Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid this is a problem that we run into with a lot of "sources", it takes a huge amount of work and a very close attention to matching chronology to statements over time. In regard to Caufield's book I think it applies to Sommersett and to Beckham among others. Stu and I worked long and hard evaluating Sommersett's information at various points in time and we discussed that in AGOG, essentially singling out "situational" changes and giving our reasoning for when we thought he was reliable and when he was not. The same challenge holds for Nagell and for Martino for that matter (both of whom provided information for different purposes at different times).

There is third party documentation which clearly shows that Sommersett was providing good information early on, much of that relates to a Miami PD and FBI sting in regard to a rifle that was "tagged" to be provided and traced into a plot to assassinate Dr. King. However as time passed and suspicions grew about Sommersett, it appears that he got fed diversionary information on a broad range of subjects. That's one reason the FBI backed off from him, another was that he had been useful as a potential informant in activities he was personally involved in but later became more a general conduit for rumors and gossip. Miami PD stayed with him longer because he did have some solid contacts there with local radical groups, but in contrast, its pretty clear that Sydney Barnes, who had been close to him before moving out of Miami, really began to play him - and the FBI.

Its important not to underestimate some of the radical right wing players, they were masters at compartmentalizing operations and in attempting to "play" agencies like the FBI. In a number of cases individuals functioned as sources while continuing to perform violent crimes...something the FBI tolerated in order to get inside information. In AGOG we write about one individual who was in routine contact with the FBI at the same time he was conducting bombing and terror attacks, playing both sides of the street. Sort of reminds me of some of the Interpen gang who also routinely attempted to provide info to the FBI and CIA, of course it was info of their choice...often about each other.

Thanks, Larry, for inserting some balance into this debate. Jeff Caufield himself recognizes that Willie Somersett went off the deep end at some times, for example, when he wildly blamed RFK for concealing the facts about the JFK murder.

At one point, Somersett thought he could do this all on his own -- like a Superman. The Warren Commission and the FBI were not connecting the dots correctly, so Somersett came out publicly, against RFK, and even suggested that RFK himself was involved in the plot to kill JFK.

Naturally, this proves that Somersett wasn't perfect, nor did Jeff Caufield ever say that he was. I was surprised when I read this account in Caufield's narrative (which we have not yet seen in our review here).

Caufield is simply trying to make sense of all of the data -- not just the data that the Warren Commission allowed the American Public to see.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let’s conclude our review of chapter 16 of Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, namely, The Assassination of President Kennedy, November 22, 1963.

Caufield repeats the well-worn WC story of the Tippit shooting. Tippit probably heard the DPD dispatch that the JFK suspect was a “white male, about 30, slender, 5’10”, 165 pounds,” and so he stopped LHO who fit the description. They got into a verbal dispute, Tippit exited his car, un-holstered his pistol, and LHO allegedly shot him three times.

Twelve witnesses claimed to have seen this. Six identified LHO as the shooter. Two said maybe LHO was the shooter. Three said they saw two shooters. Mrs. Helen Markham’s description was given to a DPD dispatcher who broadcast at 1:24pm that he was “running west on Jefferson”. DPD cars rushed to the area. On Jefferson street, shoe-store manager Johnny Brewer had seen LHO rush in to his store in a panic as DPD cars raced by. Then LHO ran into the Texas Theater, as Brewer followed him and alerted the police.

LHO was arrested by seven DPD officers, who confiscated LHO’s Smith and Wesson .38 pistol. Although that pistol was later confirmed to be the same pistol seen in LHO’s BYP, ballistics tests failed to show that its bullets had killed Tippit.

Dr. Caufield summarizes the WC testimony from the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Several witnesses saw a man with a rifle on a high floor of the TSBD, none of whom could identify LHO as that man: (1) Amos Euins; (2) Robert Jackson; (3) Arnold Rowland; (4) James Caufield; (5) Howard Brennan; (6) Ronald Fischer with Robert Edwards; (7) Carol Walther; (8) James Wornell; and (9) James Romack. The WC counted 171 people at Dealey Plaza. 70 said they had no clue where the shots came from. 46 said the shots came from the TSBD. 20 said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll. 29 said they came from elsewhere.

The DPD didn't have much to go on – but LHO himself gave them a lot more. What's interesting to Dr. Caufield is that the few records we have about LHO in custody show that LHO kept up his Marxist pretense for the whole time there before the DPD!

