JFK and the Ku Klux Klan

[John Dolva]

I can only rewiterate that this topic is still called JFK and the KKK, whatever the reasons for its being. The shortcomings of people can be seen as being used to discredit persons, hypothesis and concept by simple association. Those who choose to do so are being steered away from important areas of research.

1. ignore

2. ridicule

3. accept as self evident

2 is being used to go back to 1 but only if one has some interest in it being so. Independent study makes the pondering of 3 possible.

High level FBI, CIA and other Governement assets and V.I.P.'s involvements are in no way mutually exclusive to a Militant Right involvement.

[Michael Hogan]

Paul, nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

There is not even a speck of material evidence presented by anyone on this thread indicating possible 1963 KKK involvement in the JFK assassination by anyone from Terry, Mississippi.

People that have passionately studied the murder of President Kennedy for a good portion of their lives should not be expected to take kindly to attempts to hoax them.

Michael, it's been 50 years and all the people passionately studying the murder of JFK in all that time have arrived at no consensus. There are dozens of contradictory theories out there. Y'all haven't cracked the case. Why not admit it? Why not admit that it's time to try new avenues?

The evidence should have steered JFK researchers to investigate ex-General Edwin Walker far more fully. But they didn't. It's been 50 years, and Walker died 20 years ago. Yet only now are historians beginning to stumble over what all these "people passionately studying the murder of President Kennedy for a good portion of their lives" have all overlooked.

The main political connections of ex-General Walker were race segregation advocates. It is not a hoax to notice that. It is not a hoax to notice the common thread between Walker and Guy Banister, who was also a fanatic about race segregation.

It is not a hoax to recognize that JFK was dead less than six months after his Civil Rights speech, after which violent acts against Civil Rights advocates sharply escalated. Why haven't the JFK researchers cracked the case after half a century? Could it be because they can't handle the truth?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Maybe you should consider a trip to Hinds County, Mississippi.

[Paul Trejo]

"The real killer of John Kennedy was the Central Intelligence Agency" - Jim Garrison (From the film Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy)

Jim Garrison was a genius.

Martin, just because Jim Garrison was a genius does not mean that he was correct in every sentence he ever made.

Mozart was a genius -- but not everything he wrote was a masterpiece. We're all human.

Jim Garrson was brilliant and courageous because he showed material evidence to the world that Lee Harvey Oswald hung out with Militant Right individuals (Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier) and not with Communists.

That simple fact -- as correct and as brilliant as it shines -- has still not been accepted by all readers of the JFK literature.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 24, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Certainly, Angleton, Dulles, Helms and Phillips weren't "low-level CIA piece-workers," rather, they were high-level CIA employees. However, if somebody wishes to implicate these people in the murder of JFK, then I demand to see empirical proofs and not just wild speculation and personal hunches.

As for the KKK involvement in the murder of JFK, of course it could never be official. There are multiple reasons for this. First, the KKK is a secret society, so its own internal rules would publicly deny any involvement. Secondly, I maintain that the murder of JFK was itselfunoffical because my current theory absolves the CIA and the FBI from official participation in the JFK murder plot. I only find the CIA and FBI officially involved in the cover-up.

What I don't get is, if the CIA could help cover up, why wouldn't they have helped in the plotting?

And who did the "official" investigation? The FBI, although I have no empirical proofs, just wild speculation and personal hunches about their involvement, their "infiltration" of the Klan doesn't sit quite right with me. They missed so much. 'Not having the budget' is no excuse. And the 'Warren Commission', can anyone say that name without their tongue in their cheek?

How would the Dallas Police Department have pulled something like this off without the feds knowing? Was presidential security that lax back then? I suppose it is possible for city cops to pull off a presidential assassination, right under the noses of the feds; southern cops were practiced at it all the time, all over the south, back then. They knew about murders and how to get away with them, since they were the law. It was a practiced art, you might say.

I suppose it would blow some budget or other to investigate the lot of them, so many law enforcers were involved in murder or its cover up, back then. It is not a big leap of consciousness for me to think law enforcement was involved in some instrumental way with the death of John Kennedy.

Who was responsible for JFK's security, anyway? If there was any conclusive proof, it would have "disappeared" by now, if the CIA were involved.

[Paul Trejo]

What I don't get is, if the CIA could help cover up, why wouldn't they have helped in the plotting?

