Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul B,

Whether or not they ever went forward with any plans for a wider range of assassinations, nevertheless they were agreed that the country was literally on the brink of destruction at the hands of communists, Jews, and the civil rights movement.  They really did believe the end of America was on the horizon.  It's a level of desperate near hysteria I don't see in many others of the era.

...

...

Except possibly for the signature of Angleton through his deputy, the letter below may not have much to do with the Radical Right.  Nevertheless, I think it's interesting because of the near certainty that the call came at about 12pm Dallas time.  Apart from this call, there is one other notable lead in the UK (of which I am aware) involving 2 well dressed Americans overheard talking quietly in a pub about the upcoming death of Kennedy.

 

Jason

 

Jason - what's the story of the two well dressed Americans? Also, your point about the virulence of these far right organizations is well taken. However, my specific point was that they never did any of the deeds they were discussing. Are we to presume they settled on killing JFK and left it at that? I have the same basic objection to those that think the anti Castro crowd killed the President. They were completely ineffectual in that regard.

are you familiar with US Army pfc Dinkins? I think his early warning was about a month before the assassination. What's interesting to me about his original claim that he overheard radio traffic while on duty in Metz France discussing plans for an assassination of JFK was that it involved members of the French Secret Army Organization (OAS). Some 5 months later after being hospitalized he told the FBI he gleaned the info from reading a periodical. What was never debunked to my knowledge is that however he got the info, it was in October of 1963. 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

Sure, let's define our terms if we are beginning to form some agreement, however loosely.

1.  What is the difference between Right and Radical Right, in 1963.  That's the question.  Let's not move time forward past the JFK assassination.  It's the period from 1954-1963 that we should be discussing, IMHO.

2.  Generically, Radical Right always speaks of the violent overthrow of the US Government for racist purposes.

3.  I agree with you that those who call for lower taxes, Christian values, a strong military and Freedom for Capitalism might be called Rightist (yet some Liberals are for these, too), but these alone can never make Radical Righists.

4.  There are some other values that I see on the Radical Right: White Supremacy; a Racial War in the USA that results in the suspension of the US Constitution, a State of Emergency, and control of the Government by the Military; and exile from the USA all Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and colored people.

5.  The crux of the Radical Right in the USA in my opinion, is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).  All the other Rightist movements in the USA are related in some hidden, secret, shame-faced way, to the KKK, admit it or not.

5.1.  Although the John Birch Society denounced racism and Anti-Semitism, they continued to turn a blind eye to their exclusively WASP chapters in the American South.

5.2.  The slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren," had one overwhelming meaning coast to coast, namely, "Repeal Brown vs. The Board of Education" of 1954.  This was the main cause of the Radical Right in the USA, from 1954-1963, IMHO.

5.3.  For example, the so-called "Citizens Councils" were originally called "White Citizens Councils".  That would be offensive outside the Deep South, so the name was softened.  The politics did not soften.  The "Citizens Councils" continued to lobby for school segregation to the bitter end.

5.4.  Guy Banister tried to run for office in Louisiana based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.5.  Ex-General Edwin Walker tried to run for office in Texas based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.6.  Impeach Earl Warren was one of their favorite slogans.

6. Guy Banister, Edwin Walker and Joseph Milteer had the same politics -- Segregation.

6.1.  Let us add the segregationist preacher, Reverend Billy James Hargis to that number.  Also, his Rev. Carl McIntire.  Also, David Ferrie.

7.  Goldwater chose to work within the US Constitution and to avoid all talk of a Violent Revolution to overthrow the US Government.  He cannot be counted among the Radical Right.

8.  The mere willingness to leave Jim Crow alone cannot be counted on the Radical Right.  

8.1.  To be counted among the Radical Right, one must insist on a return to the days before the Brown Decision; that is, to strictly segregate the races, and to oppress all colored people, with no mercy or pity.

