Pat Speer

Great find, Steve. Check these ones out: http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/finding_aid..._0000483201.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/finding_aid..._0000032273.pdf

Specter thinks of himself as a crusader for truth and justice. He actually entitled his memoirs Passion for Truth. It is my fervent hope that one day, before he takes his impending dirt nap, he'll share his passion by telling us what really went on with the Warren Commission. In part 2 of my video series, I show how he placed exhibits into evidence, and took testimony, that he knew to be untrue. It's time to come clean, Arlen.

Maheu had been on CIA retainer since the fifties. He supposedly told Hughes about the hits on Castro so that Hughes--who was at that time Maheu's principle but not sole employer--would not take his business elsewhere. SOME CUT-OUT! I mean, think about it....the CIA hires a man to perform a top secret mission. This man sometimes works for one of the richest men in the world, who has been investigated by congress, the IRS, and the SEC for years. And the cut-out tells his sometime boss, giving him black-mail-ability, with NO repercussions! While anyone with a brain would have told Maheu to get lost after this "mistake", he continued to get CIA business even after this bonehead play! In fact, after going to work for Hughes full-time, he engineered one of the biggest scams of the day, whereby Hughes was paid millions of dollars just to pretend he was building a ship that was in fact a ship funded and designed by the CIA, as part of an attempt to retrieve a Russian submarine from the bottom of the ocean. Hughes took no risk. He deserved no profit. No investigation was made into how much money he pocketed while doing his "patriotic" duty. . Pat, I did a little brushing-up on Maheu last night and you're correct...clearly was CIA connected at hips and ankles from way-back when, just after War. Hughes was used as both a cut-out and as source for financing and funneling money for CIA ops. It is interesting to note, as was mentioned elsewhere, he was increasingly surrounded by LDS folks - as his 'security'. Yes, the whole thing is amazing and I'm sure less than half a percent of Americans know about it....or much else that has been going on under their noses. The ship was the Glomar Explorer under Project Jennifer. There were many other such strange projects. R. Murdock is now another wealthy man doing CIA bidding under the slightest of fig-leaf cover, and yet few know it. Those of us who see and know these things are considered nuts or worse. Is Maheu still alive? Where? Must be on in years and about to have a book written about him by Posner or some such.....I'd suggest a separate thread on Maheu and H. Hughes. It is my belief they were involved in funding and as conduits in things Dallas. [and many a thing after!] Peter, Maheu is an area of my ongoing interest. I've created a number of threads on him over the years. My interest was spurred in part by the fact that in Maheu's autobio he mentions that one of his best friends was Texas oilman Johnny Mitchell. Johnny Mitchell was my dad's boss when I was a kid. My dad was his VP. My mother had told me for years that LBJ had had the Secret Service follow my father in 1967. When I put the pieces together I realized that within weeks of LBJ reading the CIA report on the assassination attempts on Castro, and Maheu's role in said attempts, LBJ had the SS run a report on Maheu's associates, and had discovered Mitchell. In this same period, Mitchell was quoted in the papers as saying that Texas oilmen would not support LBJ's war in Vietnam if he continued to use cheap foreign oil for the cause, or something to that effect. The moral: your mom's outlandish stories about your father and his boss...could very well be TRUE. When I started reading about the Glomar Explorer deal I had another surprise. In reading about the theft of Hughes' papers, which led to the public exposure of the deal, I put two and two together and figured out the identities of the thieves, and realized I knew one of them. After that, I was hooked. As for Maheu, yes, he's still kicking. I believe he lives in Vegas. A few years back, I was contacted by someone involved in an upcoming interview of Maheu. I prepared a number of questions for him. I don't believe the interview ever took place, however.

