Tim Gratz Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Thomas, it may not be procedurally proper to answer a question with a question, but nonetheless, your posts suggests a good point from the opposite direction. What evidence do you or any other Forum member have that Jenkins was so utterly depraved and morally corrupt that he would engage in a rogue plot to murder the President of the United States? It does seem to me that absent any such evidence Wheaton's claim that Jenkins confessed to his involvement in the assassination must be considered suspect. Since you restrained me from commenting on my other points, and you yourself did not, can I assume that you agree that those points are good (at least to the extent of casting some doubt on Wheaton's story)? Edited December 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Thomas, it may not be procedurally proper to answer a question with a question, [...] _______________________________________ You are correct, (Ex) Counselor. _______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Thomas, it may not be procedurally proper to answer a question with a question, but nonetheless, your posts suggests a good point from the opposite direction.What evidence do you or any other Forum member have that Jenkins was so utterly depraved and morally corrupt that he would engage in a rogue plot to murder the President of the United States? It does seem to me that absent any such evidence Wheaton's claim that Jenkins confessed to his involvement in the assassination must be considered suspect. Since you restrained me from commenting on my other points, and you yourself did not, can I assume that you agree that those points are good (at least to the extent of casting some doubt on Wheaton's story)? ___________________________________________ Of course you're right in a perverse sort of way, Mr. Gratz (as you occasionally are; a way of arguing you learned in law school, perhaps?). Jenkins probably wasn't "utterly depraved and morally corrupt." He probably was an upright member of the community and "Patriot" who truly believed that it was his "Patriotic Duty" to help (permanently) eliminate someone he perceived to be a serious threat to our "national security" : that "notorious Commie Sympathizer and Traitor"--- JFK! FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________________ Edited December 12, 2005 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Thomas, most patriots believe in: 1. God 2. The flag 3. Apple pie 4. Basic American institutions (e.g. law and order). Most patriots would consider it most unpatriotic to murder the president of the land they love. Moreover, perhaps you missed my point on AMWORLD. Since Jenkins was "in the loop" on JFK's plans to topple Castro, he certainly could not have considered JFK to be a "Communist-sympathizer". If you want to believe JFK was killed by someone who thought JFK was selling out to the Communists, I respectfully suggest you look to someone who was not privy to JFK's plot to topple Castro in a coup, which probably would have resulted in Castro's death. Or, for that matter, look to someone who was not aware of RFK's approval of the CIA's continuing plans to wreak sabotage on Cuba's infra-structure and refineries, sabotage that was going on in the week before Dallas. Anyone who was aware of Kennedy's admitedly secret efforts against Castro knew he was not a Communist-sympathizer. (Indeed, how could he be? His dad would have disowned him!) Edited December 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Allison Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 My question would be: did *everyone* that knew about AMWORLD think that JFK was behind it? Or did some believe that this was another invasion plan hatched by MI/CIA? Perhaps those that were unhappy about JFK's actions during the BOP decided to remove him and thereby guarantee he would not pull support again. And his death would simply drum up the electorate's approval for such a plan. Hosty wasn't the first time I'd heard we were ready to attack Cuba immediately following JFK's death. I had a friend in high school whose father experienced the very same thing, as he was in the military at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Very interesting post, Matt. Any way you can expand on your father's knowledge that something was up militarily in November of 1963? Your point that someone might have been concerned that JFK might "blow" AMWORLD as he had, arguably, "blown the BOP" merits consideration. This would at least provide a potential motive for CIA people or Cubans with knowledge of the AMWORLD plot. I still remain as skeptical of Wheaton's information as I am sure it needs to be investigated. If I was Jenkins and was innocent, I think I'd surely sue Wheaton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Thomas, it may not be procedurally proper to answer a question with a question, but nonetheless, your posts suggests a good point from the opposite direction. What evidence do you or any other Forum member have that Jenkins was so utterly depraved and morally corrupt that he would engage in a rogue plot to murder the President of the United States? It does seem to me that absent any such evidence Wheaton's claim that Jenkins confessed to his involvement in the assassination must be considered suspect. Since you restrained me from commenting on my other points, and you yourself did not, can I assume that you agree that those points are good (at least to the extent of casting some doubt on Wheaton's story)? ___________________________________________ Of course you're right in a perverse sort of way, Mr. Gratz (as you occasionally are; a way of arguing you learned in law school, perhaps?). Jenkins probably wasn't "utterly depraved and morally corrupt." He may have been just an upright member of the community who truly believed that it was his "Patriotic Duty" to help (permanently) eliminate someone he perceived to be a serious threat to our "national security" : that "notorious Commie Sympathizer and Traitor"--- JFK! FWIW, Thomas (I am hereby editing my original post.) ___________________________________________ Edited December 12, 2005 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 First, Wheaton's story has Jenkins and several Cubans confessing to him their involvement in the JFK asssassination. Must of been like a big confessional. According to Wheaton, Jenkins was fairly high-up the food chain. Why on God's green earth would this guy confess to Wheaton? Let us assume you and I are friends. Do you think I'm going to confess to you that ten years earlier I murdered a man and got away with it? Even if you were my very best friend and I was sure you would not "rat on me", don't you think it reasonable that I would be concerned that the revelation that I was a murderer might strain our friendship? You have constantly misrepresented the way Wheaton has provided information on the assassination of JFK. This is either because you have not read my postings on the subject or that you have read them but not understood them (from past history both of these theories are possible). Another possibility is that you have read and understood the postings but because they do not fit into your theory that “Castro” ordered the assassination of JFK you are pretending you are “intellectually challenged”. I will briefly state the order of events so that you cannot claim ignorance. (1) In 1986 Gene Wheaton gave information about CIA illegal activities to Daniel Sheehan. At this stage Wheaton gave no information on Carl Jenkins. In fact, at this time, Jenkins was also providing information to Sheehan. The main concern of Wheaton and Jenkins was to provide information about the illegal activities of Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, Richard Secord and Edwin Wilson. (2) In 1986 Wheaton also provided information on Shackley and company to investigative journalists like Joel Bainerman. These journalists have made it clear that Wheaton did not seek money for this information. However, at this time he was unwilling to be named as a source. (3) In 1988 Daniel Sheehan was in serious trouble. The courts were demanding that he named his sources. Eventually, Wheaton agreed to give evidence in court against the CIA. This took place in Florida in March, 1988. However, he did not make any accusations against Jenkins. Wheaton had not been employed directly by the CIA and so his evidence was dismissed as “hearsay”. Sheehan, or one of his friends, then leaked the name of Jenkins as being one of his major sources. This information appeared in the press. Jenkins then gave interviews claiming that he had met with Sheehan but he must have misunderstood his comments and had not accused CIA officials as being involved with illegal activities. As a result, Sheehan’s case was chucked out and he had to pay considerable damages to Shackley and his friends. (4) In 1995 Wheaton contacted the Assassination Records Review Board claiming he had information about the involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. The ARRB eventually arranged for its chief investigator, Anne Buttimer, to meet Wheaton. During their meeting Wheaton named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the assassination. However, he was very reluctant to go on record as the man who named these CIA operatives. This is why Buttimer does not name Jenkins and Quintero in the report dated on 12th July, 1995. Jenkins can only be identified by his CV that Wheaton sent to the ARRB. (5) Despite follow up letters by Wheaton, the ARRB failed to investigate if Jenkins was involved in the assassination of JFK. It seems that Wheaton now decided to drop the matter. (6) In 2005 a researcher discovered Wheaton’s documents at the ARRB. These documents were brought to the attention of Larry Hancock. He arranged for William Law and Mark Sobel to interview Wheaton. It was during this filmed interview that Wheaton named Jenkins and Quintero. Further research of recently released documents indicated that Jenkins and Quintero might well have been involved in the assassination. (7) Although Wheaton mentioned these names in this interview it is far from clear that he wanted to be seen as the man who named CIA operatives as being involved in the assassination of JFK. This has only become public knowledge because of the postings that have taken place on this Forum and on my website pages on Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero. Jenkins and Quintero are now both aware of these accusations. So also are the CIA aware of this development. At the moment Jenkins or Quintero have not denied Wheaton’s claims. It will indeed be interesting to see what action these two men decide to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (7) Although Jenkins mentioned these names in this interview [...] _______________________________________ John, I think you meant to write Wheaton here. Thomas _______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 John wrote: You have constantly misrepresented the way Wheaton has provided information on the assassination of JFK. John, I think the word you wanted was "consistently"; not "constantly". Moreover, I am an innocent man. I took my info straight from the investigator's report--which you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 John, I think the word you wanted was "consistently"; not "constantly". Moreover, I am an innocent man. I took my info straight from the investigator's report--which you posted. And you ignored the rest of the information that went with the report. My dictionary defines constant as "invariable or unchanging... marked by steadfast resolution or faithfulness". I think that accurately explains your postings about the JFK assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 John, I have replied to you substantively in two other threads. For now let me just renew a request made in another thread. You claim there have been other recently released documents that may link Jenkins to the assassination. What are they? What do they say? I anxiously await your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Tim: By "too close to home" I meant that you always take issue with any information that points toward complicity of "your" CIA. And