Carl Jenkins

[Pat Speer]

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

__________________________

This is both the best of Gerry and the worst of Gerry within one post. He tells us something credible: that while he's aware of several Cubans who've claimed the CIA dood it, he isn't aware of one who's admitted his own involvement, even though there might be some money to be made. This is within the realm of Gerry's experience and is certainly believable. Unfortunately, before that, he told us that Gene Wheaton was paid off by Daniel Sheehan, and that Martha Honey and Tony Avirgan were on his payroll as well, and that all of this was somehow "Soviet-inspired". This info should set off everyone's BS detector. If we're to believe, as Tim, that it's ridiculous for Jenkins to admit his involvement to Wheaton, why should we believe that Sheehan or Wheaton would admit that Wheaton was paid for the story, or that the Avirgans--career journalists who come to PUBLICLY DISAVOW Sheehan and his secret team theory--would admit how much he paid them as well... Unless Gerry has something to back up how he came up with these numbers, I'll be forced to conclude he just made it up... His motivation to make things up is certainly clearer than Wheaton's.

As stated previously, I spent a few hours with Martha Honey when she was trying to raise awareness of her case. Her main topic of discussion, as I remember it, was John Hull and his mysterious landing strip in Costa Rica. (Do you know anything about this, Gerry?) She told me something else which maybe someone can confirm (or maybe it's already been researched). She said that ABC News blamed the Sandinistas for the La Penca bombing within a few minutes after the attack, even though the assassin posing as a journalist (no, it wasn't Jack Ruby) was using a European passport, and appeared to be European. She told me that this is what made her suspicious there was something more to the bombing. She couldn't figure out how ABC would know who dood it, seeing as there was no one from ABC even at the press conference. She concluded that they were force-fed this info by the CIA (she may very well have been right). Of course, we're now supposed to believe that it was the Sandinistas after all. And this could very well be. be. But the point is that Martha Honey had legitimate reasons to doubt the official story, and legitimate reasons to get involved with a lawsuit against the government for almost killing her husband and then lying about it. I don't believe for a second she was interested in money or in providing disinformation about her native land.

So where do you get this stuff, Gerry? She had only the nicest things to say about you...

Edited December 13, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

John, I await your reply to my Post #42.

At the very beginning of this thread, you wrote:

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

John, in another thread, Debra Conway and Stu Wexler (both of whom listened to the same interview that you did) stated it was less than clear that Wheaton claimed that Jenkins and Quintero were involved in the assassination, or merely that they were involved with people who were conspirators. This is a rather important distinction.

Are Debra and Stu wrong, or are you twisting what Wheaton said?

If you were simply mistaken about Wheaton's interview (I am loathe to accuse you of dishonesty), this very thread illustrates, does it not, how errors can creep up when someone attempts to retell what another told him.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

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.

Dawn, I have made it clear I will do everything I can to re-open the investigation of the assassination even if it should lead to the CIA. And I have repeatedly condemned the CIA for "getting in bed with the devil", an unholy alliance that, per "Ultimate Sacrifice" allowed the Mafia to kill JFK with impunity.

What is it about those statements you find so hard to understand?

[John Simkin]

John, I await your reply to my Post #42.

At the very beginning of this thread, you wrote:

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

John, in another thread, Debra Conway and Stu Wexler (both of whom listened to the same interview that you did) stated it was less than clear that Wheaton claimed that Jenkins and Quintero were involved in the assassination, or merely that they were involved with people who were conspirators. This is a rather important distinction.

Are Debra and Stu wrong, or are you twisting what Wheaton said?

If you were simply mistaken about Wheaton's interview (I am loathe to accuse you of dishonesty), this very thread illustrates, does it not, how errors can creep up when someone attempts to retell what another told him.

As I have said before, unlike you who appears to spend all your so-called “working-time” on this Forum, I have to spend most of my time earning a living.

It is a bit rich from you to say that I do not answer your questions. What about all the questions that you refuse to answer? That includes the reasons why you are a debarred lawyer.

I also take offence at your suggestion that I dishonestly reported what Wheaton said in the filmed interview. If I did, it would be a very silly thing to do as around 100 people watched the interview. Several of these people are members of this Forum. They have not accused me of lying. Yet you, because Wheaton’s story does not fit your “Castro did it” theory, has the audacity to suggest I am presenting the information in a dishonest way.

It would take about fifteen minutes to transcribe the relevant piece of the interview concerning the involvement of Jenkins and Quintero in the assassination. In fact, Wheaton only spends a couple of minutes on this issue. Most of the tape is about the Iran-Contra scandal. The reason that Larry, Debra and Stuart have not done that and published it on the Forum, has nothing to do with the fact that they do not want to expose me as a xxxx. There are a couple of reasons why this part of the tape has not appeared on this Forum. I know why this is. However, it is up to them to explain why they have made this decision. Anyway, this transcript will appear in Larry’s book in March/April. Then you can see if I am lying or not.