9.  Curtis LeMay chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Pentagaon.

10. George Wallace chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

11. Richard Nixon chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

12. J. Edgar Hoover chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the FBI and his relentless investigation of the US Radical Right.

13. Allen Dulles chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the CIA and in the Warren Commission. 

14. LBJ chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his refusal to seek a second term.

15. Strom Thurmond chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Senate.

16. The Cabell brothers chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by the elder's leadership in the CIA, and the younger's Mayors seat in Dallas. 

17.  Very wealthy Civilians are unlikely to be Radical Right, because an overthrow of the US Government would also allow an overthrow of Capitalism -- which would be against their self-interest.  (This happened in Nazi Germany).

18.  The Pentagon brass chose to work within the US Constitution, obviously, by their membership in the Pentagaon.   

19.  E Howard Hunt confessed on his death-bed to a "sidelines" role in the JFK asassination plot.  He said that Frank Sturgis (a civilian) had invited him into the plot.

20.  An average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, New Orleans, Selma or Dallas, IMHO, remains a Civilian.  It is therefore 50/50 whether they were capable of joining the Radical Right in their cities. 

20.1.  In the opinion of Professor Walt Brown, the most likely of successful assassins in any city, would be close to the local police, or members of the local police. 

21. In summary, the Radical Right wishes to overthrow the US Government by some means.  Nobody who works in the US Government is a likely candidate.  Nor is anybody (like the super-rich) likely to wish the overthrow of the US Goverment. 

22.  The Radical Right in the USA is always linked -- at some level -- to the KKK.  That's my perception.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Thanks, Paul.

I think there's a tendency to lump regular conservatives with the radical conservatives in some discussions about the assassination.   People like Nixon, the Cabell brothers, and the traditional conservative business interests are often brought up in a CT, and then these types seem to qualify as a rightest conspiracy.   

But this isn't the same type of conservative as the Radical Right of Walker et al.  So there are some imprecise boundaries in the conservative family which might be hindering the way we talk about the conspirators in the assassination.

Maybe what is needed is a name for people like Nixon and LeMay who are anti-communist, foreign policy hawks,  but who are less interested in domestic racial politics?   Frankly, I'm tempted to call the two branches of the Right as something like the southern racial conservatives and the nonsouthern William F Buckley conservatives.  There's always going to be some fuzzy problem here in discussing the Right because guys like Wallace are race minded, but you say they're not assassination and revolution minded.  

The Right and Radical Right is not altogether clear in many cases, and I sense some who want to put Nixon or CIA leadership into a CT consider this also a radical right group of anti-communist hawks.

  

Jason

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Thanks, Paul.

I think there's a tendency to lump regular conservatives with the radical conservatives in some discussions about the assassination.   People like Nixon, the Cabell brothers, and the traditional conservative business interests are often brought up in a CT, and then these types seem to qualify as a rightest conspiracy.   

But this isn't the same type of conservative as the Radical Right of Walker et al.  So there are some imprecise boundaries in the conservative family which might be hindering the way we talk about the conspirators in the assassination.

Maybe what is needed is a name for people like Nixon and LeMay who are anti-communist, foreign policy hawks,  but who are less interested in domestic racial politics?   Frankly, I'm tempted to call the two branches of the Right as something like the southern racial conservatives and the nonsouthern William F Buckley conservatives.  There's always going to be some fuzzy problem here in discussing the Right because guys like Wallace are race minded, but you say they're not assassination and revolution minded.  

The Right and Radical Right is not altogether clear in many cases, and I sense some who want to put Nixon or CIA leadership into a CT consider this also a radical right group of anti-communist hawks.

  

Jason

 

 

Jason - LeMay was Wallace's running mate. 

[Jason Ward]

11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - what's the story of the two well dressed Americans?

are you familiar with US Army pfc Dinkins? I think his early warning was about a month before the assassination. What's interesting to me about his original claim that he overheard radio traffic while on duty in Metz France discussing plans for an assassination of JFK was that it involved members of the French Secret Army Organization (OAS). Some 5 months later after being hospitalized he told the FBI he gleaned the info from reading a periodical. What was never debunked to my knowledge is that however he got the info, it was in October of 1963. 