Oswald had his Alek J. Hidell ID card with him, providing an immediate clue to the police, linking him both to the rifle as well as to the FPCC in NOLA. LHO demanded to see attorney John Abt of New York City – known for leftist sedition trials. LHO boasted about the FPCC, and about living in the USSR, and insisted that he was a “Marxist, but not a Communist,” increasing intrigue.

On the other hand, LHO denied owning a rifle, and denied visiting Mexico City. He also denied taking any package to work that day (as revealed to the DPD by Wesley Buell Frazier strapped to a lie detector). LHO denied ever living on Neely Street. LHO denied that he had lunch alone that day – he insisted he ate with Junior at the TSBD at the time JFK was shot – which Junior denied.

Later, to the press in the hall LHO exclaimed, “I’m just a Patsy!” and to his brother Robert, LHO said, “don’t believe all this so-called evidence.” DPD Captain Will Fritz testified that LHO 'acted like a person prepared for his actions.’

On Sunday 24 November 1963, Joseph Milteer told Willie Somersett, “LHO hasn’t said anything and he won’t say anything.” Caufield writes:

The evidence suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald expected to get arrested on the day of the assassination, a fact which was not appreciate d by the official investigations, and it was not something new for him. He had also expected to get arrested after the phony April 1963 Walker shooting incident. He was, in fact, arrested after the phony “fight” in New Orleans in August with Carlos Bringuier. Walker and Bringuier, like Oswald, both had ties to Guy Banister, a fanatical anti-Communist. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 493)

LHO had also left his wedding ring behind in a cup, along with $170, nearly his entire savings, for Marina on the morning of 11/22/1963, which is more evidence that LHO expected to get arrested that day.

This is why Jeffrey Caufield is willing to double-down on a shoot-and-miss plot in the JFK murder. By advertising his “package” that morning, by dawdling at the TSBD, and by leaving his personal clip-board by his rifle, LHO seems to Caufield to be crying, “Catch me!” Caufield writes:

The point of marshaling evidence that suggests that Oswald did not do the shooting is not to restore his virtue. If he was anything close to being like those people he associated with, he had no virtue. Moreover, he was capable of murder; he likely murdered J.D. Tippit and tried to murder Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater. The point is to make sense of a complete set of evidence that suggests that Oswald was connected with the conspirators, but not directly and knowingly with the conspiracy to kill the President. The ingenious plotters got Oswald to plant self-incriminating evidence that he thought was for another purpose – a shoot-and-miss gambit – so the far right could lay the murder on the far left. (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 493)

In Caufield’s opinion, LHO was clearly connected to the JFK Kill Team, but in a naïve manner. Caufield finds this to be the most consistent explanation for the appearance that LHO planted his own evidence. Caufield admits he has no proof of this, but the shoot-and-miss scheme in the JFK assassination best fits the known evidence that he observes.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

UPDATE REGARDING MY CRITIQUE OF DR. CAUFIELD'S BOOK

1. My critique of Dr. Caufield's book will be divided into 2 sections:

SECTION 1 =

This section will identify factual errors in the book. In addition, (in some instances) I will provide additional information to supplement what Caufield has presented -- mostly from FBI files I have obtained

SECTION 2 =

This section will discuss what I consider to be problems with Dr. Caufield's methodology

2. WHAT MY CRITIQUE IS NOT

As I have stated on several occasions on this website, in different threads, I have no particular expertise with respect to any of the 13 or more JFK-conspiracy theories. In fact, they don't even interest me all that much because there is no conceivable way to falsify any of them to the satisfaction of their adherents and it would be a fool's errand to attempt to do so.

My critique is focused upon the much broader subject matter being discussed by Dr. Caufield because virtually every person, organization, and publication discussed by Dr. Caufield is one which I have spent my adult lifetime researching.

As I have stated several times, no serious person can just dismiss what Caufield has put together. It is a quite remarkable compendium of data regarding the history of the extreme right in the U.S. -- particularly during the 1960's. For that alone -- Dr. Caufield's effort should be praised and respected. [i should mention, however, that some well-known researchers have told me in private emails that they don't think Dr. Caufield's presentation is very compelling.]

3. CRITIQUE TIMELINE

As I may have mentioned before, NARA will process the FBI-Dallas field file on Edwin Walker for me (Dallas 157-218). According to NARA, (even though this is hard to believe) the Dallas field file (about 515 pages) has never been previously processed by the FBI for any requester which is why NARA employees must review every page.

Yesterday, NARA informed me that they are not likely to begin processing my FOIA request until sometime this summer (perhaps June or July) -- so I am going to wait for that Walker file to be released to me before I complete my critique.