Although the transcript is not currently available, Anne Buttimer’s ARRB report of the 12th April, 1995, has been published on this Forum. In it she states:

Wheaton told me that from 1984 to 1987 he spent a lot of time in the Washington DC area and that starting in 1985 he was "recruited into Ollie North's network" by the CIA officer he has information about. He got to know this man (Carl Jenkins) and his wife, a "'super grade high level CIA officer" and kept a bedroom in their Virginia home. His friend was a Marine Corps liaison in New Orleans and was the CIA contact with Carlos Marcello. He had been responsible for "running people into Cuba before the Bay of Pigs." His friend is now 68 or 69 years of age.

Over the course of a year or a year and one-half his friend told him about his activities with training Cuban insurgency groups. Wheaton said he also got to know many of the Cubans who had been his friend's soldiers/operatives when the Cubans visited in Virginia from their homes in Miami. His friend and the Cubans confirmed to Wheaton they assassinated JFK. Wheaton's friend said he trained the Cubans who pulled the triggers. Wheaton said the street level Cubans felt JFK was a traitor after the Bay of Pigs and wanted to kill him. People "above the Cubans" wanted JFK killed for other reasons.

Wheaton said we must look at his friend and his associates in order to know what really happened to JFK. One of those associates was I. Irving Davidson who was/is "the bag man for the intelligence community." Davidson runs a group called the Timber Center which handles payoffs and payments for the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon. He is a friend of Jack Anderson's and was indicted with Carlos Marcello in the 1980's on a Teamster's kick-back charge.

I think that is pretty clear. It also supports my interpretation of what Wheaton said in the filmed interview. The main difference with the 2005 version is that Wheaton explains that in 1963, Jenkins was training these Cubans (including Quintero) to kill Fidel Castro. We know this to be true because of the Edward C. Cates document (posted on the Forum) and the AMWORLD documents. However, according to Wheaton, it was Jenkins who decided in the last few months of 1963 to redirect this group against JFK (this is of course what happens in David Phillips’s unpublished novel).

To quote the ARRB report: “Wheaton said the street level Cubans felt JFK was a traitor after the Bay of Pigs and wanted to kill him. People above the Cubans wanted JFK killed for other reasons.” According to Buttigoes on to point out that Damer, Wheaton goes on to name Irving Davidson as one of those “above the Cubans”. Buttimer points out that Davidson is connected to Carlos Marcello. What she does not say is that he is also closely associated with Clint Murchison, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson. I believe that this is crucially important as it helps explain the timing of the assassination and the reasons why LBJ covered up the assassination rather than ordering the invasion of Cuba. Davidson is the missing link that we have been looking for. In many ways, Davidson’s name is more important than that of Jenkins as he represents the people who ordered and paid for the assassination. Jenkins and Quintero are only the men who carried out these orders.

[Tim Gratz]

I notice you still have not answered my Post #42. All you do is assert I lack standing to challenge your statements because I have not answered questions. Well, none of the questions posed to me asked me to substantiate my basis for making statements that a living person was implicated in the assassination. (Other than Castro, of course, and I think I have posted ad nauseum my reasons for suspecting Cuban involvement.)

So, are you going to tell us to what documents you refer?

You wrote:

Yet you, because Wheaton’s story does not fit your “Castro did it” theory, has the audacity to suggest I am presenting the information in a dishonest way.

John, did you bother to read that I said this probably was a good example of how errors (not lies) creep in when you rely on hearsay? Moreover, did you read my answer to Dawn? I will do all I can to help prosecute the murderers of JFK even if they should turn out to be affiliated with the CIA.

But if members of the CIA killed JFK on the very eve of AMWORLD, then all I can say is I agree with Victor Marchetti that it must have been the "KGB branch of the CIA".

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas Graves]

John, [...]

(I am loathe to accuse you of dishonesty), [...]

______________________________________

Gee, Mr Gratz, I think you just have, in a very sneaky sort of way, "have you not?"

______________________________________

[Tim Gratz]

Thomas, as I said, I think it is an example how intelligent people can hear the same thing and yet report it differently.

And that is one of the reasons the law contains a hearsay rule.

Assume we on the Forum were jury members.

If hearsay rules did not apply, we would listen to John's version; and then listen to Debra's, Stu's and Larry's, and have to determine which was reporting it correctly--not that anyone was being deliberately dishonest.

Far better if we could hear Wheaton himself.

Of course, the hearsay rule also means the person making the statement can be cross-examined.

Clearly we cannot cross-examine Wheaton thru John, Debra, Stu or Larry.

I will add that John raised a very good point: his recollection of what Wheaton said in the interview is consistent with what Wheaton apparently said to the AARB investigator ten years ago.

Of course, I still have great concerns over what Wheaton said. He has info that could solve the crime of the century and he sits on it for ten years? Aw. come on! (Which of course is the first question i'd ask Wheaton if he was being cross-examined.) If he truly had such information, his sitting on it was potentially letting the President's killers die as free men. Moreover, he could have made a million dollar book deal for himself. (And Gerry states he was selling information to Sheehan.)

