Richard E. Sprague

[John Dolva]

John, I'm just offering this observation as a question, not to digress or anything. I've been reading this topic over time and don't have much to offer. One thing that on a couple of occasions has jumped out at me now is the reference to Fiji. I find it puzzling at first why anyone seeking refuge would contemplate Fiji? As someone living in a country fairly close to it and seeing its vunerability it just seems odd. Perhaps an answer may be found in its recent history. There was an attempted coup there, I think it involved 'native' Fijians asserting a traditional but unconstitutional right of 'rulership' over the largely Indian, Chinese majority. Perhaps within this 'military' clique of traditional rulers some clue as to why he considered Fiji a safe place?

[Tim Gratz]

Here is just another example of Sprague's sloppiness:

From Chapter Five of his book:

Loran Hall

Anti-Castro adventurer from southern California. One of three men who visited Sylvia Odio and said JFK would be assassinated. Close friend of Lawrence Howard, William Seymour and other no-name key adventurers. Raising funds for them in 1963.

Two points that each member will easily understand:

1) Most of us are convinced that Hall was neither Angel or Leopoldo.

2) Is there any information anywhere that says that one of the three men told Odio that Kennedy was GOING TO BE assassinated? I think we can probably all quote by heart what Leopoldo claimed Leon Oswald said about Cubans lacking guts. Leopoldo did not tell Odio of an existing plot to kill Kennedy, at least not in any material I have read.

[Tim Gratz]

It's one thing to get his facts wrong but Sprague even butchers the rules of grammar.

Since No Name Key is in fact the name of one of the Florida Keys, it should be capitalized. (Since No Name Key does indeed have a name, its name ought not to be No Name, correct?)

For those who do not know, "key" is the anglicized version of the Spanish "cayo" which means island. This is the extent of the Spanish I have picked up after thirteen years living ninety miles from Cuba!

By the way, although there is one bar and quite a few houses on No Name Key, it has no electricity.

[John Simkin]

It's one thing to get his facts wrong but Sprague even butchers the rules of grammar.

Since No Name Key is in fact the name of one of the Florida Keys, it should be capitalized.  (Since No Name Key does indeed have a name, its name ought not to be No Name, correct?)

What a naughty boy. Clearly he cannot be believed about anything? I bet he was one of those evil Democrats as well.

[Tim Gratz]

Careless grammar can, John, be an indication of a careless mind.

I think we have established that Sprague was sloppy with his facts.

How about his proposition that a dart was fired at JFK by an umbrella? Supposedly the dart would dissolve in the body so it could not be detected upon autopsy (per the statements and Church Committee testimony quoted in Sprague's essay on this). I was not sure what good a dissolving dart would do if it left an entry hole. It seems to me a trained pathologist might be suspicious when he saw a small entry hole in a decedent's body. Sprague never offers any explanation for that anomaly.

[Tim Gratz]

I was once called "politically illiterate"; I guess that is better than being called an accomplice to an attempted murder. It ought to be clear that I try to read as much as I can about the assassination from authors with views divergent from mine. Which is one reason why I enjoy this Forum and the intelligent discussions on it (granted there are some I consider to be pretty far-out in left field (in two senses of the phrase, I would say). I have been following the thread on Oswald's wallet. Great discussion back and forth although I notice that my old friend Robert seems to delight in the use of sarcasm against Pat as well.

Back to Sprague. I did notice that Sprague posits a shot from the west end of the TSBD that hit Connally. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what Gerry Hemming says he was told happened. Gerry can correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that the "west end" shooter was aiming at Connally not at JFK.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

John, I'm just offering this observation as a question, not to digress or anything. I've been reading this topic over time and don't have much to offer. One thing that on a couple of occasions has jumped out at me now is the reference to Fiji. I find it puzzling at first why anyone seeking refuge would contemplate Fiji? As someone living in a country fairly close to it and seeing its vunerability it just seems odd. Perhaps an answer may be found in its recent history. There was an attempted coup there, I think it involved 'native' Fijians asserting a traditional but unconstitutional right of 'rulership' over the largely Indian, Chinese majority. Perhaps within this 'military' clique of traditional rulers some clue as to why he considered Fiji a safe place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, John, I may be going right off on a tangent here but I thought I'd look into this a bit further.

Contrary to the impressions one gained from the events through media, the story is much more in the modern world.

Speight, the frontman of the coup had been educated in Andrews university in Michigan, a 'leading adventist university'. He then spent some time in Australia doing things like selling computers.

He had business problems. The coup is suggested by some as being an attempt to loot.

He was mainly involved in companies exploiting Fiji's forestry resources.

Michigan has a huge forestry industry. Fifth in the US in acreage. 12 billion a year in related monies. 200 000 emploed.

Speights dad attempted a coup in 87.

I realsise the timeline isn a bit out of place as far as events re Gordon. But the ingredients of money, computers, australia, america, (forestry? Adventists? Michigan?)

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I was once called "politically illiterate"; I guess that is better than being called an accomplice to an attempted murder. It ought to be clear that I try to read as much as I can about the assassination from authors with views divergent from mine.  Which is one reason why I enjoy this Forum and the intelligent discussions on it (granted there are some I consider to be pretty far-out in left field (in two senses of the phrase, I would say).  I have been following the thread on Oswald's wallet.  Great discussion back and forth although I notice that my old friend robert seems to delight in the use of sarcasm against Pat as well.

Any sarcasm in my posts with Pat is purely unintentional.  I respect and admire Pat.  The fact that we may diverge on this or that matter is secondary.  [Moreoever, in my experience, no two researchers will reach identical conclusions on all aspects of the case.  When two researchers agree on everything, at least one of them isn't doing their own thinking, imho.]

