Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation


Recommended Posts

Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" was the book that got me interested in the assassination of JFK. It is still the best book that I have read on the subject. Only the second edition of Larry Hancock's Some One Would Have Talked comes close.

Gaeton was an early critic of the Warren Report. In an article for Philadelphia Magazine he wrote, "The Warren Report is a deliberate lie. The Warren Commission's own evidence proves there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy."

In 1975 Senator Richard Schweiker, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asked him to join his staff investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two years later Fonzi was invited to join the House Select Committee on Assassinations as a staff investigator. As a special team director, he wrote and edited a major appendix, Volume X, of the Committee's Final Report. His book-length feature article for Washingtonian magazine, detailing the political limitations of the Committee's investigation, received national coverage and resulted in a record readership issue for the publication.

In 1993 he published The Last Investigation, a book detailing his research into the assassination. It is considered by many critics as among the best books on the JFK assassination and is currently recognized as an authority on those aspects of the assassination involving anti-Castro Cubans and the intelligence agencies.

Gaeton Fonzi is now retired and currently resides in Florida with Marie, his wife of 54 years. He is also a member of the South Florida Researchers' Group.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfonzi.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" was the book that got me interested in the assassination of JFK. It is still the best book that I have read on the subject. Only the second edition of Larry Hancock's Some One Would Have Talked comes close.

Gaeton was an early critic of the Warren Report. In an article for Philadelphia Magazine he wrote, "The Warren Report is a deliberate lie. The Warren Commission's own evidence proves there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy."

In 1975 Senator Richard Schweiker, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asked him to join his staff investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two years later Fonzi was invited to join the House Select Committee on Assassinations as a staff investigator. As a special team director, he wrote and edited a major appendix, Volume X, of the Committee's Final Report. His book-length feature article for Washingtonian magazine, detailing the political limitations of the Committee's investigation, received national coverage and resulted in a record readership issue for the publication.

In 1993 he published The Last Investigation, a book detailing his research into the assassination. It is considered by many critics as among the best books on the JFK assassination and is currently recognized as an authority on those aspects of the assassination involving anti-Castro Cubans and the intelligence agencies.

Gaeton Fonzi is now retired and currently resides in Florida with Marie, his wife of 54 years. He is also a member of the South Florida Researchers' Group.

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKfonzi.htm

What ever happened to former Pennsylvania Richard Schweiker?

That's a question no one has been able to answer.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" was the book that got me interested in the assassination of JFK. It is still the best book that I have read on the subject. Only the second edition of Larry Hancock's Some One Would Have Talked comes close.

Gaeton was an early critic of the Warren Report. In an article for Philadelphia Magazine he wrote, "The Warren Report is a deliberate lie. The Warren Commission's own evidence proves there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy."

In 1975 Senator Richard Schweiker, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asked him to join his staff investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two years later Fonzi was invited to join the House Select Committee on Assassinations as a staff investigator. As a special team director, he wrote and edited a major appendix, Volume X, of the Committee's Final Report. His book-length feature article for Washingtonian magazine, detailing the political limitations of the Committee's investigation, received national coverage and resulted in a record readership issue for the publication.

In 1993 he published The Last Investigation, a book detailing his research into the assassination. It is considered by many critics as among the best books on the JFK assassination and is currently recognized as an authority on those aspects of the assassination involving anti-Castro Cubans and the intelligence agencies.

Gaeton Fonzi is now retired and currently resides in Florida with Marie, his wife of 54 years. He is also a member of the South Florida Researchers' Group.

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKfonzi.htm

What ever happened to former Pennsylvania Richard Schweiker?

That's a question no one has been able to answer.

BK

When I first met David Talbot, at the bar of the Washington Sheraton Hotel during a COPA conference, he told me his plans for writing Brothers, and asked me if I knew how to contact Richard Schewiker. I didn't but thought it would be easy, and traced him to a non-profit organization in Virginia after he left Pennsylvania, but the org said he no longer worked for them.

