Pat Speer

Lee, I'm not sure what became of Williams and Jarman, but Norman has been interviewed on TV several times since 64. He probably wouldn't be hard to find. I'm not sure to what end, however. I believe the testimony of the three men is fairly consistent. It suggests that at least two shots were fired from the sniper's nest, which confirms the testimony of a number of other witnesses, including Euins, Brennan, Worrell, Jackson, etc. Their testimony is also VERY STRONG evidence against Oswald being a lone nut, as the missed shot in their testimony came after the neck shot, and even after the head shot, and was by no means the first shot. Bonnie Ray thought the last shots came very close together, which would rule out Oswald. His acknowledgement that he was on the sixth floor after 1 and saw NO ONE and heard NOTHING, is also an argument that Oswald at least had help, as the construction of the sniper's nest and the piecing together of the rifle would have taken some time. Did Oswald have enough time? Perhaps. Would Oswald wait around for Williams to leave before beginning his work? Doubtful. How would he have known that Williams was going to leave? I believe the testimony of these three men, particularly Williams', is problematic for lone-nutters. I believe they told the truth. The one depository employee who should be found is Givens. As Sylvia Meagher pointed out 30 years ago, Givens appears to have changed his story to implicate Oswald, suddenly remembering that he went back upstairs, after coming down for lunch, to get his jacket, and that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. His testimony is the only testimony that places Oswald on the 6th floor any time after lunch. The problem is that at least three witnesses--Piper, Shelley, and Arnold-- record that Oswald DID come down for lunch a few minutes after the others and that their Oswald sightings almost assuredly occurred AFTER Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor. Consequently, Givens' testimony has very little bearing on Oswald's guilt, in my opinion. And is actually an argument against his guilt...Givens said that when he went back up Oswald was still walking around with a clipboard, not exactly the behavior of a man with limited time who needs to build a rifle and prepare a sniper's nest within a half hour or so. That the clipboard was found near the gun is also interesting. This would indicate that Oswald stashed the gun where he'd picked it up (and where he'd stashed it early that morning.) This means that, unless one is to assume that Oswald walked around with the clipboard after he'd already retrieved the rifle, he had not yet retrieved the rifle when Givens supposedly saw him. Once again, not exactly the behavior of a man who needs to prepare for some killin'. If Givens' story is true, then I think his testimony at the very least suggests that Oswald was acting as a lookout for someone else, and was not the actual trigger-man.

The problem with dismissing Morrow is that one can't entirely dismiss Morrow. Morrow was an associate of Kohly's. They were arrested together in the 60's. Morrow names some of Kohly's associates such as Marshall Diggs and Owen Webster. He also claims Kohly had Nixon's support. The recently released Pfeiffer history of the Bay of Pigs reveals that Nixon supported Kohly, and that, guess what, Kohly was associated with Marshall Diggs and Owen Brewster. Unless you're willing to believe Morrow was Pfeiffer's source for this information, this means Morrow's fiction had a basis in fact. His portrait of Barnes is also interesting. When Morrow first wrote about Barnes, was Barnes widely known? Could Morrow have possibly guessed that books by Richard Bissell and Richard Helms would confirm his depiction of Barnes as a wreckless covert operative, given to bold and daring acts? Could Morrow have peformed the research necessary to see that Barnes was involved in assassination from the early fifties, with Boris Pash in Europe, with Rip Robertson in Guatemala, and with God knows who--Op 40?--in Cuba. It's possible Morrow gained his insights from Church Committee testimony, but, if so, who was his source? I suspect Morrow was involved with Kohly and overheard a lot of stuff. He wrote about his suspicions, and made the rest up. Not unlike too many others.

Back to Mike's theory... a few questions and a few points. Is there a motive? Why would a black American shoot JFK when JFK was thought to be a friend to black America? Did someone pay him? Who? Jarman was a checker, which is not the same as a shipper. I believe Troy West was the shipper and was the one with access to the brown paper and paper tape. I believe it was Bonnie Ray Williams, and not Jarman, who had the white dirt in his hair. Jarman was reportedly sitting over a few windows from Williams and Norman, which explains why he wasn't in Dillard's photo. Jarman's claim of a jump forward in the motorcade after the SECOND shot is strong evidence for a conspiracy. This is clearly the head shot and Greer's acceleration shortly thereafter. His not hearing the third shot until AFTER the head shot is indicative it came from a different gun than the carcano, which is linked to the head shot, and a different location than the TSBD. Norman's and Williams' statements are also strong arguments for conspiracy. None of the three men's statements support Posner etc.