This may be a blessing in disguise because about 6 months after I sent my request to NARA in November 2014, I completed a major revision of my list of deceased persons connected to Walker and I sent that revised expanded list to NARA. That new list includes everybody mentioned by Dr. Caufield who is deceased -- so when the Dallas file is released, it should have very few redactions of personal names.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE REGARDING MY CRITIQUE OF DR. CAUFIELD'S BOOK

...As I have stated several times, no serious person can just dismiss what Caufield has put together. It is a quite remarkable compendium of data regarding the history of the extreme right in the U.S. -- particularly during the 1960's. For that alone -- Dr. Caufield's effort should be praised and respected.

[i should mention, however, that some well-known researchers have told me in private emails that they don't think Dr. Caufield's presentation is very compelling.]...

I look forward to your upcoming critique, Ernie.

As for Caufield's current critics, I would ask them to do better if they can. The CIA-did-it theories are old, tired and useless.

Caufield is currently the first and only writer to present this new CT (to the best of my knowledge) and his theory has real energy. I expect to see more works building on this vital, new CT in the years to come.

I also expect the CIA-did-it, LBJ-did-it, Hoover-did-it and Mafia-did-it CT's fade away over time, because of their mere guesswork.

Dr. Jeff Caufield builds upon hard facts -- and of course nothing is perfect the first time out of the gate. But this is a fine start; and I foresee it growing like Jack's beanstalk.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

:hotorwot

:plane

:afro

You mean like Oswald was begin groomed by Leander Perez to infiltrate integrationist groups in 1957? Hard fact?

Yep Paul, right you are, its hard fact there were a lot of African Americans, and NAACP members in Lousiana back then speaking Russian.

And there are plenty of other howlers in the volume also. About every other page I am writing, "WTF?" in my notes.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

...You mean like Oswald was begin groomed by Leander Perez to infiltrate integrationist groups in 1957? Hard fact?

Yep Paul, right you are, its hard fact there were a lot of African Americans, and NAACP members in Lousiana back then speaking Russian.

And there are plenty of other howlers in the volume also. About every other page I am writing, "WTF?" in my notes.

Um, James, don't look now, but the second edition of your book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) used as its main source of data against Ruth and Michael Paine the pitiful research of Carol Hewett in her 1990's Probe magazine speculations -- riddled with errors.

I haven't finished criticizing your book, yet, in my thread, "Ruth Paine," but trust me, I'm building up to it.

You rely on weak sources, James, so, your opinion doesn't really bother me. Jeffrey Caufield's work has hundreds of strong citations. Yours doesn't.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

...You mean like Oswald was begin groomed by Leander Perez to infiltrate integrationist groups in 1957? Hard fact?

Yep Paul, right you are, its hard fact there were a lot of African Americans, and NAACP members in Lousiana back then speaking Russian.

And there are plenty of other howlers in the volume also. About every other page I am writing, "WTF?" in my notes.

Um, James, don't look now, but the second edition of your book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) used as its main source of data against Ruth and Michael Paine the pitiful research of Carol Hewett in her 1990's Probe magazine speculations -- riddled with errors.

I haven't finished criticizing your book, yet, in my thread, "Ruth Paine," but trust me, I'm building up to it.

You rely on weak sources, James, so, your opinion doesn't really bother me. Jeffrey Caufield's work has hundreds of strong citations. Yours doesn't.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of course, ultimately, that depends upon what you think constitutes "strong citations". I've already addressed some of the problems which any serious student or researcher would encounter. I will be adding more examples when I post my critique.

Ideally, what should happen is

(1) A team of historians should produce a formal review of Dr. Caufield's book and have it published in some academic/scholarly journal and

(2) Historians and other researchers need to spend considerable time going through archives and personal papers collections at various institutions which have not heretofore received very much serious attention---aside from University of Oregon at Eugene which is a major repository of papers of key conservative movement figures.

Tom Anderson's personal papers collection at Oregon is in 171 boxes and has about 20,000 letters and there are papers of many other conservative figures at Oregon including T. Coleman Andrews, Willis Emerson Stone, Pedro A. del Valle, Merwin K. Hart, A. G. Heinsohn, Wally Butterworth, Granville Knight, Robert LeFevre, George Washington Robnett -- along with individual JBS members.