Thanks to Gary Mack for providing his address.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with John's assessment of both of these seminal treatises on the assassination.

I may have to re-read Gaeton Fonzi's "Last Investigation".

His description of Antonio Veciana's seeing DAP (aka Maurice Bishop) in the Senate Office Building (or wherever the deposition took place, I forget the precise circumstances) is quite telling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with John's assessment of both of these seminal treatises on the assassination.

I may have to re-read Gaeton Fonzi's "Last Investigation".

His description of Antonio Veciana's seeing DAP (aka Maurice Bishop) in the Senate Office Building (or wherever the deposition took place, I forget the precise circumstances) is quite telling.

Don't spoil it ,I got the book for my birthday today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with John's assessment of both of these seminal treatises on the assassination.

I may have to re-read Gaeton Fonzi's "Last Investigation".

His description of Antonio Veciana's seeing DAP (aka Maurice Bishop) in the Senate Office Building (or wherever the deposition took place, I forget the precise circumstances) is quite telling.

Don't spoil it ,I got the book for my birthday today.

I won't say another word, amigo.

It's a great resource.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought The Last Investigation would make for the best movie about the JFK assassination. It would be a fine follow up to Oliver Stone's film, so people - not just researchers - would understand how the HSCA really worked and see why the government doesn't want to solve the JFK assassination. I am a little surprised that no one has attempted to do so, but maybe people have and there are other factors at work here.

Zach

Edited by Zach Robertson
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought The Last Investigation would make for the best movie about the JFK assassination. It would be a fine follow up to Oliver Stone's film, so people - not just researchers - would understand how the HSCA really worked and see why the government doesn't want to solve the JFK assassination. I am a little surprised that no one has attempted to do so, but maybe people have and there are other factors at work here.

Zach

I feel the same way. This was a fact-based book that was both interesting and troubling. It told the story of one man's journey. Even people who'd concluded there was no conspiracy could enjoy it and see it as sincere. So why no movie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweiker worked for a lobbying group when I interviewed him in Washington in 1994.

The place was palatial, so I doubt it was a non profit.

He may have moved on since though since he was making a lot of money there.

He was still convinced that the JFK case was a conspiracy though.

FOnzi's book is quite good as a guide to the HSCA and Church Committee. With very good parts on David Phillips, Bernardo De Torres, Arlen Specter and Sylvia Duran. Plus it is very well written.

I have it in my Top Ten at ctka.net.

The problem is it came out about the time of Posner's piece of crap. So Fonzi got deluged in the media.

Jim,

Can you post some of your Schweiker interview?

I agree that Fonzi is a great investigator and writer, the only problem I have is his failure to interview his primary subject, David Atlee Phillips, who when I talked with him on the phone, told me that he was working right down the hall from Fonzi at the Washingtonian Magazine when that cover-story feature article came out.

Even though I agree with Fonzi about what he says and thinks about Phillips, I think that DAP should have been given the opportunity to answer some questions before being hammered.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweiker worked for a lobbying group when I interviewed him in Washington in 1994.

The place was palatial, so I doubt it was a non profit.

He may have moved on since though since he was making a lot of money there.

He was still convinced that the JFK case was a conspiracy though.

FOnzi's book is quite good as a guide to the HSCA and Church Committee. With very good parts on David Phillips, Bernardo De Torres, Arlen Specter and Sylvia Duran. Plus it is very well written.

I have it in my Top Ten at ctka.net.

The problem is it came out about the time of Posner's piece of crap. So Fonzi got deluged in the media.

Jim,

Can you post some of your Schweiker interview?

I agree that Fonzi is a great investigator and writer, the only problem I have is his failure to interview his primary subject, David Atlee Phillips, who when I talked with him on the phone, told me that he was working right down the hall from Fonzi at the Washingtonian Magazine when that cover-story feature article came out.