 

Hi Paul,

In early November 63, two Americans who are apparently noteworthy because they are sober, well dressed, and talking privately in a pub are heard to discuss the upcoming death of JFK.  It was investigated by MI-5 and their verdict was that it was a legitimate report from 1-2 witnesses, meaning they feel certain the conversation took place as described.  But they simply could not get any further with figuring out who the Americans were.  The only big clue was that it was thought they were travelers on an ocean liner, either arriving or leaving.

Yes, I've heard of Dinkins.  I don't put much value in what he says.   

I base both the 2 UK reports of advance assassination knowledge and my opinion of Dinkins on the raw teletype traffic I study.    My best guess about Dinkins is that he didn't like getting drafted into the military, went AWOL, showed up in a couple different places, and then later weaved the assassination into his story.   The raw teletype traffic of Dinkins previous to the assassination mentions nothing of his alleged advance knowledge, it just presents him as a awol soldier running lose in Europe.   His 'advanced knowledge' of the assassination did not emerge until after the assassination.

 

 

Jason

 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Harry J.Dean]

 Having been regrettably involved in those times, I must say it was in the works to slay several people via Minutemen

if they in anyway were targeted as socialist/communist enemies in any political positions. The death of JFK

made it no longer necessary, as the JBS first five year plan 1958-1963  coup plans had seized a well 

influenced, almost passive political opposition.

MM 28515 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Harry J.Dean

[Jason Ward]

10 hours ago, Harry J.Dean said:

 Having been regrettably involved in those times, I must say it was in the works to slay several people via Minutemen

if they in anyway were targeted as socialist/communist enemies in any political positions. The death of JFK

made it no longer necessary, as the JBS first five year plan 1958-1963  coup plans had seized a well 

influenced, almost passive political opposition.

MM 28515 

Harry,

I come across your name regularly in the FBI teletype traffic of the era so I appreciate  having a real witness here.   Who do you think the gunmen were?

 

Jason

[Paul Brancato]

15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Paul,

In early November 63, two Americans who are apparently noteworthy because they are sober, well dressed, and talking privately in a pub are heard to discuss the upcoming death of JFK.  It was investigated by MI-5 and their verdict was that it was a legitimate report from 1-2 witnesses, meaning they feel certain the conversation took place as described.  But they simply could not get any further with figuring out who the Americans were.  The only big clue was that it was thought they were travelers on an ocean liner, either arriving or leaving.

Yes, I've heard of Dinkins.  I don't put much value in what he says.   

I base both the 2 UK reports of advance assassination knowledge and my opinion of Dinkins on the raw teletype traffic I study.    My best guess about Dinkins is that he didn't like getting drafted into the military, went AWOL, showed up in a couple different places, and then later weaved the assassination into his story.   The raw teletype traffic of Dinkins previous to the assassination mentions nothing of his alleged advance knowledge, it just presents him as a awol soldier running lose in Europe.   His 'advanced knowledge' of the assassination did not emerge until after the assassination.

 

 

Jason

 

 

Hi Jason - on Dinkens, what raw teletype traffic are you referring to? FBI? 

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

Sure, let's define our terms if we are beginning to form some agreement, however loosely.

1.  What is the difference between Right and Radical Right, in 1963.  That's the question.  Let's not move time forward past the JFK assassination.  It's the period from 1954-1963 that we should be discussing, IMHO.

2.  Generically, Radical Right always speaks of the violent overthrow of the US Government for racist purposes.

3.  I agree with you that those who call for lower taxes, Christian values, a strong military and Freedom for Capitalism might be called Rightist (yet some Liberals are for these, too), but these alone can never make Radical Righists.