And who did the "official" investigation? The FBI, although I have no empirical proofs, just wild speculation and personal hunches about their involvement, their "infiltration" of the Klan doesn't sit quite right with me. They missed so much. 'Not having the budget' is no excuse. And the 'Warren Commission', can anyone say that name without their tongue in their cheek?

How would the Dallas Police Department have pulled something like this off without the feds knowing? Was presidential security that lax back then? I suppose it is possible for city cops to pull off a presidential assassination, right under the noses of the feds; southern cops were practiced at it all the time, all over the south, back then. They knew about murders and how to get away with them, since they were the law. It was a practiced art, you might say.

I suppose it would blow some budget or other to investigate the lot of them, so many law enforcers were involved in murder or its cover up, back then. It is not a big leap of consciousness for me to think law enforcement was involved in some instrumental way with the death of John Kennedy.

Who was responsible for JFK's security, anyway? If there was any conclusive proof, it would have "disappeared" by now, if the CIA were involved.

Terri, I'll try to clarify my opinions further. The official CIA did not want to kill JFK -- even though some rogue individuals in the CIA, especially those whose hearts had been broken at the Bay of Pigs, openly stated they wanted JFK dead. We know which CIA officials said that -- and they were not the top leadership of the CIA, and they did not speak in an official capacity, but in a personal capacity.

The Director of the CIA at that time, John McCone, was appointed by JFK. That's one point on my side. Also, the CIA published its rules and regulations -- and membership in the KKK, as well as in the John Birch Society, was not allowed for CIA officers. (Not that they checked carefully -- after all, membership in a secret society is always a secret).

So, I have no doubt that there were some stray dogs among the CIA who were members of the extreme right, like the KKK and the JBS, and who wanted JFK to die for the Bay of Pigs -- but they didn't speak for the Director of the CIA. (The same can be said of the FBI).

As for the FBI infiltration of the KKK, their purpose was to find crime, and also to undermine their growth. But by the Constitution itself, they could not outlaw them, because the KKK is, after all, protected by the Free Speech Amendment (and even defended by the ACLU). They are free to say whatever they like. It's actions that matter to the FBI -- not words.

Insofar as there were atrocities committed by the KKK (which are a matter of record) history has shown that the secrecy of the KKK made it almost impossible to identify the culprits for prosecution. When people refuse to witness publicly, the FBI has no power at all. That was the problem then (and probably still remains so today).

As for the Warren Commission -- they deceived the USA with their "Lone Nut" and "Magic Bullet" conclusions -- and it has hurt our country. However, that does not prove that they were covering for the killers of JFK -- there is another explanation. They could have been (in my humble opinion) trying to prevent a Civil War in this country.

The KKK arose in the Deep South -- largely along the same State borders as the Confederate States in the Civil War during the Lincoln era. The anger was over the same issue -- the equality of Black Americans in modern society. The Supreme Court Brown decision had so enraged the white supremacists in the South (and also those in the North) that they developed several new organizations to take a new approach to Civil Rights that the KKK had overlooked.

The White Citiizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commission, the States Rights Parties, and the John Birch Society -- all these groups arose to "Impeach Earl Warren" and reverse the Brown decision -- and also to harrass the NAACP financially.

Naturally the KKK supported this effort with all their might, as well. But the FBI and the CIA were officially supporters of the Law of the Land. Even if some FBI and CIA employees hated the idea of school integration, they were obliged by law and the rules of their employment to keep their mouths shut about it.

So, Terri, even if some rogue FBI and CIA members took it upon themselves to "look the other way" when they saw the extreme right-wing make its moves in late 1963, that was not official. That's my main point.

Also, I don't blame the entire Dallas Police Department -- however I agree with Jim Garrison that the JFK plot could never work without at least a few Dallas Policemen involved at key positions. I say this with some confidence because William Turner's book, "Power on the Right", showed that employment in the Dallas Police required membership in extremist rightwing groups like the Minutemen, the KKK and the JBS. This was a local culture -- it was considered normal.

The Dallas Police were responsible for sealing off the grassy knoll. Was Roscoe White (a Dallas policeman at the time) at the Grassy Knoll with his 7.5 Mauser, as he told his son, Ricky White? We have evidence that Roscoe White was also a member of the KKK as well as the Texas Minutemen.

