THE INHERITANCE: fantastic book on the JFK assassination

[Paul Brancato]

46 minutes ago, Don Jeffries said:

I have finished reading The Inheritance, and will be interviewing Christopher Fulton on my weekly "I Protest" radio show this Friday. 

I've been researching this case since working as a teenager with Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I've read more books than I could ever remember on the subject. This book is special, and important. 

Fulton established that RFK, working with JFK's secretary Evelyn Lincoln, deliberately withheld what evidence he could from the government. This was done because RFK understandably didn't trust these agencies, and was biding his time until he could regain the White House and launch a real investigation. Fulton's work also verifies what I discovered in researching the death of JFK, Jr. He was indeed keenly interested in his father's assassination, and was about to enter politics. 

Fulton, unlike those of us who dabble in the minutiae of the assassination, paid a heavy price for possessing material the government wanted to remove from the public. He spent eight years in jail. During that time, his wife and lawyer died in suspicious car crashes, his mother died prematurely, and the guy who was bequeathed the watch and other material from Evelyn Lincoln, died very suddenly as well. This is a great read, and essential to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the subject. 

As you may have seen I read the book. I asked the question, so far unanswered, what RFK Jr. had to say about it. Would you agree it’s an important question in this case?

[Don Jeffries]

To my knowledge, RFK, Jr.  hasn't commented on the book. Even though he has opened up with his own doubts considerably, he seems to confine his interactions to the more mainstream researchers (David Talbot, Jefferson Morley, etc.) 

The book establishes definitively that RFK was working on the case behind the scenes (which Talbot wrote about in Brothers), and JFK, Jr. had an absolute quest to expose the true murderers of his father (something I detailed in Hidden History). It also corroborates what David Lifton told me years ago- that Ronald Reagan had an intense interest in the case.  

[Vince Palamara]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 1:42 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Vince - how much credence do you give the recounting of the Secret Sevice agents in the book?

Hi, Paul---sorry for the delay in getting back to you (I log in sporadically here).

To be honest, I am (now) on the fence. I also spoke to Robert Bouck (9/27/92). He believed there was a conspiracy BUT (a big but) he believed Oswald was the only shooter, a much more "conservative" view than one espoused in The Inheritance. Also, Forrest Sorrels died in 1993. I was unaware that his widow was still living then. When I briefly spoke to Sorrels in 1992 and his daughter was serving as his home nurse. On the other hand, Secret Service agent Roger Warner's conversation is more or less documented by the correspondence in the back of the book.

I still stand behind my overall praise of the book (even Rich Pope admitted it is a "fun read"), but I would like to see transcripts, audio tape, or some kind of evidence to back up the conversations myself.

[Vince Palamara]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:40 PM, Rich Pope said:

Vince,

It's historical fiction.  It's not serious research.  A lot of what is in the book we already knew.  It was fun to read but we are no closer to solving the assassination than we were before the book was written.

Fair enough. See my response to Paul.

[Phil Nelson]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:40 PM, Vince Palamara said:

I would like to see transcripts, audio tape, or some kind of evidence to back up the conversations myself.

I agree, that would have been very nice to see.  I asked Christopher about that and he explained that certain documents, such as Bouck's affidavit which he gave to Fulton after their Arlington conversation, not-so-mysteriously disappeared after his arrest on August 9, 1998 (Had be gone to the trouble of taping his conversation with Bouck as they walked around Arlington Cemetery under their umbrellas, those tapes would have also disappeared on that day of course).

His description of that scene was very similar to the video a week or two ago of how 29 SWAT team officers (plus 20+ SUVs, helicopter and two boats) stormed Roger Stone's house, caught on tape by the fortunate crew of CNN, thanks to a "tip" to them, and them alone, allegedly because they wanted to make sure that he didn't try to destroy any evidence (the premise being that, after having badgered him for two years during which, if he had anything incriminating, he had not taken the opportunity to trash it?). 