4.  There are some other values that I see on the Radical Right: White Supremacy; a Racial War in the USA that results in the suspension of the US Constitution, a State of Emergency, and control of the Government by the Military; and expulsion from the USA all Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and colored people.  (A smaller number also wants to expel Catholics as well.)

5.  The crux of the Radical Right in the USA in my opinion, is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).  All the other Rightist movements in the USA are related in some hidden, secret, shame-faced way, to the KKK, admit it or not.

5.1.  Although the John Birch Society denounced racism and Anti-Semitism, they continued to turn a blind eye to their exclusively WASP chapters in the American South and West.

5.2.  The slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren," had one overwhelming meaning coast to coast, namely, "Repeal Brown vs. The Board of Education" of 1954.  This was the main cause of the Radical Right in the USA, from 1954-1963, IMHO.

5.3.  For example, the so-called "Citizens Councils" were originally called "White Citizens Councils".  That would be offensive outside the Deep South, so the name was softened.  The politics did not soften.  The "Citizens Councils" continued to lobby for school segregation to the bitter end (as well as keeping coloreds out of their neighborhoods).

5.4.  Guy Banister tried to run for office in Louisiana based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.5.  Ex-General Edwin Walker tried to run for office in Texas based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.6.  "Impeach Earl Warren" was one of their favorite slogans.

6. Guy Banister and Joseph Milteer had the same politics -- Segregation.

6.1.  Let us add the segregationist preacher, Reverend Billy James Hargis to that number.  Also, his mentor, Reverend Carl McIntire.   

7.  Barry Goldwater chose to work within the US Constitution, and he avoided all talk of a violent revolution to overthrow the US Government.  He cannot be counted among the Radical Right.

8.  The mere willingness to leave Jim Crow alone cannot be counted on the Radical Right.  

8.1.  To be counted among the Radical Right, one must insist on a return to the days before the Brown Decision; that is, to strictly segregate the races, and to oppress all colored people, with no mercy or pity.

9.  Curtis LeMay chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Pentagaon.

10. George Wallace chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

11. Richard Nixon chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

12. J. Edgar Hoover chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the FBI and his relentless investigation of the US Radical Right.

13. Allen Dulles chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the CIA and in the Warren Commission. 

14. LBJ chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his refusal to seek a second term.

15. Strom Thurmond chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Senate.

16. The Cabell brothers chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by the elder's leadership in the CIA, and the younger's Mayors seat in Dallas. 

17.  Very wealthy Civilians are unlikely to be Radical Right, because an overthrow of the US Government would also allow an overthrow of Capitalism -- which would be against their self-interest.  (This happened in Nazi Germany).

18.  The Pentagon brass chose to work within the US Constitution, obviously, by their membership in the Pentagaon.   

19.  E Howard Hunt confessed on his death-bed to a "sidelines" role in the JFK asassination plot.  He said that Frank Sturgis (a civilian) had invited him into the plot.

20.  An average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, New Orleans, Selma or Dallas, IMHO, remains a Civilian.  It is therefore 50/50 whether they were capable of joining the Radical Right in their cities. 

20.1.  In the opinion of Professor Walt Brown, the most likely of successful assassins in any city, would be close to the local police, or members of the local police. 

21. In summary, the Radical Right wishes to overthrow the US Government by violent means.  Nobody who works in the US Government is a likely candidate.  Nor is any Capitalist (esp. the super-rich) likely to wish the overthrow of the US Government -- they are far more likely to work for a major voting shift in the direction of a Conservative Party. 

22.  The Radical Right in the USA is always linked -- at some level -- to the KKK.  That's my perception.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul - much to agree with, but definitely don't buy your view that being within or without government is a litmus test for how radical your point of view is. Walker was quite a radical while serving as a General. And among the supporters of radical right organizations were many ex generals and colonels who did not, like Walker, retire without their pensions. I would say that shared point of view is a better litmus test. Many Senators and Congressmen were avid racists and rabid anti communists, and one cannot argue that LeMay or Wallace were less so because they ran in a presidential ticket. Sure, all the rhetoric of radical right organizations supports the idea that they advocated violent revolution. But those are easy words among like company. Since you have done much study of this period of time, can you tell me what the noise level was when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Must have made your conspirators feel like chumps.

i honestly think the lines you draw are artificial constructs. 