As for Presidential security -- it is well-known that the Mayor of Dallas, Earl Cabell, was the brother of General Charles Cabell, formerly of the CIA, whom JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. I don't say that's proof of his complicity, but it does contribute to the laxity of security in Dallas, IMHO. Dallas policeman Roger Craig stated that Chief of Police Jesse Curry told all plain clothes policemen in Dallas that day to "in no way" participate in the JFK security. That's most suspicious, IMHO. But that was entirely local.

According to the Secret Service, they had zero agents in Dealey Plaza that day. They had hundreds of agents at the Trade Mart down the street -- for they had heard that a JFK assassination would be attempted there.

I suspect, Terri, that you and I probably are close to agreement on the disposition of the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963.

In any case -- who would investigate them? The Dallas Police Chief? But who would investigate him? Jesse Curry said only 25 (out of 1,200) police in Dallas even heard of Jack Ruby, yet waitresses at the Carousel Club very sharply disputed that claim.

Again -- insofar as the KKK was active in Texas in 1963, even within the Dallas Police Department, I must agree with you that the DPD is suspicious in this crime.

As for proof of a conspiracy -- I personally believe that the US government still has it in file -- and that in the year 2038 those files will be released, as Earl Warren said they would be. I believe they will show that a right-wing conspiracy involving the White Citizen Councils, the JBS and the KKK were at fault. However -- and this is the key point -- Earl Warren and the US government felt certain that if this truth had come out in 1963, there would have been a new Civil War.

And that is why they covered it up. The people who killed JFK did not get their way. They failed to get the Brown decision reversed. They failed to get the USA to invade Cuba. They lost.

The people who killed JFK were not the same people that covered up the JFK assassination. They were two opposite groups. Civil War was averted -- that was the National Security concern of the Warren Commission, the FBI and the CIA. That's how it appears to me today.

Finally, we should remember the words of Loran Hall, who, according to Silvia Odio, was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald. He told the National Enquirer on 3 September 1968 this about the JFK plotters:

"They drew up a kill list. Martin Luther King was on it...They wanted, and still want, to see a revolution between the colored people and the whites. They want complete white supremacy and they needed open warfare so that they could head that white supremacy. Bobby Kennedy was on the kill list....Chief Justice Earl Warren was another they wanted to kill..." (Loran Hall, 1968)

Although Loran Hall also said that CIA people aided them, he always had trouble identifying who was really a CIA employee and who was a volunteer -- like people in the Mafia. So, Hall's opinion about the CIA must be taken with a grain of salt.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 30, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

What I don't get is, if the CIA could help cover up, why wouldn't they have helped in the plotting?

And who did the "official" investigation? The FBI, although I have no empirical proofs, just wild speculation and personal hunches about their involvement, their "infiltration" of the Klan doesn't sit quite right with me. They missed so much. 'Not having the budget' is no excuse. And the 'Warren Commission', can anyone say that name without their tongue in their cheek?

How would the Dallas Police Department have pulled something like this off without the feds knowing? Was presidential security that lax back then? I suppose it is possible for city cops to pull off a presidential assassination, right under the noses of the feds; southern cops were practiced at it all the time, all over the south, back then. They knew about murders and how to get away with them, since they were the law. It was a practiced art, you might say.

I suppose it would blow some budget or other to investigate the lot of them, so many law enforcers were involved in murder or its cover up, back then. It is not a big leap of consciousness for me to think law enforcement was involved in some instrumental way with the death of John Kennedy.

Who was responsible for JFK's security, anyway? If there was any conclusive proof, it would have "disappeared" by now, if the CIA were involved.

Terri, I'll try to clarify my opinions further. The official CIA did not want to kill JFK -- even though some rogue individuals in the CIA, especially those whose hearts had been broken at the Bay of Pigs, openly stated they wanted JFK dead. We know which CIA officials said that -- and they were not the top leadership of the CIA, and they did not speak in an official capacity, but in a personal capacity.

The Director of the CIA at that time, John McCone, was appointed by JFK. That's one point on my side. Also, the CIA published its rules and regulations -- and membership in the KKK, as well as in the John Birch Society, was not allowed for CIA officers. (Not that they checked carefully -- after all, membership in a secret society is always a secret).

So, I have no doubt that there were some stray dogs among the CIA who were members of the extreme right, like the KKK and the JBS, and who wanted JFK to die for the Bay of Pigs -- but they didn't speak for the Director of the CIA. (The same can be said of the FBI).