Other major archives are at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, University of Kansas, Brown University, Columbia University, Duke University, Library of Congress, University of Michigan, Wisconsin Historical Society, Chicago History Museum and many other locations.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, James, don't look now, but the second edition of your book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) used as its main source of data against Ruth and Michael Paine the pitiful research of Carol Hewett in her 1990's Probe magazine speculations -- riddled with errors.

I haven't finished criticizing your book, yet, in my thread, "Ruth Paine," but trust me, I'm building up to it.

You rely on weak sources, James, so, your opinion doesn't really bother me. Jeffrey Caufield's work has hundreds of strong citations. Yours doesn't.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of course, ultimately, that depends upon what you think constitutes "strong citations". I've already addressed some of the problems which any serious student or researcher would encounter. I will be adding more examples when I post my critique...

Right, Ernie, you have scholarly citations in mind -- and I respect that. The remark from James DiEugenio was out of line, IMHO, because he cites an attorney named Carol Hewett from Probe magazine, who made many blunders, for example the following:

(1) Carol cited a pleasant October 1963 letter from Ruth Paine to her mother, telling her mother that LHO had turned over a new leaf, and was helping out around the house, doing chores and entertaining her children nicely.

(2) Carol then complained that Ruth Paine neglected to tell her mother that LHO on Veterans Day weekend had enraged Ruth Paine by writing the "Embassy Letter" to the USSR Embassy, and harshly criticized the FBI. Ruth was furious about this letter, as she testified. But Carol says Ruth Paine was lying about the "Embassy Letter", about being furious about it, because she failed to tell her mother about it.

(3) Carol Hewett completely missed the fact that Veterans Day is in November, and the "Embassy Letter" was written in November, while the letter to Ruth Paine's mother was in October!

(The exact dates and page numbers for all this material are in my thread entitled, "Ruth Paine.")

THAT'S the level of scholarship that James DiEugenio uses freely in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012). So I was pointing out that James showed some nerve in criticizing the citations of anybody.

There are citations and there are citations. Some are great, some are OK, and some are just pathetic -- like Carol Hewett's stuff.

I haven't seen that shoddy level of work anywhere in Jeff Caufield's New Book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Paul, I will be going through this whole thing you have for Carol in detail and I will show just how bad your representation of her work is.

You should shave never gone down that path.

And when I review Caufield it will show what a very bad critic you are.

And I mean bad.

See Ernie is not a JFK guy. And Ernie did not have just about all of Garrison's files. And BTW, neither did Caufield. Which is another strike against him.

God, what Caufield does with Braden is simply nuts. I mean I almost dropped the book in my scrambled eggs.

But go ahead and enjoy yourself for now PT. It won't last long.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Paul, I will be going through this whole thing you have for Carol in detail and I will show just how bad your representation of her work is.

You should shave never gone down that path.

And when I review Caufield it will show what a very bad critic you are.

And I mean bad...

But go ahead and enjoy yourself for now PT. It won't last long.

I see now where Greg Parker gets his ploy of exclaiming -- "I'm really going to show you later!"

My criticism of Carol Hewett is unprecedented in JFK literature -- she has been treated like a sacred cow for two decades, yet her work was so full of holes that it never really held water. This clearly shows the folly of Probe magazine's CIA-did-it theory.

Very sloppy work.

The same goes for her flunkies, Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, whose writings are far inferior to hers. Carol is the leader -- but she simply isn't careful, as her foiled criticism of the Embassy Letter shows.

Yet you admit that in the second edition of your book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), the section on Ruth Paine, is based on Carol Hewett's work. As you wrote in Probe magazine:

"As our readers know, Steve Jones along with Barbara LaMonica and Carol Hewett have written the definitive series on Ruth and Michael Paine." (James DiEugenio, Probe, Vol. 7. No. 3, April, 2000)

To clarify this controversy, Jeff Caufield's new book claims that Ruth Paine cared for Marina Oswald out of a spirit of Quaker charity, while James DiEugenio, Carol Hewett, Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica scoff at that notion, and insist that Ruth Paine was a secret agent -- manipulating the Oswalds for the JFK plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, Paul, my review of Caufield is coming up soon.

I am a bit over half his book right now.

See, but unlike you I don't just recycle what he says.

I actually take notes and cross check. Since much of what he says is simply not tenable. And since his book is a completely unwarranted and bloated 800 pages of text, that will take awhile.

I say bloated because what he has to say about the JFK case could have been written up in less than half of that page count.

But, believe me, it will be here soon.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, Paul, my review of Caufield is coming up soon.

I am a bit over half his book right now.