[Jason Ward]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

...

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hi Jason - on Dinkens, what raw teletype traffic are you referring to? FBI? 

Paul -

...

i honestly think the lines you draw are artificial constructs. 

Paul,

As for Dinkins - I've seen FBI, State, and CIA cables about Dinkins, IIRC.   I don't see anything there.  He's the lowest possible level of the US military, he has neither position nor accidental access to anything.   He made fraudulent IDs and other paperwork for himself and changed his story.

As for telling Paul T. that he may have some artificial constructs; I will say I see your point and it's important to pinpoint this issue; but I think there is a line that very few are willing to cross.   Crossing the line of murder to kill a political opponent is a line that is and was powerful, despite the apparent willingness of the CT community to deny it even exists. Perhaps most conservatives of the day would not mind Kennedy leaving the White House, but they nevertheless WOULD  mind the president of the United States getting assassinated.

There is an assumption that morals and laws among conservatives and government elites do not exist in 1963 when there is no evidence that this is true before or since.   If someone is shown as a political enemy of JFK the conspiracy community equates that with an unmitigated willingness to murder - it's irrational and without evidentiary support.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - I've read plenty on Dinkin and haven't seen anything indicating he was too low level or manufactured his own fake ID's. Could you direct me to some material that supports your statement?

edit - I just answered one of those questions myself - that when he went AWOL he had fake ID's. The Mary Ferrell site won't let me view other documents on file.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

On 10/1/2017 at 1:51 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Paul - much to agree with, but definitely don't buy your view that being within or without government is a litmus test for how radical your point of view is. Walker was quite a radical while serving as a General..

i honestly think the lines you draw are artificial constructs. 

Paul B.,

General Walker was never a radical while serving as a General.   

It's a common mistake when historians say that Walker was "fired by JFK for circulating JBS material".   US Army records don't support that. 

1.  The Pentagon kicked Walker off of his Germany post because he caused a shore flap with the US Army newspaper, The Overseas Weekly. 

2.   Walker had sued the Overseas Weekly in civil court in Germany, and had won.   The Overseas Weekly got revenge, and smeared Walker good and proper. 

3.  General Walker resigned from the US Army (forfeiting his pension) in protest against the "Communists" in the Pentagon.

4.  This was Walker's second resignation -- the first one was Walker's resignation under Eisenhower, and Eisenhower ripped that one up.

5.  None of that was "radical" behavior.

6.   JFK and the Pentagon offered Walker a similar post in Hawaii if he would stay with the US Army.   Walker refused the offer.

7.  I agree with you that many or most of the Far Right Organizations in the USA had members who were former US Generals, Admirals, Colonels, down to Sergeants.

8.  But even then, very few of those Far Right Organizations were "Radical Right".  That is, they did not advocate violent overthrow of the US Government.  They just offered to lead a steady march to the Right wing.  That's not "radical."

9. While I agree that a "shared viewpoint" is a good litmus test, I would insist that the "shared viewpoint" must include a truly intolerant Racist attitude, and the advocacy of a violent overthrow of the government.

10.  Being a rabid Anticommunist was not "Radical Right" in 1963.  It was Moderate to be Anticommunist.  It was "Far Right" to be a "rabid Anticommunist."  But it was mainly in the South, where the propaganda was that the Brown Decision was Communist, and that public school integration was Communist, that the Racist element and the KKK got into the mix, and made up the "Radical Right."   The KKK is the missing element in your history, in my opinion.

11.  The words about violent overthrow was not "just tough talk" with the truly Radical Right.  They were ready to attack.  They were only looking for an opening.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 10:21 PM, Jason Ward said:

Thanks, Paul.