As for the FBI infiltration of the KKK, their purpose was to find crime, and also to undermine their growth. But by the Constitution itself, they could not outlaw them, because the KKK is, after all, protected by the Free Speech Amendment (and even defended by the ACLU). They are free to say whatever they like. It's actions that matter to the FBI -- not words.

Insofar as there were atrocities committed by the KKK (which are a matter of record) history has shown that the secrecy of the KKK made it almost impossible to identify the culprits for prosecution. When people refuse to witness publicly, the FBI has no power at all. That was the problem then (and probably still remains so today).

As for the Warren Commission -- they deceived the USA with their "Lone Nut" and "Magic Bullet" conclusions -- and it has hurt our country. However, that does not prove that they were covering for the killers of JFK -- there is another explanation. They could have been (in my humble opinion) trying to prevent a Civil War in this country.

The KKK arose in the Deep South -- largely along the same State borders as the Confederate States in the Civil War during the Lincoln era. The anger was over the same issue -- the equality of Black Americans in modern society. The Supreme Court Brown decision had so enraged the white supremacists in the South (and also those in the North) that they developed several new organizations to take a new approach to Civil Rights that the KKK had overlooked.

The White Citiizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commission, the States Rights Parties, and the John Birch Society -- all these groups arose to "Impeach Earl Warren" and reverse the Brown decision -- and also to harrass the NAACP financially.

Naturally the KKK supported this effort with all their might, as well. But the FBI and the CIA were officially supporters of the Law of the Land. Even if some FBI and CIA employees hated the idea of school integration, they were obliged by law and the rules of their employment to keep their mouths shut about it.

So, Terri, even if some rogue FBI and CIA members took it upon themselves to "look the other way" when they saw the extreme right-wing make its moves in late 1963, that was not official. That's my main point.

Also, I don't blame the entire Dallas Police Department -- however I agree with Jim Garrison that the JFK plot could never work without at least a few Dallas Policemen involved at key positions. I say this with some confidence because William Turner's book, "Power on the Right", showed that employment in the Dallas Police required membership in extremist rightwing groups like the Minutemen, the KKK and the JBS. This was a local culture -- it was considered normal.

The Dallas Police were responsible for sealing off the grassy knoll. Was Roscoe White (a Dallas policeman at the time) at the Grassy Knoll with his 7.5 Mauser, as he told his son, Ricky White? We have evidence that Roscoe White was also a member of the KKK as well as the Texas Minutemen.

As for Presidential security -- it is well-known that the Mayor of Dallas, Earl Cabell, was the brother of General Charles Cabell, formerly of the CIA, whom JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. I don't say that's proof of his complicity, but it does contribute to the laxity of security in Dallas, IMHO. Dallas policeman Roger Craig stated that Chief of Police Jesse Curry told all plain clothes policemen in Dallas that day to "in no way" participate in the JFK security. That's most suspicious, IMHO. But that was entirely local.

According to the Secret Service, they had zero agents in Dealey Plaza that day. They had hundreds of agents at the Trade Mart down the street -- for they had heard that a JFK assassination would be attempted there.

I suspect, Terri, that you and I probably are close to agreement on the disposition of the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963.

In any case -- who would investigate them? The Dallas Police Chief? But who would investigate him? Jesse Curry said only 25 (out of 1,200) police in Dallas even heard of Jack Ruby, yet waitresses at the Carousel Club very sharply disputed that claim.

Again -- insofar as the KKK was active in Texas in 1963, even within the Dallas Police Department, I must agree with you that the DPD is suspicious in this crime.

As for proof of a conspiracy -- I personally believe that the US government still has it in file -- and that in the year 2038 those files will be released, as Earl Warren said they would be. I believe they will show that a right-wing conspiracy involving the White Citizen Councils, the JBS and the KKK were at fault. However -- and this is the key point -- Earl Warren and the US government felt certain that if this truth had come out in 1963, there would have been a new Civil War.

And that is why they covered it up. The people who killed JFK did not get their way. They failed to get the Brown decision reversed. They failed to get the USA to invade Cuba. They lost.

The people who killed JFK were not the same people that covered up the JFK assassination. They were two opposite groups. Civil War was averted -- that was the National Security concern of the Warren Commission, the FBI and the CIA. That's how it appears to me today.