I remain skeptical of Mr. Wheaton's story, I'm afraid. John would argue I am skeptical because I do not want to believe the CIA did it. I would say the reverse is true: John accepts a rather dubious story because he wants to believe the CIA did it.

Even absent a grand jury investigation, a Dallas "cold case" detective could haul Wheaton in and cross-examine him. Would it not be fitting if today's DPD could solve the case it's predecessor botched forty-two years ago?

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, as I said, I think it is an example how intelligent people can hear the same thing and yet report it differently.

And that is one of the reasons the law contains a hearsay rule.

Assume we on the Forum were jury members.

If hearsay rules did not apply, we would listen to John's version; and then listen to Debra's, Stu's and Larry's, and have to determine which was reporting it correctly--not that anyone was being deliberately dishonest.

Far better if we could hear Wheaton himself.

Of course, the hearsay rule also means the person making the statement can be cross-examined.

Clearly we cannot cross-examine Wheaton thru John, Debra, Stu or Larry.

I will add that John raised a very good point: his recollection of what Wheaton said in the interview is consistent with what Wheaton apparently said to the AARB investigator ten years ago.

Of course, I still have great concerns over what Wheaton said. He has info that could solve the crime of the century and he sits on it for ten years? Aw. come on! (Which of course is the first question i'd ask Wheaton if he was being cross-examined.) If he truly had such information, his sitting on it was potentially letting the President's killers die as free men. Moreover, he could have made a million dollar book deal for himself. (And Gerry states he was selling information to Sheehan.)

I remain skeptical of Mr. Wheaton's story, I'm afraid. John would argue I am skeptical because I do not want to believe the CIA did it. I would say the reverse is true: John accepts a rather dubious story because he wants to believe the CIA did it.

Even absent a grand jury investigation, a Dallas "cold case" detective could haul Wheaton in and cross-examine him. Would it not be fitting if today's DPD could solve the case it's predecessor botched forty-two years ago?

___________________________________________

Dear Mr. Gratz,

I'm afraid you missed my point, so let me give you a "dose of your own medicine" :

Tim, I am loathe to accuse you of being stubborn, stupid, sneaky, etc...

Thomas

Get it, Mr. Gratz?

___________________________________________

[Tim Gratz]

I don't yet get it, Mr. Graves, since I chose not to impugn your motives and accept you at your word.

You are, however, I must say, a master of misdirection.

The question before the house is not my credibility, nor John's, bu Wheaton's.

I can only assume you have no answer to the points I raised re his credibility.

[Guest Matt Allison]

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.

Really now. My goodness.

"AND, in the right circles, that meant serious money in your pockets real quick -- ask Wim about just how that game is played out ?!"

Why ask Wim? How about you telling us about it.

patriot

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot

Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father

: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

[Tim Gratz]

Now, Matt, Gerry has graciously given hundreds of hours of assistance to many authors and assassination researchers for many years without requesting any financial remuneration. (And he continues to contribute his time to answer questions on this forum.)

Are you implying to the contrary?

*******************************

Okay, Wheaton supporters, explain this:

If Wheaton really knows who killed Kennedy why does he still refuse to co-operate with law enforcement authorities?

I mean if someone told me they'd killed Kennedy, and I was convinced he was a truth-teller, I'd be camping on the door of the DOJ and the DPD until someone decided to investigate the person's story.

Wouldn't you?

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas Graves]

The question before the house is not my credibility, nor John's, bu Wheaton's.

______________________________________

Then why, in your 05:37 AM post today on this thread, did you cast doubt on John's integrity? (Very sneakily, of course.)

I noticed it and, obviously, so did he.

______________________________________

Edited December 13, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Tim Gratz]

Thomas, you really are a doubting Thomas now, aren't you?

Read my Post 52 on this thread, please.

[Guest Matt Allison]

Now, Matt, Gerry has graciously given hundreds of hours of assistance to many authors and assassination researchers for many years without requesting any financial remuneration. (And he continues to contribute his time to answer questions on this forum.)

Are you implying to the contrary?

*******************************

Okay, Wheaton supporters, explain this:

If Wheaton really knows who killed Kennedy why does he still refuse to co-operate with law enforcement authorities?

I mean if someone told me they'd killed Kennedy, and I was convinced he was a truth-teller, I'd be camping on the door of the DOJ and the DPD until someone decided to investigate the person's story.

Wouldn't you?

No Tim, I have never thought Mr. Hemming's motives had anything to do with money.

However, he is frustrating to read sometimes.

I'll be at B.O.'s for a fish sandwich and fries in a couple weeks; maybe I can convince him to come down and I'll buy us all some lunch.

[Tim Gratz]

Matt, are you really going to be at BO's? Great place for fish sandwiches and the name relates to the proprietor's initials rather than his hygiene.

Just think, if the Earl of Nottingham had invited putting pieces of meat between slices of bread, BO's would be known for its fish nottinghams!