Even though I agree with Fonzi about what he says and thinks about Phillips, I think that DAP should have been given the opportunity to answer some questions before being hammered.

BK

As I recall, Phillips was given a chance to explain and pulled a full-on ostrich routine, denying everything, including his ever having heard of Veciana. This, in turn, caused Veciana to back down. The Last Investigation was only released upon Phillips' death. Although Veciana never positively IDed Phillips, he also never stepped up to say Fonzi was wrong to think it was Phillips. This tells you all you need to know, IMO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweiker worked for a lobbying group when I interviewed him in Washington in 1994.

The place was palatial, so I doubt it was a non profit.

He may have moved on since though since he was making a lot of money there.

He was still convinced that the JFK case was a conspiracy though.

FOnzi's book is quite good as a guide to the HSCA and Church Committee. With very good parts on David Phillips, Bernardo De Torres, Arlen Specter and Sylvia Duran. Plus it is very well written.

I have it in my Top Ten at ctka.net.

The problem is it came out about the time of Posner's piece of crap. So Fonzi got deluged in the media.

Jim,

Can you post some of your Schweiker interview?

I agree that Fonzi is a great investigator and writer, the only problem I have is his failure to interview his primary subject, David Atlee Phillips, who when I talked with him on the phone, told me that he was working right down the hall from Fonzi at the Washingtonian Magazine when that cover-story feature article came out.

Even though I agree with Fonzi about what he says and thinks about Phillips, I think that DAP should have been given the opportunity to answer some questions before being hammered.

BK

As I recall, Phillips was given a chance to explain and pulled a full-on ostrich routine, denying everything, including his ever having heard of Veciana. This, in turn, caused Veciana to back down. The Last Investigation was only released upon Phillips' death. Although Veciana never positively IDed Phillips, he also never stepped up to say Fonzi was wrong to think it was Phillips. This tells you all you need to know, IMO.

While Veciana never positively IDd Phillips as Bishop, most rational people who have studied this believe Phillips and "Bishop" are one and the same, including me, but that doesn't tell you all you need to know.

That's not what Phillips told me. After the Washingtonian article came out, I got his number from the public phone directory, called him up and he answered and we chatted for more than a half-hour. He told me that while he didn't know Oswald and wasn't "Maurice Bishop," he would have liked the opportunity to have told that to Fonzi, but was never asked.

In addition, he made the same charge against Tony Summers, who also wrote about him as possibly being Bishop and was sued by Bishop (err Phillips) in a British court and won. Now I know both Summers and Fonzi I have not asked them why they didn't bother trying to talk to Phillips before writing about him. Fonzi seems to have adopted the policy of Richard Sprague, Esq., the first chief counsel of the HSCA. When Fonzi asked Sprague why he never questioned the mafia dons, Sprague said that in law enforcement, you get as much info about a suspect before you talk to them so you know what questions to ask. Now this doesn't hold true for journalists, who should seek out the opinion of the person they are writing about.

And I am not nitpicking here - as both Gaeton Fonzi and Tony Summers are my heroes, and perhaps they will explain it someday.

Two others who know more than they have told are British journalist David Leigh, who has not responded to my emails asking him about the article he wrote on assignment for Ben Bradlee and the WP that was never published, and Kevin Walsh, a Capitol Hill investigator who was at all of the early Congressional meetings concerning the JFK Act and establishment of the ARRB, and then disappeared. Walsh became a friend and drinking partner with Phillips, and I believe Phillips told him more than anyone as to what really happened.

I too believe that Phillips was "Maurice Bishop," met with Oswald in August 1963 in the lobby of the Dallas hotel when Veciana was there, monitored Oswald in Mexico City, probably had something to do with Dealey Plaza psychological operations, setting up Oswald as the assassin and creating the original cover-story that Cuba and Castro were behind the plot that killed JFK.

But like Kevin Walsh, my goal is not to finger those who really killed JFK, but to share a drink with them and find out how and why they did it.