Finally, we should remember the words of Loran Hall, who, according to Silvia Odio, was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald. He told the National Enquirer on 3 September 1968 this about the JFK plotters:

"They drew up a kill list. Martin Luther King was on it...They wanted, and still want, to see a revolution between the colored people and the whites. They want complete white supremacy and they needed open warfare so that they could head that white supremacy. Bobby Kennedy was on the kill list....Chief Justice Earl Warren was another they wanted to kill..." (Loran Hall, 1968)

Although Loran Hall also said that CIA people aided them, he always had trouble identifying who was really a CIA employee and who was a volunteer -- like people in the Mafia. So, Hall's opinion about the CIA must be taken with a grain of salt.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Thank you Paul. That cleared up some questions, but when you said:

When people refuse to witness publicly, the FBI has no power at all. That was the problem then (and probably still remains so today).

That is not true. I DID try to tell the FBI about what happened to Junior, not to mention JFK and was LAUGHED AT BY THEM. That is not the pretty picture you are trying to paint of the FBI. They had to have been involved to have laughed at me for reporting a lynching. They were NOT in Mississippi to bring any manner of justice to the people who deserved it. I KNOW that it true. They LAUGHED at me for reporting a lynching and for telling them about Albert Lee Lewis.

Not very respectable.

The "trying to stop a civil war" theory doesn't hold up when the FBI would just laugh at people who reported lynchings. Seem like they were whole heartedly involved. They didn't even jot down Albert Lee Lewis' name. Just LAUGHED.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Paul Trejo]

Thank you Paul. That cleared up some questions, but when you said:

When people refuse to witness publicly, the FBI has no power at all. That was the problem then (and probably still remains so today).

That is not true. I DID try to tell the FBI about what happened to Junior, not to mention JFK and was LAUGHED AT BY THEM. That is not the pretty picture you are trying to paint of the FBI. They had to have been involved to have laughed at me for reporting a lynching. They were NOT in Mississippi to bring any manner of justice to the people who deserved it. I KNOW that it true. They LAUGHED at me for reporting a lynching and for telling them about Albert Lee Lewis.

Not very respectable.

The "trying to stop a civil war" theory doesn't hold up when the FBI would just laugh at people who reported lynchings. Seem like they were whole heartedly involved. They didn't even jot down Albert Lee Lewis' name. Just LAUGHED.

I should clarify, Terri, that I wasn't referring to your efforts to find justice through the FBI. I respect your efforts, truly.

The frustration that you encountered does seem to say a lot about the FBI and the KKK, however. If I want to avoid a cynical conclusion, I must convince myself that the FBI has attempted for over 100 years to prosecute KKK cases, and have had about a 99% failure rate. No matter how much time they spend trying to solve these cases, they come up with virtually no witnesses. After so many failures, a human being has a tendency to give up trying.

Your case is an exception, so I want to reflect on it. You reported what you knew about a murder to the FBI, and they did not receive you in a professional manner as you expected.

Your conclusion from their unwillingness to help you gave you the worst opinion -- you became convinced that they were partners with the KKK, otherwise, why would they refuse to pursue a lynching party?

The history of lynching in the USA is sordid and depressing, because President Teddy Roosevelt tried to stop it, and he failed. President Calvin Coolidge tried to stop it, and he failed. As late as the 1940's, President FDR tried to stop it, and he had only limited success.

Lynching was one of the main complaints of the NAACP -- it is a human rights violation. Yet the KKK, the WCC and even the John Birch Society in the 1960's all preached that the NAACP was a Communist organization controlled by Moscow. Millions of Americans believed them.

In the 1960's lynching was against Federal Law, but you still needed somebody to complain to the police about it. In States where the Black American population was high, the KKK would be very active. Where the KKK was very active, many people belonged to the KKK and would not testify against their neighbors. Also, where the KKK was very active, those who did not belong to the KKK were generally terrified to testify against them, because so many policemen, lawyers and even judges were also members of the KKK.

It was in the Deep South, for example, Mississippi, that the KKK influence was most strongly seen.

Now, there are two possibilities for the FBI failure in your case, that I can see:

(1) Knowing that the FBI's official position was that the KKK was not a patriotic organization, but a self-serving secret society that practiced atrocities with local protection, an FBI man was never allowed to become a member of the KKK. Some FBI agents might have secretly broken that rule, and were secret members of the KKK, without the knowledge of their fellow FBI agents or J. Edgar Hoover.