your former president and head of same CIA. That is what I meant by "home". You cannot deal with this information because it means part of your own government and not Castro killed JFK. GREAT thread JOhn!! This is the most exciting stuff on this case in a very long time. I eagerly await developments. Perhaps Jenkins and Chi Chi weill join the forum . Dawn ps I agree with your characterization of Dan Sheehan "becoming another Garrsion". A great American and patriot. (See the little xxxxx did not attack you John for a positive comment about Garrison. Guess she knows where to draw the line: just short of attacking the administrator) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Dawnps I agree with your characterization of Dan Sheehan "becoming another Garrsion". A great American and patriot. (See the little xxxxx did not attack you John for a positive comment about Garrison. Guess she knows where to draw the line: just short of attacking the administrator) Dawn, it's also important to note that, like Garrison, Sheehan himself became the story, and that this lessened the merits of his claims in the eyes of a cynical public. As a lawyer, you should understand the significance of the fact that Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey, who were only Sheehan's clients in the biggest case of his life, tried to have him DISBARRED after his actions and sloppy lawyering led to their case being thrown-out. Secret team or no, his handling of the case was questionable. And not just to Tim Gratz. Edited December 13, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 John, I think the word you wanted was "consistently"; not "constantly". Moreover, I am an innocent man. I took my info straight from the investigator's report--which you posted. And you ignored the rest of the information that went with the report. My dictionary defines constant as "invariable or unchanging... marked by steadfast resolution or faithfulness". I think that accurately explains your postings about the JFK assassination. ------------------------------ John: According to Mike Accoca, Wheaton approached him with the very first "homogenized" version of his Jenkins "Taurine Excrement !! Because Wheaton was spouting forth with an almost incoherent bag of non-sequiters, Mike asked him to "stand-by" for a couple of days, while he checked some things out. Mike then called upon Dick Billings, his old boss at the LIFE Miami Bureau. Billings expressed some doubts -- but encouraged Mike to continue with the interviews. By then, Wheaton had been "pandering" his theme around town -- and was frustrated because it was a very obvious attempt at "Gray-Mail" against the ex-CIA pogues who were running the "Humanitarian-Relief?" cargo flights; and his scheme was failing. He then contacted one of the very same political "panderers" that "Tooshie" had dealt with. [Check with the founder of "The National Security Archive", Scott Armstrong, he might want to fill you in on some of this crap. Check with Pete Kprnbluh at their Geo. Washington University Office (Gelman Bldg.) in Washington, DC] [see: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/] Wheaton was pissed-off because the "State Dept.?" contracts went to entities controlled by Mike Palmer of Vortex Aviation, my late client "Gus" Conner of Conner Airlines, et al. !! [Gus Conner, just before he reached 70 years of age, was beaten half to death by DEA agents while he sat in their unmarked parking lot, taking pictures of some of his ex-employees who were suspected of drug smuggling in collaboration with corurupt DEA and US Customs agents and snitches. Gus died two days later, at home, after checking himself out of the hospital against our advice. Howard K. Davis was appointed President of Conner Aviation by Gus' widow. See: "The Conner Airlines Conspiracy" - New Miami Times] During "November in Dallas - 1996", I turned over to Prof. John Newman -- all of the secret documents compiled by Gus Conner. These same documents had been denied to Senator kerry, after he stipulated with the DOJ that his questioning of Mike Palmer (Vortez) were be driven by an "agreed-upon" script !! Wheaton's first payment of $20,000 (in small bills) by "Shyster" Sheehan, came only after he agreed to continue committing perjury -- with his ongoing stream of ludicrous statements. All of this was in support of the fantasyland Andy & Leslie Cockburn script/book "Out of Control"; and numerous other wet-dream scribblings !! The Avirgan "couple" were paid an average of $50,000 per annum for their "cooperation" in this Soviet inspired "Disinformatziya" operation !! [They may now claim "False-Flag" recruitment, but they all were definitely "predisposed" to the commission of these treasonous acts. A de fact sate of belligerency existed between the U.S. and Nicaragua (affirmed by joint Congressional joint resolutions and appropriations. They gave more than just "Aid & Adherence" to our sworn enemies !!] [More than once i had to brief ex-POWS [Vietnam] or widows residing in Fort Whalton Beach, FL that: The reason that "Hanoi Jane" Fonda was never charged with Treason was that: Upon pre-trial 'Discovery" (under the "Brady Rule" & "The Jencks Act" she would have had a viable defense !! Her defense attorneys would have thereupon centered upon the fact that: She, Tom Hayden, et al., had been 'false-flag" recruited by Angleton's MK/CHAOS. JJA had created MK/CHAOS as a counter to the out-of- control MH/CHAOS projects -- and the rogues running rampant under its banners. I myself have been in and around a limited number of ex-CIA and Cuban pogues who: Oftentimes were heard to boast that -- the "Company" did indeed "Do Da Deed"!! However, they would NEVER foolishly involve themselves as direct, nor even indirect, participants. We have yet to find EVEN ONE Cuban who has ever duplicated the phony James Files, "Tooshee", et al. routine -- NOT even Orlando Bosch, Rolando Masferrer, Ventura, Posada, et al. !! AND, in the right circles, that meant serious money in your pockets real quick -- ask Wim about just how that game is played out ?! Chairs, GPH __________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now