Maheu had been on CIA retainer since the fifties. He supposedly told Hughes about the hits on Castro so that Hughes--who was at that time Maheu's principle but not sole employer--would not take his business elsewhere. SOME CUT-OUT! I mean, think about it....the CIA hires a man to perform a top secret mission. This man sometimes works for one of the richest men in the world, who has been investigated by congress, the IRS, and the SEC for years. And the cut-out tells his sometime boss, giving him black-mail-ability, with NO repercussions! While anyone with a brain would have told Maheu to get lost after this "mistake", he continued to get CIA business even after this bonehead play! In fact, after going to work for Hughes full-time, he engineered one of the biggest scams of the day, whereby Hughes was paid millions of dollars just to pretend he was building a ship that was in fact a ship funded and designed by the CIA, as part of an attempt to retrieve a Russian submarine from the bottom of the ocean. Hughes took no risk. He deserved no profit. No investigation was made into how much money he pocketed while doing his "patriotic" duty. .

Myra, there is no doubt that Kennedy was more a visionary than LBJ. But there is also no doubt that LBJ, in the wake of the assassination, met with men such as Martin Luther King, and took civil rights to heart. Bill Moyers had a good piece on it after Clinton's statements were criticized. He pointed out that Johnson's use of the phrase "We shall overcome" in a televised speech was a total slap in the face to his fellow southern Democrats, and showed tremendous courage. I suspect he is right. Men like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush aren't all bad.

p57- Evaristos Garcia Sr. was a big time bolita bankers in Cuba. When him and his son Evaristos Jr. came to Miami, they formed the core of Trafficante's Cuban mob. Garcia Sr. Jr. later relocated to COsta Rica. p59- Sturgis came to Miami right after Castro took over to ask for help from Dade COunty Criminal Intelligence Bureau. He wanted their file son a suspected hoodlum in Cuba. That man of course was Trafficante. p70. Kaki Argomaniz? He was a Cuban mobster with Trafficante. He was also involved with the World FInance Corporation (WFC), a front back in Miami for the CIA and Trafficante-backed drug traffickers. p74- Santo and Philly boss Angleo Bruno were involved with the Pan American Pest Control Business as well as possible two more. Ironically Kaki Argomaniz, referenced above, was an officer in the King Spray Pest Company, along with two other Trafficante associates. That company was part of the WFC controversy. Bruno had a winter home in North Bay Village. Angelo's wife, Sue, was a partner an interest in a vending machine company owned by Agostino and VIncent Amato, two Trafficante guys in Miami. Well actually they were made members of the Gambino family who were close Trafficante associates. p76- made some afterwards- I talk about some post-assasination incidents in The Silent Don. p82- Santo definitely owned the Sans SOuci- purchased from Pittsburgh mafiosi Gabriel and Kelly Mannarino. He was a definite investor in the Hotel Deauville. He likely had an interest in the Capri. There are a few others that he may have had hidden interests in as well. p88- McWillie and his bodyguard Russell Matthews worked at the Capri - close to Trafficante. Matthews was an associate of Joe Civello in Dallas. McWillie was a CHicago guy. Both knew Jack Ruby. Both knew Trafficante. p89- Trafficante likely knew Rothman through the Mannarinos. Rothman became a trusted associate of Santo's in Miami. Thanks, Scott. You are the authority. As far as Civello/Cellini, it seems likely that Trafficante had a brain hiccup and forgot which one of his cronies was involved. Still, does anyone where Civello was during this period?

Peter, my recollection from reading it two days ago is that he was not surprised Rosselli would come to him representing the CIA, not that he thought Rosselli, whom he had admittedly known for 20 years, worked for the CIA. The more telling point, IMO, is that Maheu, who had supposedly been contracted by the CIA as a cut-out, and whose cover story was that he was working for a businessman (whom everyone would assume to be Howard Hughes) introduced himself as working for the CIA, deliberately BLOWING his cover and giving all those involved get-out-of-jail-free cards. I believe Maheu testified that Rosselli had told him he knew he was working for the CIA, and that Maheu did not deny it, because he didn't want to lose Johnny's trust. I believe he also testified that he never outed himself. Here, Santos says he did. I suspect Santos is telling the truth. I have found a number of other points where Maheu obviously perjured himself. His story about why he wiretapped Dan Rowan has changed numerous times. I wonder if Maheu's kids will have any deathbed confession tapes to sell when he goes.