...There's always going to be some fuzzy problem here in discussing the Right because guys like Wallace are race minded, but you say they're not assassination and revolution minded.  

The Right and Radical Right is not altogether clear in many cases, and I sense some who want to put Nixon or CIA leadership into a CT consider this also a radical right group of anti-communist hawks.

 Jason

Jason,

A historical review of George Wallace will show that he used racist rhetoric in order to get elected in Alabama, where the KKK was still active in grass-roots politics.

He had tried to avoid that rhetoric, but he got thrashed in earlier elections.   When he began using the KKK rhetoric, he got elected.  He made a major mistake in believing that the entire USA was as intolerant as Alabama was in 1963. 

Somebody might argue that General Walker was in the same boat -- but after Ole Miss -- which even Robert Welch and H.L. Hunt disapproved -- General Walker had no more support anywhere in the USA except among the Radical RIght.  He had to preach to them, because they were now his only paying audiences.  

General Walker's profession was public speaker after he left the US Army.   He wanted to become a millionaire by public speaking, the way that Billy James Hargis had done.   H.L. Hunt encouraged General Walker with words and with actual money (i.e. Hunt financed Walker's campaign for Texas governor).

The key to the US "Radical Right" is the intention (by actual purchase of armaments) to overthrow the government.

The most reliable telltale sign would be some connection with the KKK -- shown in the first priority to rollback the Brown Decision of public school integration.   To make this work in 1963, they argued tirelessly that Race Mixing was "Communist."   Here's the Radical Right.  Here's why none of the others you cited were "Radical Right."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul,

As for Dinkins - I've seen FBI, State, and CIA cables about Dinkins, IIRC.   I don't see anything there.  He's the lowest possible level of the US military, he has neither position nor accidental access to anything.   He made fraudulent IDs and other paperwork for himself and changed his story.

As for telling Paul T. that he may have some artificial constructs; I will say I see your point and it's important to pinpoint this issue; but I think there is a line that very few are willing to cross.   Crossing the line of murder to kill a political opponent is a line that is and was powerful, despite the apparent willingness of the CT community to deny it even exists. Perhaps most conservatives of the day would not mind Kennedy leaving the White House, but they nevertheless WOULD  mind the president of the United States getting assassinated.

There is an assumption that morals and laws among conservatives and government elites do not exist in 1963 when there is no evidence that this is true before or since.   If someone is shown as a political enemy of JFK the conspiracy community equates that with an unmitigated willingness to murder - it's irrational and without evidentiary support.

 

regards

 

Jason

Jason - I brought back an old thread on Dinkins and wonder if you would comment on the post I quoted. Thanks

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I think your definition of Radical Right  fits what historians termed Ultra Right. Still I would stick to my main point, which is that the 'Radical Right' as seen in KKK or Congress for Freedom or Whits Citizens Council were singularly ineffectual in bringing about radical change by assassination and yet very successful over time in creating what we are witnessing today, all done by legal if unethical means - gerrymandering, voter suppression being two examples. Their goals weren't t to kill leaders. That may have been their stated methods, but their goals were to strengthen white rule and negate demographic changes. Are not Trump, and the Tea Party movement which led to this anti big government takeover, the result?

Did the 'Radical Right' continue to make noise after JFK the way they did before? Did LBJ face the same hate mongering?

[Jason Ward]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - I've read plenty on Dinkin and haven't seen anything indicating he was too low level or manufactured his own fake ID's. Could you direct me to some material that supports your statement?

edit - I just answered one of those questions myself - that when he went AWOL he had fake ID's. The Mary Ferrell site won't let me view other documents on file.

Hi Paul,

This link summarizes the salient evidence on Dinkins which underlies my opinion of him.   He was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation the day he broke the law and went AWOL.  He manufactures fake IDs.  He has no knowledge of the Kennedy assassination reported before the assassination, only AFTER.   He changes his story when the interviewed.

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11339#relPageId=3&tab=page

 

 

Jason