Back to Sprague.  I did notice that Sprague posits a shot from the west end of the TSBD that hit Connally.  Interestingly enough, that is exactly what Gerry Hemming says he was told happened.  Gerry can correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that the "west end" shooter was aiming at Connally not at JFK.

If so, then apparently even you must acknowledge that Sprague was correct about something.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Robert, of course he was.

You know the saying about a watch with a dead battery.

I am confident if I read his book again I will find at least one other thing he got correct: hey, come to think of it, he got the place, date and victim of the assassination right!

Robert, I assume you do agree it was not Hall, Howard and Seymour at Odio's door and no one told her JFK was GOING to be assassinated?

I mean on some things he seems just off the wall!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Well, Robert, of course he was.

You know the saying about a watch with a dead battery.

I am confident if I read his book again I will find at least one other thing he got correct:  hey, come to think of it, he got the place, date and victim of the assassination right!

I suspect Sprague will eventually turn out to be correct about a great many things, Tim.  And wrong on some others.  I am unaware of any assassination-related book that is perfect.  I do not, however, advise people to avoid reading books because they are imperfect, or because they were written by purported Communists, which seems to be your stock in trade. 

Robert, I assume you do agree it was not Hall, Howard and Seymour at Odio's door and no one told her JFK was GOING to be assassinated?

I remain uncertain who appeared at the Odios' doorstep, as must we all until we can definitively ascertain their identities.  I strongly doubt that it was the three gents you mentioned, but then, that particular deduction was the FBI's, not Sprague's.  While I am troubled that Sprague would accept this FBI conclusion - which it knew to be wrong when it provided same to the WC - I am far more troubled that the Bureau knowingly passed false data to the Commission.  As should we all.

Certainly, nothing in Odio's statements indicated that "Leon Oswald" planned to kill the President.  However, in the followup phone call from Leopoldo to Ms. Odio, he did claim that "Leon Oswald" insisted that Kennedy should be shot, but that the Cubans lacked the guts to do it.  That didn't seem to her like a prediction when it was said, but after the sad event came to pass, it surely took on the aura of a prediction.  Sprague's commentary on this may be understandable, but it was nevertheless quite wrong.   

I mean on some things he seems just off the wall!

We know which of his assertions is most nettlesome to you.  And that in order to assure us there is no validity to that assertion, you now feel compelled to nit-pick everything else in his book.  Where he was wrong, he should be held accountable.  Where he was right, he should be given credit.  On issues where we still don't know if he was correct or not, we should abstain from passing judgement until we know enough to decide.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Sprague's commentary on this may be understandable, but it was nevertheless quite wrong.

Remember the FBI showed Odio photographs of Hall, Howard and Seymour and she denied those were the three men at her door. Anyone with a modicum of interest in the assassination ought to know this. So how did Sprague get it wrong?

Yet Robert accuses me of "nit-picking" by pointing out this error. I suggest the Odio incident constitutes more than a nit in the asssassination story.

"Falsus in uno; falsus in omnibus" should apply to any of Sprague's assertions which lack a footnote so the source can be verified (that's about 98% of his "book"). I use the latin quotation not to imply Sprague was deliberately lying but the "Gratz story" and the "Hall story" certainly demonstrate extreme carelessness on his part.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Where [sprague] was wrong, he should be held accountable.

Robert, the guy's dead. How do you propose to hold him "accountable?" Desecrate his grave?

As I suggested above, what is appropriate is to disregard every statement in his book that cannot be independently verified.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Sprague's commentary on this may be understandable, but it was nevertheless quite wrong.   

Remember the FBI showed Odio photographs of Hall, Howard and Seymour and she denied those were the three men at her door.  Anyone with a modicum of interest in the assassination ought to know this.  So how did Sprague get it wrong?

You make it appear as though this was universally known to be false.  However, this is precisely what the WC concluded, because that very lie was told to them by FBI.  If this is a complete red herring, and I suspect that it is, then Sprague should have known better, just as I suggested.  Unless, of course, he received some kind of independent verification for this contention, in which case he should have advised his readers of how he confirmed it.

Yet Robert accuses me of "nit-picking" by pointing out this error.  I suggest the Odio incident constitutes more than a nit in the asssassination story.

"Falsus in uno; falsus in omnibus" should apply to any of Sprague's assertions which lack a footnote so the source can be verified (that's about 98% of his "book"). 

If we were to discount everything said without benefit of sourcing, 100% of your posts would be ignored by all.  Back in April, you claimed you would soon supply us with the smoking gun news reports that bolstered your assertion Castro planned to bomb NYC.  You needed only to re-type the data you had downloaded from a pay-site.  Perhaps you will either provide what was promised, or acknowledge that what you originally claimed just isn't true.  Either one would help to salvage your own credibility, which is just as important to readers here as Sprague's own shortcomings. 

I use the latin quotation not to imply Sprague was deliberately lying but the "Gratz story" and the "Hall story" certainly demonstrate extreme carelessness on his part.

The latter "story" seems untenable.  As for the former "story" - about you - we've not yet established the truth or falsity of that matter, but I do hope that we will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Where [sprague] was wrong, he should be held accountable.

Robert, the guy's dead.  How do you propose to hold him "accountable?"  Desecrate his grave?

You hold him accountable here in every post you contribute to this thread, and any other thread where you have the opportunity.  Where he was demonstrably wrong, you have every right to do so.

As I suggested above, what is appropriate is to disregard every statement in his book that cannot be independently verified.

Forgive me, Tim, but this is most rich, coming as it does from somebody who refuses to cite independent verification for anything.  Perhaps you'll change your ways, if only to preclude others pointing out your own bald hypocricy in this regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John Simkin]

Richard Sprague's work, The Taking of America, can be found here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html#TOC