Beyond the Trafficante statement on Maheu, confirming that Maheu was never a true cut-out, he made a number of other statements which I thought may be of interest. Trafficante is not my area of expertise so some of this may be common knowledge. p51 Says one of his fellow prisoners in Cuba was named Civello. Could this be Joe Civello, the Dallas mob boss? If so, is it possible Ruby was there to visit Civello? I don't recall reading that Civello was arrested in Cuba. p57 Says he's friends with one Evaristo Garcia Vidal. Later on p87 he admits Vidal was his business partner in Havana. Is this Vidal any relation to Hemming's buddy Felipe Vidal? p59. Admits he knew Sturgis/ Fiorini in Cuba. Says they had dinner in late 60's as well. (After RFK hit?--just a thought.) p61 Denies knowing Loran Hall p62 Admits knowing John Martino from Cuba p64 Is shown a series of photos anti-Castro groups. The only face he recognizes is Sturgis/Fiorini. p66 Says he never met Joe Shimon p68 Admits knowing Aleman. Says he tried to help Aleman get a loan with the Teamsters via his lawyer Frank Ragano. (Ragano would later join Aleman in claiming that Santos talked openly about killing the Kennedys.) p70 Says he met Aleman with someone named Coco or Kiki. p71 Says Aleman and mobster Angelo Bruno had a milk business in the Dominican Republic. p72 Doesn't deny talking to Aleman about RFK but denies making the "Kennedy is going to be hit" statement p74 Says he and Bruno shared a "Pest Control" business. p76 When asked a series of questions about his attitude towards the Kennedys, and whether he made negative comments about them he repeats "I might have" a number of times. (This makes me suspect the Aleman story was true and that he did indicate there was gonna be a hit.) p78 Says Marcello came back from Guatemala via a commercial airplane and denies he used a private plane. His certainty on this point is suspicious. p82 Won't state how many casinos he owned in Cuba p88 Admits knowing Lewis McWillie p89 Admits knowing Norman Rothman

Chris, I looked through the testimony of a number of witnesses to figure out what all the letters and numbers meant. Here's a breakdown: Kellerman—347, marked the motorcade route, an X representing the location of the car at the time of the first shot, and a Y marking the location at the 2nd and 3rd shots Greer—347, marked the location of the first shot with an A, the second shot with a B and the third shot with a C Buell Frazier--347, circled the area of the railroad yards from where he heard the shots, marked this area with an F Hill—354, they had him re-mark the motorcade route. They had him mark an X at the first shot location, and a Y at the approximate position of the President at the time of the 2nd shot.(The head shot.) (Hill's X and Y are much closer to Houston than one would guess from watching the Z film.) Youngblood—354, marked an A to show the location of the VP’s car at the time of the first shot. (Ironically, he placed it further down Elm than Hill's Y) Rowland—354, marked a V to show where he was standing as the motorcade passed by, and an A to show where he’d been standing when he noticed a man in the sniper’s nest, and a B where he moved after that. He then marked a C to show from where it sounded like the shots had been fired, and a D to show where his wife pulled him after the shots. (I don't see Rowland's V--I think they transposed it as one of the two As on Houston.) Virgie Baker—354, marked with a 1 where she was standing when she thought she saw something hit the street, and a 2 where she thought she saw it hit. Altgens—354, Liebeler marked a 3 to show where he’d been standing at the moment of the first shot. Joe Smith—354, Liebeler marked a 4 to show where Smith had been standing during the shooting, and a 5 to where he thought the shots had come from. . Tague—354, Liebeler marked a 6 to show where he’d been standing, and a 7 to show where he’d talked to an officer after the shots.. Welcome Barnett—354, Liebeler says he was standing around Number 8. Later, Barnett changes his position to number 9..

Rex, I was just glimpsing through it and I found a bit of interest. Maheu repeatedly testified and and stated that he pretended to be a businessman, and that he was functioning as a cut-out to protect the CIA. And here Trafficante testifies that Maheu introduced himself as a representative of the CIA. This confirms my suspicion that Maheu only pretended to be a cut-out loyal to the CIA, but was really more in tune with the mafia, providing them with get-out-of-jail-free cards. From my analysis, Maheu has also lied repeatedly about the taps on Rowan and the leaks to Pearson. He should have been tried for perjury an eon ago.

