Forgot your password?
Guest Rich Pope, October 7, 2019 in JFK Assassination Debate
More mob did it disinfo? Even Blakey has come somewhat clean. I.E. "if the CIA deceived us...".
Weird story about Carlos Marcello and Nellie Connally at 1:08:00 during this interview of Dr. Robert McClelland:
Micah, I just listened to this part of McClelland's interview.
I had come across this interview years ago.
The part where John Connally supposedly said to his wife at this cocktail party - that she was just talking to Carlos Marcello, the man who nearly had me killed ( on 11,22,1963 ) - is of course JFK truth shaking revealing in it's implication.
However, like so many other incredibly shocking 3rd or even 2nd hand accounts of main character revelations, we can never prove they are true, so ... all we can do is ponder them in our wondering thought minds. It's a frustrating thing.
Did Jack Ruby actually pass a note to Dallas Sheriff Al Maddox stating "that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and his (Ruby's) motive was to silence Oswald." ?
Or how about police dispatcher Billy Grammer's public statement ( viewable on You Tube) that he knew Jack Ruby and was sure it was Ruby that called his number the night of 11,23,1963 to warn of an attempt on Oswald's life the following morning?
And on and on.
If there ever was a writer in this field who was discredited, and who almost no one uses anymore, its John Davis. Bill Davy wrote a really nice critique of him for Probe Magazine.
I did so in my two part essay, The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy. One of the things that bothered me about Davis was the fact that he would always attach long bibliographies to his books, referring to other volumes, files, libraries etc. Yet, his work was not footnoted. So if one wanted to check out information he wrote about, it was hard to find out where it came from. When I found out that not even parts of his bibliography checked out, I came to believe that this was a deliberate move on his part. It was done order for him to hide certain tricks he was pulling.
For instance, one of the things he tried to do in his book The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster, was to implicate the Kennedy brothers in the plots to kill Castro. This was possible for him to do since the book was written before the CIA Inspector General report was released by the ARRB. So what Davis did was he used the testimony of Dick Bissell in front of the Church Committee in order to incriminate JFK in guilty knowledge through a dead man, Allen Dulles. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa pease, p. 351) . But even at that, Davis edited out the dialogue to eliminate the fact that the questioners--Frank Church and Howard Baker--clearly did not believe what Bissell was saying. Davis then did something even worse. He wrote that Kennedy went through with the Bay of Pigs because he figured the CIA would kill Castro by then and it would be an easy victory! (Davis, p. 292)
This is what I mean about the ARRB (which apparently Rich Pope never heard of) dispelling much of this Mob did it mythology. Because now we have literally almost everything there was written about the Bay of Pigs--the Taylor Commission, the Kirkpatrick Report, most of the internal five volume history etc. And guess what? Never were the CIA plots to kill Castro ever mentioned in any way to Kennedy. In fact, its not a part of the written plan for Operation Zapata.
We also have the IG report on the plots to kill Castro. And guess what? The CIA never told the Kennedys about the plots until after they were accidentally discovered by J. Edgar Hoover in 1962. Two years after they started.
But what makes Davis' writing all the worse on this subject is this essential fact: The IG Report insinuates that it was Bissell who was responsible for the plots in the first place. In other words, what Davis quotes in his book was nothing but CYA. Today, many authors, including Larry Hancock, have concluded that Bissell was a habitual xxxx on these matters. All in the aid of covering his own tracks after Kennedy fired him.
For John Davis to use him as a source tells you all you need to know about his work. Why RIch Pope would use a discredited author like Davis, tells you--I don't know what--about him.
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in