And when Fonzi was working on his article with Phillips right there in the same office building, I wonder why he didn't ask DAP to go out for lunch and cocktail and question him, as I would have done.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweiker worked for a lobbying group when I interviewed him in Washington in 1994.

The place was palatial, so I doubt it was a non profit.

He may have moved on since though since he was making a lot of money there.

He was still convinced that the JFK case was a conspiracy though.

FOnzi's book is quite good as a guide to the HSCA and Church Committee. With very good parts on David Phillips, Bernardo De Torres, Arlen Specter and Sylvia Duran. Plus it is very well written.

I have it in my Top Ten at ctka.net.

The problem is it came out about the time of Posner's piece of crap. So Fonzi got deluged in the media.

Jim,

Can you post some of your Schweiker interview?

I agree that Fonzi is a great investigator and writer, the only problem I have is his failure to interview his primary subject, David Atlee Phillips, who when I talked with him on the phone, told me that he was working right down the hall from Fonzi at the Washingtonian Magazine when that cover-story feature article came out.

Even though I agree with Fonzi about what he says and thinks about Phillips, I think that DAP should have been given the opportunity to answer some questions before being hammered.

BK

As I recall, Phillips was given a chance to explain and pulled a full-on ostrich routine, denying everything, including his ever having heard of Veciana. This, in turn, caused Veciana to back down. The Last Investigation was only released upon Phillips' death. Although Veciana never positively IDed Phillips, he also never stepped up to say Fonzi was wrong to think it was Phillips. This tells you all you need to know, IMO.

That's not what Phillips told me. After the Washingtonian article came out, I got his number from the public phone directory, called him up and he answered and we chatted for more than a half-hour. He told me that while he didn't know Oswald and wasn't "Maurice Bishop," he would have liked the opportunity to have told that to Fonzi, but was never asked.

In addition, he made the same charge against Tony Summers, who also wrote about him as possibly being Bishop and was sued by Bishop in a British court and won. Now I know both Summers and Fonzi I have not asked them why they didn't bother trying to talk to Phillips before writing about him, but Fonzi seems to have adopted the policy of Richard Sprague, Esq., the first chief counsel of the HSCA, who told Fonzi that in law enforcement, you get as much info about a suspect before you talk to them so you know what questions to ask. Now this doesn't hold true for journalists, who should seek out the opinion of the person they are writing about. h

And I am not nitpicking here - as both Gaeton Fonzi and Tony Summers are my heroes, and perhaps they will explain it someday.

Two others who know more than they have told are British journalist David Leigh, who has not responded to my emails asking him about the article he wrote on assignment for Ben Bradlee and the WP that was never published, and

Kevin Walsh, a Capitol Hill investigator who was at all of the early Congressional meetings concerning the JFK Act and establishment of the ARRB, and then disappeared. Walsh became a friend and drinking partner with Phillips, and I believe Phillips told him more than anyone as to what really happened.

I too believe that Phillips was "Maurice Bishop," met with Oswald in August 1963 in the lobby of the Dallas hotel when Veciana was there, monitored Oswald in Mexico City, probably had something to do with Dealey Plaza psychological operations, setting up Oswald as the assassin and creating the original cover-story that Cuba and Castro were behind the plot that killed JFK.

But like Kevin Walsh, my goal is not to finger those who really killed JFK, but to share a drink with them and find out how and why they did it.

And when Fonzi was working on his article with Phillips right there in the same office building, I wonder why he didn't ask DAP to go out for lunch and cocktail and question him, as I would have done.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Bill, if you read the top paragraph of the linked page below, you'll see that Phillips testified under oath that he was not Bishop. If you look at the bottom you'll find that the committee itself--and not just the lowly investigator Fonzi--concluded Phillips was quite possibly Bishop, and that Phillips was a xxxx.

As a result, Fonzi would have little reason to talk to Phillips. It's not as if he had reason to believe Phillips would tell him anything of value.

