I went with RFK Jr to see Sirhan, Bobby asked me what I thought happened that night and I told him “I don’t think it mattered what route your Father took that night as I believe as soon as he won the Democratic primary he was a marked man and he wasn’t going to leave there alive…” I have kept quiet for the past 11 years regarding who I thought was responsible for the death of RFK as it is my job as Sirhan’s attorney to show how he could not have committed the crime; it is NOT my job to prove who did do it. Being solo practitioners and working on the case pro-bono, Bill Pepper and I did not have the finances to do any investigative work with the exception of the work done by Dan Brown. We focused on the legal documents filed by other attorneys on Sirhans behalf (which wasn’t always the truth as Grant Cooper did nothing on Sirhan’s behalf whereas Larry Teeter did an incredible job on Sirhans behalf) the LAPD and FBI files as well as numerous books on the subject. I thought it was extremely important NOT to say who I thought was responsible as I felt we were on shaky ground and 1 incorrect statement could negate years of hard work… I was pissed when the State of California in one of their replies to a Court submission by Bill and I, said we should the possibility of a second gunman but didn’t show who it was. In the same Court filing they said we also should the possibility of mind control but didn’t show who did it…. It’s our job to show how and why Sirhan could not have killed the Senator- it is NOT our job to find or name the killer(s). You just reiterated that RFK Jr. himself too started to believe in Sirhan’s innocence. A fact that also emerges from the appreciation he gave to the really talented Shane O’Sullivan for his documentary on the assassination of RFK. What does this documentary tell, and why it matters? Shane’s documentary is important because it shines a light on the many different aspects of this case. Shane is the only journalist who has focused on the work of Dr. Dan Brown and his efforts to de-program Sirhan. The concept of a Manchurian Candidate is met with total disbelief even though we have submitted credible documentation of studies conducted by the CIA showing this was something our government did. We relied on declarations submitted by Dan Brown and Alan Scheflin which detailed the history of the CIA’s involvement with the Manchurian Candidate. This is extremely important as it goes to whether Sirhan acted alone, whether Sirhan acted “under free will” and if the Manchurian Candidate theory is proved it shows government involvement… Another factor that Shane focuses on is how the LAPD miss-handled the case. From the very beginning evidence and eye-witnesses were ignored, evidence was destroyed prior to the trial and more evidence was destroyed after the trial and that same evidence should have been preserved for an appeal. Key pieces of evidence (autopsy report) were kept from the Defense team for weeks. Eyewitnesses were not interviewed by the LAPD- they were interrogated in an effort to get them to change their statements. Shane has taken an objective view of the case and by doing so he has exposed a lot of the inconsistencies by the LAPD, the District Attorney’s office, and the FBI. I do not believe the inconsistencies were innocent oversights or due to negligence- I believe they were deliberate. I say that as 50 years later I still face obstacles in Court and with the prison system.
  3. https://medium.com/@pazmarverde/a-conversation-with-shane-osullivan-c059aa736d56 A conversation with Shane O’Sullivan. The portrait of an excellent researcher giving us an astonishing scoop: RFK Jr. is writing a book on both Kennedy assassinations NOTE: This is the translation of an Italian article by Michele Metta. Original here Today, I am going to interview Shane O’Sullivan. He is an Irish talented writer and filmmaker. He is in fact the author of a very important documentary, The Real Manchurian Candidate, on the assassination of Robert Kennedy. This movie received an endorsement by RFK Jr., son of RFK. O’Sullivan also wrote a very well-made book, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy. So, I am deeply honored he accepted to answer some questions. Let’s start. When and why did you decide to investigate the assassination of RFK? I first heard about the case in 2004 and intended to adapt the story of two guns, a mysterious girl in a polka dress and a Manchurian Candidate assassin into a screenplay for a film. While researching the story, I discovered new evidence that led me to write a book and make a documentary instead. Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, was the man caught in the afterwards of RFK’s killing, and the one declared guilty of the assassination. Anyway, if we do examine all the evidence, we realize facts are very different from what they seem. Which was Sirhan’s position at the moment of the shooting? Witnesses placed the barrel of Sirhan’s gun between one and a half to five feet in front of Kennedy. And which was Sirhan arm position? I mean: its angle, its elevation. Most witnesses, like Frank Burns, who was standing between Sirhan and Kennedy, described it as level with the ground. After how much time was Sirhan blocked? Ambassador Hotel maître d’ Karl Uecker said he diverted Sirhan’s gun hand away from Kennedy after the second shot. Sirhan continued firing as Uecker slammed his gun hand against the steam table, trying to disarm him. The kind of gun used to kill RFK is so little it can easily disappear in a palm. Is this important, and why? It may explain why the second gunman, with a similar small-gauge model to Sirhan’s Iver Johnson .22-caliber Cadet, could fire the fatal shot and escape, relatively undetected. What about the kind of bullets used that fatal night? They were CCI Mini-Mag Hollow Point .22-caliber bullets. These hollow points were high-velocity bullets, which mushroomed on impact, expanding to cause maximum damage, explaining the devastation in the senator’s brain. What does the autopsy on RFK exactly establish? The fatal shot was fired from an inch behind Kennedy’s right ear. Three other shots were fired from the same firing position. Two penetrated Kennedy’s right armpit. One of these lodged in his neck, the other exited his body and was lost in the ceiling interspace. A fourth shot entered and exited through the shoulder-pad of his coat without entering his body. All four shots were from a sharp upward angle, back-to-front, from behind and to the right. What can you tell us about Thane Eugene Cesar? He was an Ace security guard hired to supplement the hotel security team that evening. He was behind Kennedy and to his right, holding the senator by the right elbow as he made his way through the pantry to a late-night press conference. At the time of the shots, he was in the firing position of the fatal shot described in the autopsy. He ducked, lost his balance, and fell back against the ice machines. He looked up to see the senator lying on his back right in front of him. During his fall, he lost his bow-tie, which can be seen beside Kennedy as he lies bleeding on the pantry floor. Cesar scrambled to his feet, pulled his gun, and moved to Kennedy’s side “to protect him from further attack.” Cesar claimed he was carrying a .38, not a .22, that night but his gun was never checked by the police. He had racist views and hated the Kennedys. Cesar stated that he sold his .22 you just talk about in your answer. A gun that we can all in all describe as an exact copy of Sirhan’s gun. There are various problems about his statement, are there not? Cesar owned a H&R .22 caliber revolver that was a different model to Sirhan’s but was a similar size and had the same “rifling characteristics,” which means it was compatible with the key victim bullets in the case. Cesar said he sold this gun three months before the Kennedy shooting. In fact, he sold it three months after and told the buyer it had “been involved in a police shooting.” Witnesses exist stating that a security guard fired; that there was a “second gun” involved that night. Don Schulman is the main witness to this. Ten minutes after the shooting, he gave his witness account to Jeff Brent, a friend of his, who was just outside the pantry when the shooting happened, reporting for Continental News Service. When you listen to it at first, Schulman actually seems to say that the security guard hit Kennedy all three times, but later he stated that the Caucasian man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy, hitting Kennedy all three times, and then the security guards fired back. This is how the “second gun” theory whose first father was a researcher called Ted Charach, was born: from this ninety-second recording. Who talked about a girl in a polka dot dress, and why this does matter? Around eleven thirty, young Mexican American campaign worker Sandra Serrano went to sit outside on