Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

Recommended Posts

Everyone here knows all about intelligence operations, I know. So please respond, based on your training and experience as a military intelligence officer in a war zone.

Since we taxpayers paid for your training please enlighten us and help us out of the darkness of ignorance and enlighten us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Reitzes' article on Nagell is a hatchet job... 100% opposite of The Man Who Knew Too Much, from what I can tell. In his five page essay Reitzes doesn't even mention the ID card identical to Oswald's. (At least I couldn't find it.)

At first I wondered if what he wrote could possibly be true -- it makes Nagell out so bad. Then I realized, if Nagell were that bad, nobody would have taken him seriously. Nobody. And yet some did and still do.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof he was in the employ of the CIA. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

i'll bow to allen dulles on this matter

Allen Dulles: This is a hard theory to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent? How do you disprove it?

Hale Boggs: You could disprove it, couldn't you?

Allen Dulles: No...I never knew how to disprove it.

Was Dulles's double negative intentional? Isn't what he asked the same as, "How do you prove a fellow was your agent?"

Of course you can prove it. If you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpts from Dave Reitzes' article on Richard Case Nagell.

Reitzes wrote:

[The FBI's] report reads, "When asked for his motive in attempting to hold up the bank. Nagell stated that he was unhappy with the American judicial system, because he had attempted, through judicial procedures, to get to see his two children, a girl 3½ and a boy 2½, in custody of his divorced wife, and the California court had not executed an order in keeping with his request."

The source for this statement is The Man Who Knew Too Much. (Really??)

Regarding the story that Nagell fired into the bank ceiling in order to protect himself, Reitzes wrote:

Nagell adamantly denied such claims. "I was not the least bit [desperate] about anything in September 1963. . . I had no fear of being implicated [in the assassination] at the time of my arrest or prior thereto."

And he wrote:

Nagell "kept emphasizing throughout the various interviews that his whole purpose in entering the bank in El Paso, Texas when he is alleged to have attempted to rob the bank was for the purpose and sole purpose of getting psychiatric treatment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reitzes is nuts.

As DIck Russel notes, Nagell was doubling for the KGB.

Because they got wind that there was a plot to kill JFK. And they thought they would be blamed for it.

Pretty smart eh? Since that was part of the goal.

So they gave him some information to go on and he began investigating.

His leads eventually ran into what would be Garrison's leads--which is probably why Reitzes is so crazy. He is McAdams' hatchet man on Garrison.

That is how he had the tape of SAS and Quiroga talking about Oswald.

Well, he found out the plot was real and he tried to alert Oswald, who did not believe him.

So the KGB wanted him to kill Oswald to abort the plot. He couldn't do it. And he did not want to go back to Mexico.

So instead of crossing the border, he shot up the bank in El Paso.

A generally simple story that is enormously complex in its subsets and overtones.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Reitzes' article on Nagell is a hatchet job... 100% opposite of The Man Who Knew Too Much, from what I can tell. In his five page essay Reitzes doesn't even mention the ID card identical to Oswald's. (At least I couldn't find it.)

At first I wondered if what he wrote could possibly be true -- it makes Nagell out so bad. Then I realized, if Nagell were that bad, nobody would have taken him seriously. Nobody. And yet some did and still do.

Some people still take Jim Garrison seriously too, Sandy. And Garrison was pretty darn bad (as proven by the preposterous Garrison quotes below). What does that tell you about those CTers?

Let the hilarity commence.....

"I can't go into all the details on this, but the murder of Tippit,

which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit, was clearly designed to set

the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the Texas Theater after another

anonymous tip-off." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were

found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject

cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous

cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately

takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been

previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder

site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald."

-- Jim Garrison; 1967

"If there's one thing the Warren Commission and its 26 volumes of

supportive evidence demonstrate conclusively, it's that Lee Harvey

Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy on November 22, 1963." -- Jim

Garrison; 1967

"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the

assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of

history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who

wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the

greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera

interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"

(Part 4; "The Patsy").

"There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the Book Depository.

The only evidence available indicates that he did NOT." -- Jim Garrison; 1/31/68

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I LOVE that LOON Nutter's hate, absolutely HATE, Jim Garrison! Nothing gets them more wound up than Garrison. (with the exception of Mark Lane)

Except for Von Pein, what toots his boat is the location of a head shot, warms his heart to no end. Kinda like Ben Holmes administering a blow torch flame to a feather. Gives old DVP a warm and comfy feeling!

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate Jim Garrison, Healy. I love the guy! He's a great advertisement for the "Lone Assassin" side. Just check out his ludicrous claims in the quotes I cited above, including the evidence-mangling one about the Tippit bullet shells being strewn all over Tenth Street "by the real killers" (plural). LOL.gif

Garrison wanted his gullible "Playboy Magazine" audience to just trust his idiotic claims about the shells and the "real killers" (plural!), without bothering to even mention the fact that multiple witnesses actually saw Oswald (and ONLY Oswald) dumping shells on the ground right after he murdered Officer Tippit.