John, I just glimpsed through a book I have called I.F. Stone's Weekly Reader. It has a few of Stone's columns from Dec. 1963. I believe you can rest easy in that there is no way the writer of these columns was working for the CIA. In one, We All had a Finger on the Trigger, he blames society as a whole for the killing and mentions that most assume the CIA is in the assassination business but look the other way because they assume people like Castro oughta be killed. (I don't think there's any way he'd have written this if he were on their payroll.) He also mentions that "Whether it was done by a crackpot leftist on his own, or as the tool of some rightist plot, Van Der Lubbe style, the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands in the South who had murder in their hearts for the Kennedys, the President and his brother the Attorney General, because they sought in some degree to help the Negro." By the time of this column, the FBI report claiming Oswald acted alone had already been leaked and all the mainstream press was belching it out as gospel. I'd bet big bucks Stone was attacked for even hinting that the case was not as yet closed, and that right-wingers may have been behind it. As a follow-up column pointed out that LBJ was a poor replacement for Kennedy, and that "money and power have been the motivating passions of his life," Stone comes across as one of the harder sells of his time. His eventual endorsement of the Warren Report was, of course, an exception.

I don't think there's any harm in telling people that Tim G. worked for quite some time to get GPH on film to tell his full story. He even arranged a place for me to stay if I came down and helped him with the questions. Ultimately, the project fell apart in no small part because Tim wanted to grill Gerry, his friend, on the inconsistencies of his statements, on camera, and the financial backer of the project wanted to let Gerry tell his full story, and then have people comment afterwards. I'm still not sure who was right. But I bring this up to point out that Tim was far less deferential to his pal Hemming--and far less closed-minded about the assassination--than most here would otherwise believe. I spoke to Gerry on the phone one time. He was pushing a Mellen/Waldron "Bobby helped cover-up the crime to protect his own reputation" angle. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Gerry saw that Oswald was on the periphery of his life--through Cuba, the Marines, Hall, Sturgis, etc--and made up the rest. Kinda like a pre-Judyth Judyth. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere came up with something to show that Gerry's boys actually pulled the trigger. For me, he's almost as big an enigma as Oswald. Rest in Peace, Marine.

And I hope Rex sees this: ALL document requests are now being directed to this. Just on a hunch I tried to pull up a Warren Commission document and got re-directed to the page that says I have to be a paid member. Steve Thomas MFF is a free site, with special privileges available to paying customers. If you click on the links provided by Rex, you should be able to go page by page to read the file. If you do a search and then click on a link, however, it will not work. You will have to go into the master list and find the file, and read from there. Other privileges include the ability to make comments on individual documents and articles. That said, I just double-checked and Peter is right. The search limit page is coming up on the third page. I believe this is a mistake and that Rex will fix this pronto.

Gary,I'd bet you;re right about the leak coming from the Dallas DA's office. Awhile back, at my urging, young Adam Wilkinson contacted (recent Pulitzer Prize winner) Gene Roberts and asked him from whom he received the backyard photos--prior to their publication in Life. He told Adam he'd been given access to the DA's files. Didn't say who he'd bribed but it could very well have been Alexander.

Absolutely, I believe it. It's right there in his and Greer's testimony. Both of them marked the photo. Now, it's possible that Specter or the WC tried to erase it, or that the marks faded, but it makes no sense to have them fake marking it in their testimony. At one point, for unclear reasons, they decided to start using a clean version of this photo. They called this CE 354. The CE 354 published by the WC did not show the actual marks, but showed where the marks supposedly were. I think these marks accurately reflect the marks made. Agent Hill marked the location of the limousine at the time of the first shot around where eyewitnesses say the limo was at the first shot. Amazingly, however, Agent Youngblood marked the location of the VP car at the time of the first shot, FURTHER down the road than Hill's mark. After that, the WC lawyers stopped asking people where the car was at the time of the first shot.