a fire escape to escape the heat of the lower ballroom. While she was out there, a man resembling Sirhan climbed the stairs past her with a pretty girl in a polka-dot dress and a Mexican American man in a gold sweater. “Excuse us,” the girl said, and Sandra made way as the three went up the stairs to the Embassy Ballroom. Shortly after the shooting, Serrano was still sitting on the fire escape below the southwest corner of the Embassy Ballroom. She heard what she thought was a car backfire six times; then the girl in the polka-dot dress and the Mexican American man in the gold sweater burst out onto the hotel fire escape and ran down the stairs, almost stepping on her. “We’ve shot him! We’ve shot him!” the girl exclaimed. “Who did you shoot?” asked Sandra. “We’ve shot Senator Kennedy!” The girl seemed so excited about shooting Kennedy, Sandra went back inside in a state of shock. Just over an hour later, she told her story live on NBC television and in the weeks that followed, was bullied by Hernandez, LAPD polygraph officer, into retracting her story. She never did and stands by her statement today. And we also have Di Pierro’s words. Yes. Teenage waiter Vincent Di Pierro was in the pantry shortly before the shooting, standing level with the ice machines, five feet to the right of Kennedy. He noticed Sirhan in a powder blue jacket, white shirt, and light blue pants at the opposite end of the ice machine, twelve to fifteen feet away. He was standing up on a tray stacker “in a kind of funny position . . . like in a crouch — like if he were trying to protect himself from something. . . . I thought he was sick.” “When I first saw him there was a girl behind him, too; I don’t know if you need that. There were two people that I saw.” In fact, the only reason Di Pierro noticed Sirhan in the first place “was because there was this good-looking girl in the crowd there.” The girl and Shiran were really close each other, and Sirhan turned and smiled and seemed to say something to her or flirt with her, the waiter remembered. Di Pierro described the girl as Caucasian, between twenty and twenty-four years old, at approximately the same eye level as Sirhan on the tray stacker, with dark brown hair to just above the shoulders, a little puffed up on one side, and a short, “pug” nose. She wore a white dress with black or dark violet polka dots on it and a bib collar made of the same material as the dress. Her face wasn’t that pretty, “but I would never forget what she looked like because she had a very good-looking figure — and the dress was kind of lousy.” He didn’t see her after the shooting. The accounts of Serrano and Di Pierro establish that an attractive female “handler” in a white dress with black polka dots led Sirhan to the hotel, positioned him in the pantry, triggered him to start firing and then disappeared down the fire escape and has never been found. Rather than admit that, Hank Hernandez bullied Di Pierro into retracting his statement and closed the polka-dot dress investigation. These facts induce me to ask: how do you judge the police behavior in this case? The LAPD desperately wanted to avoid the national embarrassment the Dallas Police Department had suffered after the deaths of JFK and Oswald in 1963. They shut down all leads suggesting a conspiracy by getting witnesses to undertake a polygraph examination with Lt. Enrique “Hank” Hernandez, who browbeat witnesses into retracting their statements. The LAPD suppressed their investigation files for twenty years and destroyed important evidence. LAPD criminalist Dewayne Wolfer was later harshly criticized for his work on the firearms evidence in the case. He claimed he matched the key victim bullets to Sirhan’s gun but this conclusion and the evidence he based it on were later found to be false. Paul Schrade was also hit along with Robert Kennedy, but he survived. Who is Schrade, what does he say now, and why is it so important? Paul Schrade was a close friend of Bobby Kennedy and labor chair for his 1968 campaign. Schrade was walking six to eight feet behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot in the head by the first bullet (probably by Sirhan). He fell to the floor and was knocked out as the shooting continued but from 1974 onwards, he has called for a reinvestigation of the case because he believes more bullets were fired that night than Sirhan’s gun could hold. In 2016, he attended Sirhan’s parole hearing and apologized to the man who