Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Greg Wagner

Hicks v. Saul

Recommended Posts

I just started reading James Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza, which is a compilation of work from a number of authors, along with Fetzer's own analysis. One of the pieces is taken from Ira David Wood III's as yet unpublished JFK Assassination Chronology, which Fetzer says is over 400 pages long. I've found a few references in this piece that are new to me, and fascinating. Problem is, since this is an excerpt from another book, there are no sources cited for this chronology piece. Does anyone have a photo or any info on Jim Hicks?

pg. 48: 12:32pm: "Jim Hicks, an eyewitness in Dealey Plaza, walks toward the knoll as the motorcade's press bus speeds by on its way to Parkland hospital. Photographs of Hicks, taken from the rear, show something in his back pocket resembling a radio with an antenna. (Hicks will later tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that he was the radio coordinator for the assassination team. Shortly after admitting this to Garrison, Hicks is beaten up, kidnapped, and taken to an Air Force mental institution in Oklahoma, where he will be incarcerated until 1988. A few days after his release, Hicks will be murdered in Oklahoma.) It will later be suggested that Jim Hicks is possibly the man photographed in the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico by the CIA. He is identified incorrectly as Oswald in those photographs."

I had never heard this story before. Since no sources are cited in this excerpt, and since I've never seen a photo of Hicks, it's pretty tough to evaluate. Does this guy look anything like the guy in the bogus Mexico City "LHO" photos? It would be interesting to see a comparison between the bogus CIA "LHO" photos, Hicks, and Saul (Sague?).

I would welcome any feedback on this idea of Jim Hicks alleged involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I've posted frequently on this so I'll try to keep it brief. Most everthing you find in print about Hicks is urban legend class stuff....except that he was in DP that day, because his wife was working in Dallas and he was down there with her having lost his job. Hicks was provably a man with a drinking problem and when you dig into his statements - made primarily to newspaper folks and never to law enforcement per se - you find that they are either not credible (his talk of seeing a man in the open trunk of a car off Elm street) or change to just unbelievable e.g. he ran into Cubans in a bar in Dallas and after a few drinks they told him all the details of the assassination.

And he was not stashed away in a secret medical facility to prevent his testimony, he was placed in what was primarily a psychiatric hospital (Fort Supply in Oklahoma, not a military installation but literally a hospital on the site of a former calvary post) because of his drinking problem.

I know there are still folks who think Hicks is another JFK mystery but after digging into his story the best I can give you is its more of a sad story about a man with a problem. He was not one of the better leads generated by the Garrison investigation and when he went down to testify for the Grand Jury he ended out drinking with a couple of guys who went back to his motel with him, rolled him and beat him up....not good press for Garrison either. Later he would talk to a lot of press folks and seemed to feel that Garrison would call him back as a major witness for the actual trial...which Garrison did not.

-- Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg, I've posted frequently on this so I'll try to keep it brief.  Most everthing you find in print about Hicks is urban legend class stuff....except that he was in DP that day,  because his wife was working in Dallas and he was down there with her having lost his job.  Hicks was provably a man with a drinking problem and when you dig into his statements - made primarily to newspaper folks and never to law enforcement per se - you find that they are either not credible (his talk of seeing a man in the open trunk of a car off Elm street) or change to just unbelievable e.g. he ran into Cubans in a bar in Dallas and after a few drinks they told him all the details of the assassination.

And he was not stashed away in a secret medical facility to prevent his testimony, he was placed in what was primarily a psychiatric hospital (Fort Supply in Oklahoma, not a military installation but literally a hospital on the site of a former calvary post) because of his drinking problem.

I know there are still folks who think Hicks is another JFK mystery but after digging into his story the best I can give you is its more of a sad story about a man with a problem.  He was not one of the better leads generated by the Garrison investigation and when he went down to testify for the Grand Jury he ended out drinking with a couple of guys who went back to his motel with him,  rolled him and beat him up....not good press for Garrison either.  Later he would talk to a lot of press folks and seemed to feel that Garrison would call him back as a major witness for the actual trial...which Garrison did not.