(2) Knowing that the FBI could spend years trying to locate reliable witnesses in a lynching case in the Deep South, and still come up short on the court trial date, the FBI had given up trying, and had become cynical and pessimistic about the prospect of prosecuting lynching cases.

Given your personal experience, Terri, it had to appear to you that the entire FBI was really in partnership with the KKK, and were deliberately letting them get away with it.

Given that perception, then, it makes sense that you would lose all faith in the FBI and the US government. So, let me try one more time to see if we can do anything about this. What was the year that you reported the lynching of your friend Junior? Also, because there is no statute of limitations on murder, and because I personally still believe in the basic goodness of most of our police and FBI men and in our American dedication to justice, may I ask you to make out your report to the FBI one more time, please?

I mean, at least you will find out more about the procedure, about why they didn't help you then, or why they won't help you now. There must be some *reason* behind it, other than the worst case -- that the FBI is a partner of the KKK. I would really like to know -- wouldn't you?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

Paul, I appreciate that most Americans would like to believe that the FBI are on "their" side, but I have had more than one encounter with the failures.

If it was so hard to get a witness to come forward, why wouldn't they JUMP at the chance when they had one? They didn't. They actually LAUGHED. I don't care how cynical they had become, you DON'T LAUGH at people who report crime. Not if you really are professional law enforcement, not just an extension of the KKK.

I had tried to report Junior's murder in 1973, in Jackson Mississippi. I called them on more than one occasion and ALWAYS they LAUGHED. I can not understand what makes anyone think they are any good at fighting crime, they ignored warnings about September 11, and LAUGHED at those who tried to tell them.

No, if the FBI want MY respect, they have to give it and they seemingly are INCAPABLE of behaving professionally. They act just like Klansmen. They deserve nothing but my suspicions, which they have WELL earned. I am not sure anyone could change my mind on that. Maybe if the FBI contacted ME and BEGGED me to tell them about Junior and the Covingtons, or Albert Lee Lewis, or even my uncle, then I would try again, but they have done nothing but LAUGH at me. So they deserve NO respect and are corrupted FAILURES in my view. Completely UNprofessional, useless organization. Waste of money and faith.

AND they don't give two hoots about solving the JFK case, or the Zodiac Killer case for that matter, let alone 9/11.

But thanks for trying to raise my faith in them. :-D

[Terri Williams]

Actually, on second thought Paul, I would like to report what I know to the FBI. But I'd like you to suggest how I should go about that, if you don't mind. This will be a good experiment. I'll let you know the results. Which office should I call. Seattle :-D? Or do you know of a respectable office somewhere? Forget Long Beach, California, they laughed too.

And today, I laugh at them :-D :-D They passed up the tip of a lifetime :-D :-D :-D

I suspect they laugh because they are furious that some "nobody" solved the case for them, so they ignored me and LAUGHED, mad as hell.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Michael Hogan]

One of the earmarks of a story or account that has been concocted, invented, imagined, or whatever one wants to call it is a steadily changing narrative.

Often the changes are subtle, necessitated by the audience's observations of inconsistencies, impossibilities and improbabilities that occur while the tale

is being woven and rewoven. A story that evolves, embellished by its originator as time goes by, is highly suspect.

Another telltale sign is a story that lacks detail, where detail would ordinarily be present.

Of course the surest sign of a tall tale is a story that is simply preposterous on the face of it and flies in the face of all that is known and all that is logical.

Some stories have all three properties.

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, on second thought Paul, I would like to report what I know to the FBI. But I'd like you to suggest how I should go about that, if you don't mind. This will be a good experiment. I'll let you know the results. Which office should I call. Seattle :-D? Or do you know of a respectable office somewhere? Forget Long Beach, California, they laughed too.

And today, I laugh at them :-D :-D They passed up the tip of a lifetime :-D :-D :-D

I suspect they laugh because they are furious that some "nobody" solved the case for them, so they ignored me and LAUGHED, mad as hell.

Terri, I'd advise you to call the Washington, DC office of the FBI. I also suggest that you move slow and steady with them, and stick to one crime at a time. I'm very interested in their response. Best of luck with this.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul is giving you extremely risky advice, Terri. Do not communicate directly with any federal agent with regard to your

proofless allegations. Consult an attorney as a most important first step. Ask the attorney to listen to exactly what you intend

to report to any authority before you actually contact and communicate ANYTHING to that authority.