shot him for not supporting his release sooner. He believes Sirhan did not kill Bobby Kennedy and should be released. I recently interviewed Stephen Jaffe, a really preeminent member of Garrison’s staff, the New Orleans DA thanks whose courage in 1967 the investigation on the assassination of JFK revived. Answering to my questions, he reveled that he was the organizer of a very special secret rendezvousbetween RFK and Garrison himself, adding: “Before that meeting, I had a contact from a close friend of the Kennedy family who asked me to arrange the meeting. We also had help from another US Senator. RFK told Garrison in New York, at this very confidential meeting, that he was going to reopen the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy but only after he was elected President. Only with that power, he explained, could he do so.” This very well pairs with a statement by RFK Jr. This one: “My father believed the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship. He publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it. My father thought that somebody [else] was involved. The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman.” Please, what do you think about this meeting and about this revelation by RFK Jr.? This provides one of the motives for why he was killed. As I said in the beginning introducing you, your documentary received an endorsement by RFK Jr., a clear demonstration of how much important your work is. Did you also have any opportunity to talk with him directly? No, but I’m in touch with people who are close to him. He’s writing a new book on both Kennedy assassinations that I hope will keep media attention on the RFK assassination and Sirhan’s case.
  4. http://www.lantidiplomatico.it/dettnews-centro_mondiale_commerciale_indegna_censura_canadese_cerca_di_fermare_la_verit/5871_23130/ Centro Mondiale Commerciale. Indegna censura canadese cerca di fermare la verità di Michele Metta Come già ben sanno i lettori che hanno seguito le precedenti puntate della mia inchiesta sul CentroMondiale Commerciale – la S.p.A. romana che, in realtà, nascondeva in sé una centrale occulta della CIA – , il CMC è costola della nordamericana Permindex. Permindex fondata da un canadese: Louis Bloomfield, il cui nome spunta anche all’interno delle esclusive carte del CMC in mio possesso. Bloomfield che, poco prima di morire, decide di affidare i propri documenti riguardanti la Permindex-CMC all’Archivio centrale del Canada. Una decisione meno insolita di quanto si potrebbe pensare: Edgardo Sogno, il golpista che pesantemente incrocia la propria esistenza con quella del CMC, deciderà ugualmente, prima di morire, di finalmente rivelare molti aspetti fino a quel momento celati e negati della propria attività eversiva; l’Agente della CIA Howard Hunt, anche lui farà altrettanto, confidando al proprio figlio, poco prima del proprio decesso, il coinvolgimento, appunto, della Central Intelligence Agency nell’assassinio di John Kennedy. L’incombere del proprio trapasso, porta alcuni a questo tipo di scelte. L’unico vincolo che Bloomfield aveva imposto, è che questo suo lascito fosse consultabile solo dopo venti anni dalla propria dipartita. Decisione lasciata nero su bianco, ed alla quale, però, trascorso appunto tale ventennio, fa opposizione la vedova di Bloomfield, chiedendo che il lascito maritale sia reso inaccessibile. È qui che – siamo nel 2004 – entra in campo un coraggioso ricercatore, chiamato Maurice Phillipps, il quale fa Causa, ottenendo un’importante vittoria: le carte di Bloomfield tornano ad essere consultabili. Con un ma. Magigantesco, perché il Tribunale che s’esprime sul ricorso fatto da Phillipps impone che le carte siano consultabili solo e soltanto man mano che queste divengano vecchie di almeno 50 anni. Perché? Per via di un clamoroso pretesto: all’interno di quelle carte, c’è anche della corrispondenza con Ernst Imfeld, un avvocato. È invocando il dovere della riservatezza nei rapporti tra avvocato e proprio cliente che il Tribunale emette la sua decisione. Decisione ch’è un triplo insulto: alla realtà, all’intelligenza, al Diritto. Infatti, Imfeld non è in nessun modo l’avvocato di Bloomfield, ma un suo socio in affari. Ma c’è di più: per via di questa presenza, il Tribunale impone che tale consultabilità dopo 50 anni sia applicata non unicamente ai documenti davvero riguardanti Imfeld, ma a tutti i documenti lasciati in eredità da Bloomfield all’Archivio del Canada. A questo