John Newman's posting on Facebook today

[Douglas Caddy]

John Newman posted the following on Facebook today (Oct. 24, 2020):

 

Just three weeks to go before the 2020 Global JFK Virtual Research Conference convenes. My presentation (on 14 November) will be "The CIA, the Army, and the Pentagon: The Veciana Misdirection 3.0." The attached FBI documents (in my briefing) come from Veciana's best friends and undermine the claims he made to Gaeton Fonzi and in his book "Trained to Kill." I will present conclusive evidence showing how Army Intelligence joined Veciana's 1976 campaign of misdirection and--under oath to the Church Committee's Senator Schweiker--backstopped Veciana's claim that in 1962-1963 he worked for the CIA and not for the Army. Presentations--whether virtual or in the flesh--are just hors d'oeuvres, while legal battles are under way behind the scenes. The entre is coming in Volume IV--Armageddon

[Douglas Caddy]

[Douglas Caddy]

[Douglas Caddy]

[Douglas Caddy]

[W. Tracy Parnell]

"Wild Stallion" (a friend of Veciana's) "suspected" that Veciana was released so he could tell his Bishop story. Zabala said the same thing but admitted it was just speculation. This is proof of nothing. It would be the best thing in the world if this could be proven since Veciana's motive for the Bishop story would be obvious. There are a couple of problems though.

If Veciana was released at the behest of the HSCA (legitimately) wouldn't they want something in return? And I don't just mean his testimony-I am referring to verification of his Maurice Bishop story. And they wouldn't send Fonzi to do that-they would have the FBI or someone do it. And his release would be contingent on him producing verifiable evidence for his claims which he never did.

Because of this pesky fact, I believe Newman is going to follow the path of least resistance and say that one of the evil Pentagon plotters or a CIA man who worked with the plotters (or whoever) ordered a judge (who they happened to have in their pocket) to release Veciana. But there is still a problem.

As I document here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/02/newmans-new-paradigm.html

Veciana sure did a bad job of implicating the CIA right out of the gate. He went out of his way over and over to say that Bishop was not with the CIA but worked for another intelligence agency or a powerful special interest group. That's what you do when you tell a lie-you make it non-specific enough so you don't paint yourself into a corner. Veciana never started the nonsense about himself and Bishop being CIA agents until late in life.

The truth is that Veciana told his story in order to gain a powerful ally (Fonzi) who could place doubt in the minds of everyone about Veciana's drug conviction. Veciana could plausibly say that Castro set him up or that the CIA set him up. And since he was giving Fonzi (and others) what they wanted to hear, they would say "well maybe that is true-he was setup."

Another reason was that he simply liked the notoriety. He enjoyed being in the national spotlight during his years with Alpha 66 and this gave him a chance to return to that, albeit in a different way. Of course, he probably never imagined that he would someday be 86 years old and sitting in a banquet hall full of researchers telling him how great he was and hanging on his every word. And a few years later, he would be peddling a book full of nonsense about his life that he wished were true but really wasn't.

Anyway, Newman needs some real evidence and this isn't it.

[Anthony Thorne]

Newman noted in a discussion under his Facebook posts that a legal battle for additional documents, presumably through FOIA, is underway right now.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Newman noted in a discussion under his Facebook posts that a legal battle for additional documents, presumably through FOIA, is underway right now.

I see "legal battles are underway behind the scenes" but nothing about documents. But let's assume you are right and Newman obtains court documents. What would these documents prove in your opinion?

[Anthony Thorne]

Good questions.

Quote

I see "legal battles are underway behind the scenes" but nothing about documents.

I can't see what else Newman and his researchers would have to pursue legal battles about, other than documentation - trying to get some they've heard about, trying to get material unredacted that has been redacted, asking people to search for further documentation on stuff they've already heard about, or that they suspect things about.

Quote

But let's assume you are right and Newman obtains court documents.

It doesn't have to just be court documents - although they could be. But they could also be HSCA records, CIA documentation, FBI materials, or who knows what. Beats me.

Quote

What would these documents prove in your opinion?

Depends entirely on what's in the documents, what's redacted (or not), and how much is stated directly, or inferred. I've read the first two volumes of Newman's new JFK series and a good chunk of the third. Some things I agreed with, and others have kept me receptive, waiting for more info, but not yet totally decided. So I'll be curious if he can get more documentation that supports his arguments. And I'm undecided about the Veciana claims, as Newman has only really started to touch on that subject, and hasn't unfolded the whole story.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Anthony Thorne

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thank you Anthony.