Both were scenes reminiscent of the storm troopers of the Gestapo, but putting that aside, in Fulton's case it was done for the purpose of ransacking his house looking for whatever property they could find, which they did.  So, the fact that that piece was made to "disappear" can now be (and is) thrown at him as "evidence" disproving his story!   As many of us suspected --- upon seeing the multiple references to LBJ's work "behind the scenes" and RFK's determination to secure the real evidence  away from the FBI, CIA, SS, et. al., so that he could use it to go after the real plotters (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, and on down the org. chart) when he became president -- the "CIA did it alone crowd" would come out of the woodwork to disparage Fulton's excellent non-fiction book full of truths that just can't stand, at least in their conflicted minds.  

[Douglas Caddy]

3 hours ago, Phil Nelson said:

I agree, that would have been very nice to see.  I asked Christopher about that and he explained that certain documents, such as Bouck's affidavit which he gave to Fulton after their Arlington conversation, not-so-mysteriously disappeared after his arrest on August 9, 1998 (Had be gone to the trouble of taping his conversation with Bouck as they walked around Arlington Cemetery under their umbrellas, those tapes would have also disappeared on that day of course).

His description of that scene was very similar to the video a week or two ago of how 29 SWAT team officers (plus 20+ SUVs, helicopter and two boats) stormed Roger Stone's house, caught on tape by the fortunate crew of CNN, thanks to a "tip" to them, and them alone, allegedly because they wanted to make sure that he didn't try to destroy any evidence (the premise being that, after having badgered him for two years during which, if he had anything incriminating, he had not taken the opportunity to trash it?). 

Both were scenes reminiscent of the storm troopers of the Gestapo, but putting that aside, in Fulton's case it was done for the purpose of ransacking his house looking for whatever property they could find, which they did.  So, the fact that that piece was made to "disappear" can now be (and is) thrown at him as "evidence" disproving his story!   As many of us suspected --- upon seeing the multiple references to LBJ's work "behind the scenes" and RFK's determination to secure the real evidence  away from the FBI, CIA, SS, et. al., so that he could use it to go after the real plotters (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, and on down the org. chart) when he became president -- the "CIA did it alone crowd" would come out of the woodwork to disparage Fulton's excellent non-fiction book full of truths that just can't stand, at least in their conflicted minds.  

You can watch the video of Stone's arrest here that was recorded on his home private surveillance system. It was in no way Gestapo. It has since been revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show that Stone's indictment  is linked directly to a prior Mueller indictment of Russian GRU agents involved in influencing the 2016 election in favor of Trump.

https://cbs12.com/news/local/exclusive-surveillance-video-from-inside-the-roger-stone-raid

 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Edited February 9, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Robert Harper]

On 1/27/2019 at 5:51 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Having now read the book in its entirety I'd like to give my impression. First I recommend that everyone read it. 

On the basis of Paul's response, I secured a copy.

Twenty pages into the book, I started aching for an editor. With cuts to and fro from this year to that year, it was hard to follow who had what, when. Well into the book, I still couldn’t be sure who was “talking” : Robert or Christopher. I think too much attention was spent on “visualizing” the narrative - the way a filmmaker would — and that the book would have gained by having a chronological, narrative. Because it is a “memoir” and not a work of history or non-fiction, there is wide latitude. Of course, that means that you might have to spray sentimental repellent around passages involving the author’s detailed first love encounter and subsequent proposal, his feeding an abandoned dog or visiting a museum in Washington DC or a church in Moscow.

It isn’t until page 73 that you find out that one guy sold it(Cartier watch) to the other guy. I mean all that flip flopping in time and details of events and it took that long to piece together who was talking about what. A third of the way through, there is a chapter with quotes of what someone else had said about the author, but he wasn’t there to hear it. It’s this sorta thing throughout the book.