già difficile quadro, si aggiunge però, oggi, una pesante ed inaccettabile novità, che mi giunge attraverso un altro coraggioso ricercatore: John Kowalski. Kowalski mi ha contattato con estrema urgenza, per pregarmi di denunciare attraverso L’Antidiplomatico che, tornato presso tali Archivi per avere accesso ai documenti che nel 2018 hanno maturato il famoso cinquantennio d’anzianità, si è visto opporre rifiuto. In sostanza, gli Archivi gli hanno fatto sapere che non consegneranno più nessuna carta di Bloomfield. Decisione scandalosa, gravissima, e che, soprattutto, sopraggiunge proprio, guarda caso, nel momento in cui tra me e Kowalski, grazie all’incrocio che stavamo sviluppando, mutuamente, tra le sue ricerche e le mie, stava sul CMCsorgendo una assai proficua collaborazione. E faccio subito e volentieri alcuni esempi. Avevo avuto modo, nei miei scorsi articoli sul tema pubblicati da L’Antidiplomatico, di evidenziare una manovra svolta dal CMC per mettere sotto il proprio controllo gangli importanti della nostra Repubblica. Mi riferisco, cioè, a quella operazione di corruzione capitanata dal membro del CentroMondiale Commerciale chiamato Georges Mantello, e che coinvolse personalità quali: Giovanni De Lorenzo, golpista, piduista, e potentissimo capo dei nostri Servizi; Giuseppe Pighini, un ammiraglio già militare di punta della Marina sotto il fascismo e militare di punta della NATO poi, tanto da essere messo a capo del ComNavSouth, il Comando delle Forze navali del Sud Europa, ed il quale risulta complice di attività eversive sia a fianco del piduista Sindona che del piduista Sogno; Gaetano Piccolella, allora questore di Roma, e quindi, dal 1995 al 1997, vicecapo nazionale della Polizia poi inciampato in un’inchiesta, battezzata Phoney Money, nella quale troviamo anche il nome del Pier Francesco Pacini Battaglia legato alle indagini sulla Strage di Ustica. Questo, per via di una Società del Pacini: la Mediterranean, andata a fare strane prospezioni geologiche all’indomani dell’abbattimento dell’aereo Itavia, e proprio nel tratto di mare in cui tale aereo era precipitato. Mediterranean avente per notaio lo stesso identico notaio del Centro Mondiale Commerciale. Ebbene: Mantello aveva condotto tale operazione tramite il ricorso ad un’altra Società ancora, battezzata Marina Reale. Quel che il bravo Kowalski era riuscito a trovare negli Archivi del Canada prima che gli Archivi, misteriosamente, gli comunicassero che gli serravano la porta in faccia, è un documento, scritto da Bloomfield e, nel luglio del 1961, inviato a Tibor Rosenbaum. Documento che elenca i possessori di Marina Reale. Questi sono: Georges Mantello, con il 25% delle quote; Enrico Mantello e Tim Pales, detentori di un altro 25%; Dov Biegun, 10%; Joseph Slifka, 15%; Bloomfield, 10%; Max e Moe Pascal, 7.5%; Nate Dolin, 7.5%. È un dato clamoroso sotto più d’un aspetto. Innanzitutto, infatti, confrontato con le carte del CMC in mio possesso, smaschera per intero MarinaReale come struttura di comodo del Centro Mondiale Commerciale: Biegun, Georges ed Enrico Mantello, che, tra loro, sono padre e figlio, Slifka, Bloomfield, tutti appartengono al CMC. Quanto a Max e Moe Pascal, sono parenti di Bloomfield. Già. L’aspetto successivo è che, se allarghiamo l’orizzonte ad un altro dei Pascal, e cioè Harry Pascal, nipote di Luis Bloomfield, vediamo la sua presenza nella BCCI, Istituto di credito dedito a tal punto al lavaggio di denaro sporco delle peggiori provenienze da essere d’autorità chiuso nel 1991. Bene: è interessantissimo notare che, ad essere ancor più precisi, il documento di Bloomfield reperito da Kowalski è indirizzato a Tibor Rosenbaum direttamente presso la sede dell’International Crèdit Bank di Ginevra, di cui Rosenbaum è a capo. ICB la quale può essere considerata progenitrice della BCCI. Non solo: quando ho approfondito le mie ricerche, ho scoperto che, come evidenziato dal saggista Naylor nel suo molto apprezzato Hotmoney and the politics of debt, l’ICB era un tutt’uno con il Mossad, la massima agenzia d’Intelligence israeliana; talmente un tutt’uno «da potersi ad un certo punto stimare che il 90% dell’acquisto di armi all’estero da parte del Dipartimento della Difesa israeliano passasse attraverso questa [banca]». Siamo all’agghiacciante riprova del ruolo forte del Mossad all’interno del CMC già dimostrato dalla mia rivelazione, in esclusiva mondiale a L’Antidiplomatico, della presenza, nella cabina di comando del Centro Mondiale