So you see what I mean? Kellerman marked the parade route on the photo (which is barely visible)) but he also is purported to have marked an X for the first shot and a single Y for the second and third shots (confirming that he thought the last two shots rang out together). On extreme blow-up I think I see his marks. Greer is purported to have marked an A, B, and C to mark the three shots. I can't see these. The circle in the railroad yards, by the way, was placed by Buell Frazier to show the location from where he thought the shots were fired. He was standing on the front steps of the school book depository. The HSCA analyzed the shots and concluded it would be extremely easy for someone standing in front of the building to tell the shots came from above... Wacky...

CE 347 was a copy of an overhead photograph of Dealey Plaza, purportedly marked by Kellerman and Greer to show the limo's location during the shots. The photo as published by the WC was nearly unintelligible. Does anyone know if there's a better version available, so that we can actually see their marks? If not, then someone visiting the archives should create a clear scan of the exhibit. Since Max Holland has proposed the first shot was fired as the car turned on Elm, and as other LNs accept as religion that the fist shot missed at Z-160 or before, CTs have ironically been cast as the defenders of the WC, and the many witnesses who testified that the first shot did not miss. Exhibits such as this one may be instrumental in swaying otherwise skeptical members of the media. P.S. The subtitle of this thread was supposed to read "know of or have" not "know have." (It's fixed. )

Obama is on the right track. His statements re Reagan were accurate. Reagan made people feel good about being an American, and they voted for him even though he didn't represent their interests. Obama is trying to get people to feel good about being an American and vote for him, even though he does represent their interests. While I'm somewhat partial to Edwards, in that he's declared war on the special interests running Washington, I think Obama has the potential to reverse the course of history, and return America to a position of respect, instead of fear.

I tend to think of Aynesworth as credible, but misguided. Like a lot of Dallas residents, he went into a knee-jerk defense of his city after the assassination. He just never stopped and came up for air. I hope he joins the Forum, and is treated with respect. When I wrote chapters 5 thru 9 of my webpage last year, compiling all the eyewitness statements I could locate, I was surprised to find that Aynesworth's statements fail to support the currently popular LN theory, which holds that the last shot came 5 seconds after the one just before. Instead, his statements suggest the last two shots came close together. As studies show that time slows down for people focused on an event, his statements suggest the last two shots were bang.....bang, and not bang............................................................................ ................................................................................ ang. From chapter 5 at patspeer.com: Hugh Aynesworth (11-21-93 Reporters Remember Conference, as quoted in Reporting the Kennedy Assassination) “I went over to the area around Elm and Houston Streets and was there when the three shots rang out. Three definite shots. Total chaos. I still have trouble putting it all together, how it happened.” (No More Silence, published 1998, p.21-40) “There was no particular reason why I went to Elm Street other than the crowds were larger along Main Street, two or three deep, and I wanted to get a clearer view. Locating myself in the middle of the street a little toward the curb, had I looked up to my right I could have seen Oswald up there... The first shot I wasn’t sure was a shot. I thought it might have been a backfire from one of the motorcycles since there were several in the vicinity. When you hear one, you listen more closely, and when I heard a second and third very clearly, there was no doubt in my mind that they were shots and that they were from a rifle…Immediately, people started jumping and running and some were throwing their kids down.” (JFK: Breaking the News, 2003) “when I saw a couple of familiar assistant district attorneys standing in front of the jail building near the corner of Houston and Elm, I walked over to join them…I was standing with my lawyer friends maybe 10 feet from the curb. As we watched the big blue Continental glide by—I vividly remember Governor Connally’s grin—a huge black woman nearby burst into shouts…At 12:30 we heard the first loud pop. At first I assumed a nearby police motorcycle backfired.…(Secret Service Agent Roy) Kellerman turned in his seat just as two more shots were fired…” (Interview in film Oswald's Ghost, 2007) "As he goes by, two or three seconds later I hear a pop. I think it's a motorcycle backfire because a motorcycle had just gone by. But then, suddenly, a second or two later another and then another. Three shots."

Wim, excuse my ignorance on this issue. Which part or parts of Epstein's statement is false, and how do we know he's not just mistaken, or overstating his case?