HSCA report page 136

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweiker worked for a lobbying group when I interviewed him in Washington in 1994.

The place was palatial, so I doubt it was a non profit.

He may have moved on since though since he was making a lot of money there.

He was still convinced that the JFK case was a conspiracy though.

FOnzi's book is quite good as a guide to the HSCA and Church Committee. With very good parts on David Phillips, Bernardo De Torres, Arlen Specter and Sylvia Duran. Plus it is very well written.

I have it in my Top Ten at ctka.net.

The problem is it came out about the time of Posner's piece of crap. So Fonzi got deluged in the media.

Jim,

Can you post some of your Schweiker interview?

I agree that Fonzi is a great investigator and writer, the only problem I have is his failure to interview his primary subject, David Atlee Phillips, who when I talked with him on the phone, told me that he was working right down the hall from Fonzi at the Washingtonian Magazine when that cover-story feature article came out.

Even though I agree with Fonzi about what he says and thinks about Phillips, I think that DAP should have been given the opportunity to answer some questions before being hammered.

BK

As I recall, Phillips was given a chance to explain and pulled a full-on ostrich routine, denying everything, including his ever having heard of Veciana. This, in turn, caused Veciana to back down. The Last Investigation was only released upon Phillips' death. Although Veciana never positively IDed Phillips, he also never stepped up to say Fonzi was wrong to think it was Phillips. This tells you all you need to know, IMO.

That's not what Phillips told me. After the Washingtonian article came out, I got his number from the public phone directory, called him up and he answered and we chatted for more than a half-hour. He told me that while he didn't know Oswald and wasn't "Maurice Bishop," he would have liked the opportunity to have told that to Fonzi, but was never asked.

In addition, he made the same charge against Tony Summers, who also wrote about him as possibly being Bishop and was sued by Bishop in a British court and won. Now I know both Summers and Fonzi I have not asked them why they didn't bother trying to talk to Phillips before writing about him, but Fonzi seems to have adopted the policy of Richard Sprague, Esq., the first chief counsel of the HSCA, who told Fonzi that in law enforcement, you get as much info about a suspect before you talk to them so you know what questions to ask. Now this doesn't hold true for journalists, who should seek out the opinion of the person they are writing about. h

And I am not nitpicking here - as both Gaeton Fonzi and Tony Summers are my heroes, and perhaps they will explain it someday.

Two others who know more than they have told are British journalist David Leigh, who has not responded to my emails asking him about the article he wrote on assignment for Ben Bradlee and the WP that was never published, and

Kevin Walsh, a Capitol Hill investigator who was at all of the early Congressional meetings concerning the JFK Act and establishment of the ARRB, and then disappeared. Walsh became a friend and drinking partner with Phillips, and I believe Phillips told him more than anyone as to what really happened.

I too believe that Phillips was "Maurice Bishop," met with Oswald in August 1963 in the lobby of the Dallas hotel when Veciana was there, monitored Oswald in Mexico City, probably had something to do with Dealey Plaza psychological operations, setting up Oswald as the assassin and creating the original cover-story that Cuba and Castro were behind the plot that killed JFK.

But like Kevin Walsh, my goal is not to finger those who really killed JFK, but to share a drink with them and find out how and why they did it.

And when Fonzi was working on his article with Phillips right there in the same office building, I wonder why he didn't ask DAP to go out for lunch and cocktail and question him, as I would have done.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Bill, if you read the top paragraph of the linked page below, you'll see that Phillips testified under oath that he was not Bishop. If you look at the bottom you'll find that the committee itself--and not just the lowly investigator Fonzi--concluded Phillips was quite possibly Bishop, and that Phillips was a xxxx.

As a result, Fonzi would have little reason to talk to Phillips. It's not as if he had reason to believe Phillips would tell him anything of value.

HSCA report page 136

I understand that Pat, I just think that the person you are calling a xxxx should be given an opportunity to speak.

I think Phillips lied to me too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...