At the same time, a memoir is expected to combine ambiguous recollection with accurately recorded details. The goal is usually about the search for truth (St Augustine, Whittaker Chambers, Thomas Merton) not disinformation or branding (like Mimi Alford, Gerald Blaine or OJ Simpson). One senses and feels throughout The Inheritance’s jagged presentation, the integrity of the search even if goals or particularities are cloudy.  The author doesn’t write well enough to have the memoir embraced for its skillful evocations of his life; rather it is a memoir engaged in another’s life that gives the book its propulsion.

Sometimes it read to me like part imaginings, part correct information, part justified speculation (Manchester dispute) part ‘stuff I never heard about or can’t recall having heard’ (control of the dress, radiation testing, another St. Christopher medal). In that sense it freely presents itself as the hodgepodge it has to be, 55 years after the event. My mind wandered freely when reading JFK books like Oswald Talked, Oswald’s Tale, Double Cross, Contract on America, and many others. I’d take the info in, wonder about it, move on, see if it recurs elsewhere, return to it or not. I wish a good crime reporter could have presented this story rather than a participant. The old Dragnet way: just give ‘em the facts. The letters of Evelyn Lincoln, the process with the individual wills, the reaction of the Kennedy family, are all interesting in themselves. As awful as LBJ splatting himself on the bed on AF 1, there is the crude removal of Ms. Lincoln’s White House belongings. Surely, she knew that LBJ would be replaced, surely, she knew of the Investigations into Baker and Johnson and we already knew that she suspected LBJ.

Pages on the NY auction are written with cliché upon cliché and characters are “quoted” in a manner of a comic book. Such is in keeping with the “post-modern filmic effect” of this “memoir” There is a scene with JFK Jr and the author that yearns to be a version from Vidal’s Burr, but without brevity or wit it comes across more as a dream in which the characters always speak in complete sentences with historical accuracy. The manner grates, but the information pulls. I’m stopping midway to write this up and take a break from his style.

The death of JFK has been transformed into a myth and myths have tentacles  placed diversely  and set deeply into the unconscious. Perhaps they are only truly explainable by works of art. So much information and elaborations and interpretations exist in myth that they are able to equally shoulder conflicting scholarly appraisals. A good example would be fairly recent studies of Julius Caesar in books by Garry Wills and by Michael Parenti. In one he is the epitome of the status quo and conservative in outlook; in the other, he is a progressive leader aligned with the working class. Plutarch first captured facts on paper that centuries later Shakespeare would bring to life. The recent biography of John Wilkes Booth – American Caesar – draws more on the stage understanding of Brutus than Plutarch’s version. Hopefully works like Stone’s film, DeLillo’s novel and Reddin’s play will continue to inspire other artists to confront the JFK killing and produce a truth. 

[Denny Zartman]

Excellent post, Robert. I'm giving it a lot of thought. Thanks.

[David Andrews]

 

[Paul Brancato]

11 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

On the basis of Paul's response, I secured a copy.

Twenty pages into the book, I started aching for an editor. With cuts to and fro from this year to that year, it was hard to follow who had what, when. Well into the book, I still couldn’t be sure who was “talking” : Robert or Christopher. I think too much attention was spent on “visualizing” the narrative - the way a filmmaker would — and that the book would have gained by having a chronological, narrative. Because it is a “memoir” and not a work of history or non-fiction, there is wide latitude. Of course, that means that you might have to spray sentimental repellent around passages involving the author’s detailed first love encounter and subsequent proposal, his feeding an abandoned dog or visiting a museum in Washington DC or a church in Moscow.

It isn’t until page 73 that you find out that one guy sold it(Cartier watch) to the other guy. I mean all that flip flopping in time and details of events and it took that long to piece together who was talking about what. A third of the way through, there is a chapter with quotes of what someone else had said about the author, but he wasn’t there to hear it. It’s this sorta thing throughout the book.