See, but unlike you I don't just recycle what he says.

I actually take notes and cross check. Since much of what he says is simply not tenable. And since his book is a completely unwarranted and bloated 800 pages of text, that will take awhile.

I say bloated because what he has to say about the JFK case could have been written up in less than half of that page count.

But, believe me, it will be here soon.

And speaking of coming attractions, James, I'm now preparing an objective reading of your new book, Reclaiming Parkland. If it's as weak as Carol Hewett's work, I'll have a field day.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

BULLETIN!

A friend of mine submitted an FOIA request to NARA which asked for a printout of their database of all JFK-related records remaining to be released in October 2017.

That information was released to him about 10 days ago. The list is 146 pages and consists of 3603 records. The list is much more detailed than the ARRB list which was published in the Federal Register in 1996 and there are significant differences in what is shown.

Some of the records are "tax information" documents, many are CIA or Secret Service documents, and many pertain to the file which the FBI created on the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

However, I made a quick check of the Mary Ferrell website and discovered that many of the HSCA-related documents that were withheld state that there is no JFK-related information in the withheld documents. I assume that means that withheld HSCA documents pertain to administrative matters and/or contacts or disputes between the FBI and the HSCA over what should or should not be released etc.

Interestingly, a large percentage of the withheld FBI documents are marked "unclassified" and "referred to" other agencies for review including INS, or Army, or Department of Justice.

I will spend some time today trying to identify the FBI file numbers shown -- and I will then post another message to share what I discover.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK -- I have had an opportunity to check a random selection of FBI files listed on the NARA database printout.

Many of the subject names mean absolutely nothing to me -- but perhaps you guys will see some relevance to some of the names appearing below?

In addition, I have an inquiry pending with the Supervisor in Charge of NARA's JFK Processing Project. [i will let you know if he gives me any new info.]

(1) Among the most prolific references on the NARA list are serials from FBI HQ file 62-116395

-- which is the Administrative File for the Church Committee aka Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities. As you probably know, the Church Committee published 14 reports in 1974-1975 on various aspects of U.S. intelligence activities including: FBI, CIA, and NSA.

(2) Other files listed as containing documents which will not be released until 2017 are:

HQ 87-85407 which is on Edwward Browder Jr. This has something to do with a car rental and Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property

HQ 62-117290 which is the "HSCA Liaison File"

HQ 100-32965 which is on George DeMohrenschildt

HQ 105-98177 which is on Louis Henry James

HQ 92-2713 which is on Carlos Marcello

HQ 92-4225 which is on Joseph Civello

HQ 105-74151 which is on Alberto Blanco / Cuban activities

HQ 105-82793 which is on Juan Almeida Bosque (Cuban Army Chief of Staff)

HQ 87-20826 which is on William J. Waldman, VP of Klein Sporting Goods in Chicago re: rifle sale to "A.J. Hidell"

HQ 105-1095 which is on Pro-Castro and Anti-Castro Activities (includes discussion of Carlos Bringuier and Edward Butler)

HQ 65-31442 which is on Alexander Rorke and Jean L. Musa (related to espionage activities)

HQ 166-4028 -- unknown subject but the "166" classification pertains to Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering

SPECIAL NOTE TO PAUL TREJO:

(3) There are NO references in the NARA database to documents being withheld until 2017 with respect to any of the following subjects:

1. A. Roswell Thompson

2. American Volunteer Group

3. Billy James Hargis

4. Charles A. Willoughby

5. Congress of Freedom

6. Constitution Party

7. Council For Statehood

8. Dan Smoot

9. Edgar Eugene Bradley

10. Edwin A. Walker

11. Ezra Taft Benson

12. Frank A. Capell

13. Guy Banister

14. Guy Galbadon

15. H.L. Hunt

16. Harry Dean

17. Herbert (Wally) Butterworth

18. J. Evetts Haley

19. John Birch Society

20. John G. Crommelin

21. John Rarick

22. John Rousselot

23. Joseph Milteer

24. Kenneth Goff

25. Kent Courtney

26. Leander Perez

27. Minutemen

28. Ned Touchstone

29. Nelson Bunker Hunt

30. Pedro A. del Valle

31. Ray Leahart

32. Revilo P. Oliver

33. Robert J. Morris

34. Robert Surrey

35. Robert Welch

36. Roy Elonza Davis Sr.

37. Theodore Jackman

38. Thomas J. Anderson

39. William Potter Gale

40. Willie Somersett

Edited by Ernie Lazar
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...