Commerciale, di Gershon Peres, fratello del Presidente di Israele Shimon Peres. Non basta: come avevo già avuto modo di rivelare, il Biegun contitolare dei capitali di Marina Reale è personaggio ugualmente legatissimo alle politiche di Destra israeliane. Mettendo assieme tutti i pezzi, significa che Bloomfield, attraverso quel documento reperito presso gli Archivi del Canada da parte di Kowalski, stava facendo rapporto al Mossad del procedere dell’opera di corruzione di personaggi di vitale importanza dello Stato italiano. Un altro cocente esempio di quanta sinergia nasca dall’incrociare il mio lavoro investigativo con quanto Kowalski stava scoprendo in Canada, è offerto da una lettera recante proprio intestazione Marina Reale ed inviata ad Hans Seligman, socio – rivelano le mie carte – del CMC. Lettera del gennaio del 1961, e che comunicava che sfere di potere molto in alto erano in grado di iniettare liquidi nel CMC per l’equivalente di 200 milioni di Lire di quegli anni: una cifra colossale. Ma non è finita: sì, perché Kowalski ha reperito pure un documento riguardante la Trans IsraelPipeline, oleodotto tuttora di grandissima importanza che va da Eilat, porto israeliano sul Mar Rosso, ad Ashkelon, porto israeliano sul Mediterraneo. È una ulteriore lettera di Bloomfield, e tale oleodotto, allora non ancora realizzato, è oggetto di conversazione con un avvocato: Graham Mattison, della Dominick & Dominick. Bloomfield punta a convincere Mattison a prendere parte a tale progetto. Quel che, più di tutto, colpisce, è il modo con il quale Bloomfield si rapporta con Mattison. È con il linguaggio di chi snocciola da vero intenditore temi di geopolitica globale, indicando che, con tale oleodotto, si sta cercando sia di mettere fuorigioco gli appetiti sovietici sia di creare un’asse petrolifera forte che fonda assieme Stati Uniti ed Israele. Bloomfield mostra anche dimestichezza, confidenza estreme con il Dipartimento di Stato. Tutte indicazioni robuste che Louis Bloomfield debba necessariamente appartenere ad ambiti dell’Intelligence statunitense, perché solo così si spiega la sua conoscenza dettagliatissima di manovre USA segretissime e delicatissime. Ma l’ultimo ingrediente che voglio segnalare di tale lettera, è che si affaccia in essa un colloquio tra Mattison ed un certo Dulles. Deve trattarsi – tutto il contesto, più che indicarlo, lo grida – di Allen Dulles, direttore della CIA, fratello di Foster Dulles, e nemico acerrimo di JFK. Lo evidenzio anche perché i miei studi, grazie alle mie carte del CMC, hanno determinato lampantemente quanto presente fossero, all’interno del Centro Mondiale Commerciale, sia Foster che Allen Dulles. Ma grida che quel Dulles è proprio Allen Dulles anche un altro dato: una serie di documenti, che ho reperito presso la Biblioteca della PrincetonUniversity. Riguardano, appunto, Allen Dulles, e l’offerta di collaborazione in attività di Intelligencead Allen Dulles giunta da parte dell’ungherese Tihame?r de Fabinyi. Offerta respinta da Dulles con grande nettezza. Cosa succede mai – rivelano sempre i documenti presso la Princeton University – a quel punto? Si cerca di far cambiare idea ad Allen Dulles ricorrendo proprio all’intervento del Mattison destinatario della lettera di Bloomfield circa l’oleodotto. Mattison esplicitamente indicato come amico di Allen Dulles. È, la lettura di questi documenti custoditi presso la prestigiosissima Università statunitense, tassello che suona conferma ad una assai preziosa intuizione giunta da parte di Jim DiEugenio, tra i massimi esperti mondiali sull’assassinio di JFK. Nell’elogiare gli studi miei e di Kowalski, DiEugenio, infatti, diceva di notare elementi tali per cui ci si trova a pensare che il CMCfosse una sorta di livello superiore alla stessa CIA. Che Mattison potesse essere preso in considerazione come persona in grado di modificare la decisione presa tanto nettamente da Allen Dulles, spinge, in effetti, in questa direzione. Anche perché, sempre presso la Princeton University, esiste un altro documento riguardante Mattison. Documento che dimostra come lui fosse già intimo, negli anni Quaranta del secolo scorso, di Hoyt Vandenberg, un militare ai vertici dello spionaggio USA prima della creazione della CIA. Clicca qui per la lettura degli altri documenti Potrei aggiungere molto altro, ma mi fermo qui, perché già certamente è evidente, in chi mi legge, quanto importante assolutamente sia il poter continuare ad attingere agli Archivi del Canada, e quanto assurdo e pericoloso sia, altrettanto, questo voltafaccia di tali Archivi che, in spregio ad una Sentenza di Tribunale e alla volontà di Bloomfield, chiudono totalmente i rubinetti su quanto, appunto da Bloomfield, è stato loro lasciato. Colpisce, come ho già detto, che ciò avvenga proprio sul nascere d’una collaborazione tra me ed il valente ricercatore Kowalski. Pare proprio che qualcuno, al superattico del Potere, stia avendo paura, ed anche tanta.