There are forums in which actual lawyers discuss when and how to communicate with law enforcement officials. No lawyer

advises saying anything without first obtaining representation by legal counsel. They advise that you have an attorney make

all statements and responses to authority, on your behalf. On your own you cannot determine what you say that might be used

against you, which potentially can be anything you communicate directly and without the prior advice of legal counsel. In other

words, you do not decide if you will be treated as a suspect, a witness, or a witness who is not believable and thus becomes

a suspect.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Barnes & Thornburg LLP .

[Terri Williams]

Actually, on second thought Paul, I would like to report what I know to the FBI. But I'd like you to suggest how I should go about that, if you don't mind. This will be a good experiment. I'll let you know the results. Which office should I call. Seattle :-D? Or do you know of a respectable office somewhere? Forget Long Beach, California, they laughed too.

And today, I laugh at them :-D :-D They passed up the tip of a lifetime :-D :-D :-D

I suspect they laugh because they are furious that some "nobody" solved the case for them, so they ignored me and LAUGHED, mad as hell.

Terri, I'd advise you to call the Washington, DC office of the FBI. I also suggest that you move slow and steady with them, and stick to one crime at a time. I'm very interested in their response. Best of luck with this.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, I just called them @: (202) 278- 2000. They referred me to the Dallas branch and said that the FBI had closed the case and was happy with the Warren Commission Report. I've truly have done my best all these years, but it is the same brick wall at all FBI offices, which tells me that they have never wanted to know the truth. At least the guy didn't laugh at me, but he hung up on me.

The FBI closed the case on evidence filed by... THE WARREN COMMISSION. :-D

What does that tell you about them?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Terri Williams

[Terri Williams]

Thank you for your advice, Tom Scully. Although you may have guessed that I have already tried to obtain a lawyer, I was not successful in obtaining their help, only ridicule.

It is becoming more than clear, that the only thing I can do is get my book, 'Treading on the Snake', all about that time period in my life, published, one way or another.

Not sure what will happen after that. But it is one of those stories that needs to be told.

Thank you again, Tom Scully

[Michael Hogan]

Paul, your conclusions have been based in large part on the story of Harry Dean and very selected statements from the likes of George de Mohrenschildt, Gerry Hemming, Marina Oswald, Ron Lewis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard etc. Is that what you mean by hard proof?

Where is the hard proof to back your claims about Walker and Banister's roles in framing Oswald?

How many JFK readers, whatever that term means, claim that John McCone ordered President Kennedy's murder? Can you name a few?

Do you consider suspects like Angleton, Dulles, Helms and Phillips to be "some low-level CIA piece-workers?"

Do you think the Ku Klux Klan had "official involvement" in the murder of President Kennedy?

Michael, you ask what I mean by hard proof. It comes from valid material evidence, traditionally defined as empirical evidence and sworn testimony.

Just because you prefer to ignore the sworn testimony of George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald and Loran Hall, does not make their testimony any less valid. It is part of the body of truth upon which honest researchers will build -- unless you happen to have proof that it is incorrect -- which you don't; otherwise you'd produce that proof, which you don't.

The Warren Commission preferred to evade questioning of some witnesses -- many of whom heard one or more shots from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza -- and so just because Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming were not called upon to offer their sworn testimony to the WC, that does not mean that their eye-witness accounts are off the table. When those accounts match the accounts of the sworn testimony we possess, then they can be proposed as confirmative evidence.

So, that answers your question, Michael, regarding what I mean by hard proof.

The question is aptly returned to you, Michael -- what do you mean by hard proof? Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches. Also, the word "theory" does not seem to occur to you as your group plies its hunches.

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

What is the basis of your claim that I prefer to ignore their testimony?

Your implication that you are an honest researcher and I and other members of this Forum are not is offensive. Don't get me wrong, coming from you I don't care.

Just don't complain about not getting the respect you think you deserve.

Paul, your explanation of what you consider to be hard proof is exactly what I expected. It's illustrative of why your posts are getting the responses they deserve.

And finally, your last paragraph is a perfect example (and you've provided many) why it is fruitless to debate you at length. Simply put, you continually put forth statements

that have no basis in fact. Me and my kind? Guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it?

Paul, I've been a member of this Forum for seven years. Show me where I've ever claimed or guessed that CIA did it.

You won't be able to do it.