-- Larry

Hi Larry-

Thanks for sharing your research and providing some clarity on this one. :devil3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry...gotta disagree with you re Hicks. Researchers

Mary Ferrell, Penn Jones and Gary Shaw, all close to

the Garrison investigation...all believed the man in the

Bond photo is Hicks. Good enough for me.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

It's clear that Hicks was in Dealey Plaza. What does the fact that he was photographed there, along with scores of other citizens, prove?

Part of the legend is that Hicks was radio coordinator for the assassination. If you were organizing the conspiracy, would you want Jim Hicks (hopefully sober) as your radio coordinator? That would seem about as sensible as Tim's theory that Trafficante chose an epileptic to lie in wait and do the shooting.

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jack, actually I'll just follow Ron on this. There is no doubt it's Hicks

in the photo, coming down from the direction of Houston and going down

the south side of Elm. In fact we know why he was in Dallas and where

his wife was working; it was her having a job and him having lost his that

brought him to be in Dallas and left him free to watch the motocade.

The problem is that his descriptions of what he saw don't match very well

with where he was standing nor of the other photos of the area he describes

seeing a man standing in a car trunk who "might have shot the President". His description of the sign he saw with a hole in it being immediately removed that day

doesn't match the signs on Elm and beyond that the rest of his so called

inside information just is totally out of left field....including meeting the Cubans in a Dallas bar a few weeks later who then decided to share the full details of the plot with him.

By the time he was talking to press about going back for the Garrison trial

he was claiming to know the names of the people involved in the shooting.

It really is a sad story when you piece it all together.

-- Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jack,  actually I'll just follow Ron on this.  There is no doubt it's Hicks

in the photo,  coming down from the direction of Houston and going down

the south side of Elm.  In fact we know why he was in Dallas and where

his wife was working; it was her having a job and him having lost his that

brought him to be in Dallas and left him free to watch the motocade.

The problem is that his descriptions of what he saw don't match very well

with where he was standing nor of the other photos of the area he describes

seeing a man standing in a car trunk who "might have shot the President".  His description of the sign he saw with a hole in it being immediately removed that day

doesn't match the signs on Elm and beyond that the rest of his so called

inside information just is totally out of left field....including meeting the Cubans in a Dallas bar a few weeks later who then decided to share the full details of the plot with him.

By the time he was talking to press about going back for the Garrison trial

he was claiming to know the names of the people involved in the shooting.

It really is a sad story when you piece it all together.

-- Larry

Thanks, Larry. I thought you meant it was not he in Bond.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

It's clear that Hicks was in Dealey Plaza. What does the fact that he was photographed there, along with scores of other citizens, prove?

Part of the legend is that Hicks was radio coordinator for the assassination. If you were organizing the conspiracy, would you want Jim Hicks (hopefully sober) as your radio coordinator? That would seem about as sensible as Tim's theory that Trafficante chose an epileptic to lie in wait and do the shooting.

Ron

Ron...there were no boy scouts among the conspirators.

Jack :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

One of the pieces is taken from Ira David Wood III's as yet unpublished JFK Assassination Chronology, which Fetzer says is over 400 pages long.

Greg, I started a thread on Ira David Wood's Chronology, which is available on the Internet. The thread contained a link to it. Some of our members mentioned there were some errors in the chronology. It is nonetheless worthwhile, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg wrote:

One of the pieces is taken from Ira David Wood III's as yet unpublished JFK Assassination Chronology, which Fetzer says is over 400 pages long.

Greg, I started a thread on Ira David Wood's Chronology, which is available on the Internet.  The thread contained a link to it.  Some of our members mentioned there were some errors in the chronology.  It is nonetheless worthwhile, I think.

Hi Tim-

Thanks for the info, I shall look it up. Although it does contain some errors (and perhaps a few "stretches") as you, Ron, and Larry have pointed out, it nonetheless seems pretty thorough (even to the point of including some "urban legend" items). I do find the chronological format helpful. Exploring the events in a linear fashion, seeing how certain events paralleled each other, is a new perspective for me.

I think we touched on this issue before somewhere about how even though certain publications have problems, there may be some elements that are still valuable or enlightening. You don't want to be suckered by poor research or an agenda, but you also don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thanks to all for your responses and photos. Much appreciated.

Edited by Greg Wagner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...