  5. In a new article, the Italian journalist Michele Metta shows CIA documents exist strongly connecting, from day one, Clay Shaw's Centro Mondiale Commerciale, the Italian branch of Permindex, to the Israeli Intelligence http://www.lantidiplomatico.it/dettnews-centro_mondiale_commerciale_nuovi_dirompenti_documenti_cia_confermano_i_legami_tra_cmc_e_israele/82_23303/
  6. https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/michele-metta-interviews-jim-dieugenio-on-jfk-the-cia-shaw-and-italy Michele Metta is an Italian journalist whose recent discovery of documents concerning Centro Mondiale Commerciale-Permindex has resulted in a number of groundbreaking essays on the interconnections between Italian fascists, US and Italian politicians, and the intelligence communities. MM: Hi, Jim. First, let me say I am honored to interview one of the best experts in the world on the plot that killed JFK. Welcome. An introductory question, just to break the ice: your name suggests Italian roots. Is that so? JD: Yes, both my parents were Italian. MM: Where does your passion towards that fundamental watershed of history, John Kennedy’s assassination, come from? JD: One day, many years after it was published, I picked up the Playboy interview with Jim Garrison. I was really puzzled because the guy seemed to make so much sense to me, much more sensible than the Warren Commission. So it seemed to me that he had been unfairly attacked by the media. So that posed the question as to why he had been attacked. Which meant that the mainstream media was not interested in getting to the bottom of the JFK case. And that has been verified by the new document releases that came out this year. Unfortunately we had to wait fifty years for those documents. MM: You are author of several astonishing books that I strongly recommend to everyone. One of them, Destiny Betrayed, highlights the greatness of Jim Garrison. Would you please explain it to our readers? JD: In the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, we see two things at work. First, how a very small bit of information, the address of Guy Banister on a pamphlet Oswald was handing out in New Orleans, mushroomed into the first real investigation into the Kennedy assassination, three years after JFK was murdered. In other words, the peeling back of Oswald’s true role as an undercover intelligence agent began to rearrange the circumstances of the crime. Second, the massive force used by the CIA, the FBI and the mass media to smear and to squelch Garrison’s investigation was unprecedented on a domestic level at that time. It’s usually the kind of campaign the CIA would use abroad to attack a designated political opponent. That is how seriously they took Garrison as a threat. MM: Why did JFK have to die? JD: In my opinion, this is not just a matter of any one policy issue. Some people say it was over Cuba, some over Vietnam. Kennedy was breaking with the status quo over several issues, both domestically and in foreign policy. And he did it pretty quickly. For example, he changed Eisenhower’s Congo policy within a matter of days after being inaugurated. In Indonesia, he decided to back Sukarno, when the CIA had previously tried to overthrow him. Domestically, he wanted to open up more state banks as opposed to Federal Reserve branches to make it easier to borrow money, and, unlike Eisenhower and Nixon, he really was going to move ahead on civil rights, through his brother Bobby Kennedy. In retrospect, it’s really kind of remarkable how much he did in less than three years to further the liberal ideal of progressive change. And by 1963, the Powers That Be said, “Enough is enough.” MM: What are the biggest bombshells you reveal in your excellent books? JD: In the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, I think it’s the fact that Allen Dulles went to see former president Harry Truman in April of 1964, while Dulles was sitting on the Warren Commission. Truman had written an editorial for the Washington