At the same time, a memoir is expected to combine ambiguous recollection with accurately recorded details. The goal is usually about the search for truth (St Augustine, Whittaker Chambers, Thomas Merton) not disinformation or branding (like Mimi Alford, Gerald Blaine or OJ Simpson). One senses and feels throughout The Inheritance’s jagged presentation, the integrity of the search even if goals or particularities are cloudy.  The author doesn’t write well enough to have the memoir embraced for its skillful evocations of his life; rather it is a memoir engaged in another’s life that gives the book its propulsion.

Sometimes it read to me like part imaginings, part correct information, part justified speculation (Manchester dispute) part ‘stuff I never heard about or can’t recall having heard’ (control of the dress, radiation testing, another St. Christopher medal). In that sense it freely presents itself as the hodgepodge it has to be, 55 years after the event. My mind wandered freely when reading JFK books like Oswald Talked, Oswald’s Tale, Double Cross, Contract on America, and many others. I’d take the info in, wonder about it, move on, see if it recurs elsewhere, return to it or not. I wish a good crime reporter could have presented this story rather than a participant. The old Dragnet way: just give ‘em the facts. The letters of Evelyn Lincoln, the process with the individual wills, the reaction of the Kennedy family, are all interesting in themselves. As awful as LBJ splatting himself on the bed on AF 1, there is the crude removal of Ms. Lincoln’s White House belongings. Surely, she knew that LBJ would be replaced, surely, she knew of the Investigations into Baker and Johnson and we already knew that she suspected LBJ.

Pages on the NY auction are written with cliché upon cliché and characters are “quoted” in a manner of a comic book. Such is in keeping with the “post-modern filmic effect” of this “memoir” There is a scene with JFK Jr and the author that yearns to be a version from Vidal’s Burr, but without brevity or wit it comes across more as a dream in which the characters always speak in complete sentences with historical accuracy. The manner grates, but the information pulls. I’m stopping midway to write this up and take a break from his style.

The death of JFK has been transformed into a myth and myths have tentacles  placed diversely  and set deeply into the unconscious. Perhaps they are only truly explainable by works of art. So much information and elaborations and interpretations exist in myth that they are able to equally shoulder conflicting scholarly appraisals. A good example would be fairly recent studies of Julius Caesar in books by Garry Wills and by Michael Parenti. In one he is the epitome of the status quo and conservative in outlook; in the other, he is a progressive leader aligned with the working class. Plutarch first captured facts on paper that centuries later Shakespeare would bring to life. The recent biography of John Wilkes Booth – American Caesar – draws more on the stage understanding of Brutus than Plutarch’s version. Hopefully works like Stone’s film, DeLillo’s novel and Reddin’s play will continue to inspire other artists to confront the JFK killing and produce a truth. 

Well reasoned. I also expressed my doubts having to do with SS agent Bouck, and with wondering what RFK Jr thought of the book. I’ve strongly recommended other books such as the Skorzeny Papers and Metta’s book on CMC. Have you read those? Plenty to criticize in them, but still extremely interesting, especially the former. 

I disagree that the book was hard to follow. I’m not a literary critic and was not judging it as a work of fiction or mythology. I read it as possible history, and despite my doubts I’m not convinced it’s fiction. I recommended the Inheritance hoping for some discussion. Vince Palomara did finally answer my question about Agent Bouck, and he has backed off a bit from his initial recommendation, which is what got me to read it.

Btw Robert, you never responded to a personal message I sent you a year or two ago. Did you receive it? 

[John Kozlowski]

Was going through book reviews on Amazon and came across this book. Here's a quick review. It seems there are quite a few books published by Trine that have this in common. Maybe they need a new editor.

[David Andrews]

If some conspiracy publishers employed in-house editors, inconvenient problems of logic might appear too frequently.

[John Kozlowski]

15 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

If some conspiracy publishers employed in-house editors, inconvenient problems of logic might appear too frequently.

I thought this was considered fantasy