So, Healy, do you think Mr. Garrison was being totally fair and forthright in this quote below? Or did Big Jim leave out just a tad bit of the facts here? And after looking at this completely distorted version of the story surrounding the Tippit bullet shells, do you think anyone should place ANY faith whatsoever in anything else Jim Garrison said about the JFK and Tippit evidence? If so, why?....

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-980.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James - why would Nagell try to warn Oswald of the plot, and claim Oswald didn't believe him, only later to state that Oswald was part of the plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to review all the Nagell stuff, including DiEugenio's detailed review. But I have to say this story just seems like some complex disinfo to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James - why would Nagell try to warn Oswald of the plot, and claim Oswald didn't believe him, only later to state that Oswald was part of the plot?

John Armstrong might have the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, if you truly want to review Nagell's story you need to do a lot of homework. You can read what Dick Russell and I have presented in our books but beyond that I would encourage you to go to the actual huge collections of Nagell related documents. Many you can find online but if you want a sequential presentation of his documents, statements and contacts (including with various Congressmen) you can find them on my CD document collection available from Lancer. It is a very complex story, with Nagell's remarks depending very much what was going on between him and the government at various points in time. That is definitely not something you will find in the simplistic stories available on the internet. if you dig I promise you will be able to answer your question.

Oh, that would be the Keys to the Conspiracy CD...

Edited by Larry Hancock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James - why would Nagell try to warn Oswald of the plot, and claim Oswald didn't believe him, only later to state that Oswald was part of the plot?

This is anything but disinfo.

Nagell's story simply has too many verifiable parts to it.

Including the fact that Garrison made a huge mistake in sending out a volunteer lawyer to do the first interview with Nagell.

This guy turned out to be a CIA plant in Garrison's office. That is how worried the Agency was about RCN.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this from my review:

When Kennedy was assassinated, the full impact of Nagell's prediction did not hit Bundren. But when Jack Ruby shot Oswald, it did. Bundren exclaimed to himself, "How the hell would he have previous knowledge of it? How would he know what was coming down in Dallas?" (ibid) When Bundren went to the FBI to try and talk about Nagell's stunning prognostication, the agent he knew there told him he was not at liberty to discuss it. Bundren concluded from the experience that "Nagell know a lot more about the assassination then he let on, or that the government let on. Its bothered me ever since." (ibid) Indicating Bundren was right about what the government knew, Russell notes at this point that one of the notebooks seized from Nagell that day was not returned to him for eleven years. The other notebook was not returned at all.

I especially like the last sentence. Because of this:

As Nagell told Russell, the CIA was not the only government agency he tried to notify in advance of the murder. He also was in contact with the FBI. In fact, an FBI agent's phone number was in his notebook. But that wasn't all. He also had written down the names of two Soviet officials, six names under the rubric of CIA, a LA post office box for the FPCC, and an address and phone number for one Sylvia Duran of the Cuban Consulate in Mexico. This last was in Oswald's notebook also. (p. 6) And not revealed until many years later, Nagell had a Minox miniature spy camera in the trunk of his car upon his arrest. The same kind of spy camera that the FBI tried to deny Oswald had for many, many years. (p. 6)

I think it's important to note: If the above was part of the contents of the notebook that the FBI finally returned to Nagell, imagine what was in the notebook they never returned to him.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how about this:

As mentioned above, the FBI interviewed Nagell's sister after the assassination. It is clear from reading this book that Nagell was quite close to her. Right after he was arrested, but before the assassination, he wrote to her that "I have refused to offer an explanation as to certain overt acts ... Someday I shall explain everything in detail to you pertinent to this apparent disgrace." (p. 37) His sister's widower said that Nagell's mission was to eliminate Oswald before the assassination. (p. 39) He also told Russell that the FBI visited them in 1965 to see some of the papers Nagell had sent to them. While they were on vacation, the FBI broke into their home and stole some of the documents. (p. 40)

​Sandy, is this in the Retitzes article?

Or this:

Nagell's career in the armed forces was distinguished. In 1953, during the Korean War, Nagell attended the Monterey School of Languages. In 1954, he suffered through a plane crash. And although many have said that somehow this impacted him psychologically forever, the army cleared him of any kind of personality change afterwards. (p. 46) In fact, less than a month after the crash he was approved for a new intelligence assignment. (ibid) Working for Army Intelligence, Nagell opened the mail of suspected communists with postal inspectors right next to him. They broke into the offices of suspected communist organizations and stole whole file cabinets. (p. 47) It was in the winter of 1955-56 that the CIA first recruited Nagell. (p. 48) And in fact, the names of his two recruiters were found in his notebook. Russell called one of them and he confirmed that he had worked in the LA office of the CIA.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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...