Post, which was published about one month after Kennedy’s death. But he started it about 8 days after the assassination. He said the CIA had gotten out of control and he never foresaw such a thing when he signed the National Security Act. Dulles wanted him to retract that editorial. Truman would not. But as Dulles left, he said words to the effect that Kennedy had not really chastised the CIA for usurping his policy in Vietnam. Meaning, Dulles thought that this is why Truman had written the editorial!Which is a remarkable admission, because no one at that time thought the JFK murder was over the Vietnam issue. The other aspect was the number of infiltrators the CIA sent to obstruct Garrison’s investigation, and the lengths they went to in their surveillance and in misleading him. One of them, Gordon Novel, was hired by Allen Dulles himself to bug Garrison’s office. MM: You do more than write books. You are also the soul of other projects. For example: websites. Do you want to talk a bit about this? JD: Me and a friend of mine, Al Rossi, maintain the website kennedysandking. com, and I think it’s a good site with news and stories and visual essays about the assassinations of the Sixties: both Kennedys, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The Internet is one of the last bastions of freedom of speech in America. And I think it’s important to take advantage of it while it lasts. Because, with very rare exceptions, the mainstream media does not cover these cases to any serious degree. But yet, they are central to history in my view. Things would have been quite different if those four men had lived. MM: Are you satisfied or disappointed with the very recent release of documents about John Kennedy? JD: I am not satisfied with the way it was done. I do not think President Trump should have yielded to pressure brought upon him at the last minute by the CIA and FBI to thwart the actual letter of the law. This has allowed literally thousands of pages of documents to be released in redacted form, or even with whole pages blanked out. This battle will now have to probably be waged in court because Trump gave in. MM: As you know, I uncovered the CMC documents. Centro Mondiale Commerciale was the Italian branch of Permindex. On the CMC Board of Directors there was Clay Shaw. Thanks to those exclusive documents, I demonstrated the importance of so many Italian characters for a real understanding of what’s behind November 22, 1963. However, to my surprise, on this I met with the hostility of some US researchers. Fortunately, there are excellent exceptions: one is Oliver Stone, who has openly praised my findings. Another excellent exception is you. After taking this opportunity to warmly thank you both, I also want to ask you please to explain the risks of an examination of the JFK Assassination too confined to the US side. JD: I think it constricts the picture. Because what Kennedy was doing was not limited to just the USA. Therefore, his murder had an impact that was worldwide. And the people who were opposed to him were very aware of the things he was doing in his foreign policy. In regards to that shadowy entity called the CMC, the revelations about it are still coming out today, through people like you. And as far as Italy goes, in David Talbot’s book, The Devil’s Chessboard, he shows how Kennedy was pushing for a policy to pull the socialists into the mainstream of Italian politics. A policy opposed by William Harvey, a CIA officer stationed in Italy, and also the publishing family the Luces. In my opinion, after Kennedy’s death, that policy was countered by the “strategy of tension” that began to terrorize Italy. See, it always puzzled me that Clay Shaw said he was a Wilson-FDR-JFK liberal. If so, why did he have the name and address of a member of the Borghese family in his address book?And why was he a part of this Permindex association with so many wealthy, and rightwing, worldwide members in it? Because, as the new documents reveal, Clay Shaw lied on the stand when he said he was not associated with the CIA. He was a highly compensated contract agent, and his role with the CMC was a part of that, according to FBI agent Regis Kennedy. But further, the CIA we now know did all they could to cover up this part of his life, including destroying documents about him that would show how useful he was to them. In my opinion, his association with Permindex in Italy was the key to opening the door on Shaw.
×