Wim, I have a different take on Epstein. He wrote Inquest in college, and hoped to make a big impact on the Eastern establishment and media. On this, he was successful. He showed everyone that the WC was less than thorough, and that it had ignored the findings of the FBI to reach its conclusions. That was enough for Epstein. From meeting the WC, he found it hard to believe there was deliberate cover-up. As a result, when Lane and Garrison started pushing that there was a BIG conspiracy,and alienating the Eastern establishment and media, Epstein grew a bit reticent, and denounced Garrison and his methods. Later, his interest in the case was re-awakened, particularly the prospect that the Russians were behind the assassination. This suspicion was, of course, fed by Angleton. Unfortunately, Epstein is guilty of the same failing as most journalists. When a key figure takes a journalist into his confidence, they are so excited about the "insight" and access provided, they rarely understand when they are being used. I suspect that Epstein, as Trento, and perhaps Weiner of the NY Times, became so buddy-buddy with his CIA contacts that he failed to notice when he became their advocate.

While re-reading the October 66 transcripts mentioned by Holland in his article (where LBJ first mentions to Fortas that Bobby is behind the media's renewed interest in the assassination) I came across a note stating that the 11-15-66 LBJ/Fortas phone call was erased in its entirely. I suspect that this was the conversation where LBJ told Fortas more than we're allowed to know.

Bill, I think the tape to which you refer has been available awhile, and is mentioned in the Holland's book. LBJ tells Clark about Morgan and Clark tells LBJ that Boggs said Garrison had implicated LBJ in the assassination plot. 2 days later, Garrison's star witness/suspect David Ferrie was found dead! Kind of makes you go hmmmm. Peter. it is my understanding that Holland has a relationship with the CIA, so I doubt they'll direct that his upcoming book be panned. While the transcripts in Holland's book on the assassination tapes appear to be accurate, he spins them to support the lone nut cause when possible. It's no different with this tape--he asserts that LBJ's comment that Warren (and by logical extension the Warren Commission) prevented Bobby from having him indicted is mere "hyperbole" (Like he knows LBJ's soul?) As a result, I suspect that the CIA, if they even have a tactic these days, it is to let all new developments be "spun" by their favorite historians. Of course Peter is correct in that no TV network will allow anyone to point out that two days after Clark told LBJ that Garrison's investigation was heading in his direction Garrison's investigation was knocked off track by an unforeseen "{act of God."

Max Holland, historian, has for the moment at least, obscured Max Holland, single-assassin theorist. In a new article on his website. Washington Decoded, he writes of a tape recently released by the LBJ Library. This tape is between LBJ and his most-trusted adviser. Abe Fortas. In this tape, recorded January 11, 1967, just before the autopsy doctors were rounded up to re-interpret the medical evidence, LBJ discusses the Kennedy assassination, and his belief that Bobby Kennedy is behind Edward Epstein, Mark Lane, etc. and the growing pressure from the media to re-open the investigation. At one point, he even suggests that if it weren't for Warren, Bobby would have had him indicted. To me, this supports the thesis, which I believe was supported by Talbot's book as well, that LBJ thought. rightly or wrongly, that Bobby suspected him of killing JFK, and was out to get him. Now, this may have been his paranoia at work. On the other hand, it may have been a guilty conscience. In either case, NO history of the 1960s can be accurate without reporting this mutual mistrust. Furthermore, NO history of the assassination plots on Castro, and the theory they were ordered by Bobby and backfired on JFK, is complete without noting that this was first pushed by Drew Pearson after meeting with LBJ during a period LBJ thought Bobby was out to get him and blame the killing on him, and that Pearson's column was published the day after Bobby spoke out against Vietnam. http://www.washingtondecoded.com/

As one who witnessed many of the Tosh/Hemming flame wars a few years back, I understand Tosh's frustration. Hemming would attack Tosh as being a fraud, while at the same time disrupting his threads, as if to say "you're not allowed to write about this even though it isn't true". When you try to shut someone up, you inadvertently give them credibility, especially to people already prone to believing in conspiracies. I suggest that people let Tosh share what he wants to share, and that they hold back judgment until he's shared it all.