While I knew that Rosa knew what she was doing when she refused to be moved, I hadn't thought of the media's depiction of her as poor and tired as a deliberate distortion. It's obvious now this was so. White America has difficulty feeling sympathy for black America when black America demands anything; they only feel sympathy when black America politely asks. Then White America can feel all good about themselves and their 1000 points of light etc. I'm curious as to the motivations of the men who painted her as poor and tired. They may have (probably correctly) decided she'd get little sympathy if she came across as angry and articulate, and figured she'd be more effective as a symbol if they poured some Aunt Jemima syrup on her pancakes. The treatment of Rosa Parks reminds me a bit of the treatment of Helen Keller. While American society embraced Keller as shining proof that through hard work and perseverance one can overcame one's handicaps, they dismissed her political views as ignorant and hopelessly influenced by her handicap, as if to say "what does she know--she's just some silly blind deaf girl."

Tom, I'm sorry if my pointing out a weakness in your scenario has upset you. You still did not address how a miniscule fragment could have the energy necessary to traverse a neck and break through skin, which is 50% as strong as bone. Keep in mind that the bullet that killed Oswald was unable to break through the skin of his back, and was found just under it. As to my scenario, I'm still working on it, but to me, it seems to have fewer problems than your own. The back wound photos were all taken early. The doctors testified they took x-rays and photos, then worked on the skull, and then the body. Since the back wound photos show that the scalp has not yet been reflected, and the scalp was reflected before Finck arrived, this means the photos were taken before Finck's arrival. I believe Dr. Boswell's drawing indictating the bullet went upwards was merely his assumption. He saw an entrance low in the skull and an exit at its top. He connected the dots. He was not then and is not now an authority on wound ballistics. While I do not consider it a waste of time to talk to the original doctors I don't think it will lead to a new understanding of the wounds. They undoubtedly made mistakes, as the autopsy photos and the Rydberg drawings do not match. Boswell himself has placed the back wound at 4 different positions of Kennedy's body. Their memories and impressions are not 100% reliable. I do agree with you, however, that it would be near impossible for all three men to remember a wound in the EOP if it was really in the cowlick. Tom, you clearly do not know or understand my theory, as I'm at work on a presentation that will fully explain it that has not yet been revealed. But an outline for my theories was included in my seminar. I believe, for example, that the shot at 313 was a tangential wound, that is, it did not enter the skull at the EOP or the cowlick, but hit Kennedy right in the location people assume to be the exit. Large fragments of a bullet glancing off a skull at such a location would retain the energy to crack a windshield or chip up pieces of concrete 200 feet away. I also suspect that the EOP entry/neck exit shot was fired not from a Carcano but from a smaller caliber automatic rifle with a silencer, possibly an M-16. Perhaps you should actually take the time to read my seminar before you go on and on about how lame it is. It's on this website in the seminars section. Or are you a closed book stepping down from Mt. Olympus to give us all a peek inside? If such is the case, thank you, thank you, thank you.

triple-post

double-post

I met Larry Teeter briefly in Dallas last year, and he appeared to be in very poor health, taking only a few steps between stops. His lung problems were clearly in evidence. I doubt there is anything suspicious about his death.

Tim, I freely admit this is beyond my knowledge. But Angleton had already speculated that Henry Kissinger might be under KGB control, and further accused William Colby, and/or Gerald Ford of being KGB agents.By the end the Guy simply wasnt playing with a full deck.It must be the nature of the espionage game to induce paranoia..Steve. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, William F. Buckley wrote about Angleton in Spytime and depicted him as slowly drifting out to see on the S.S. Paranoia. Virtually everyone who met Angleton believed he'd lost it. Even Ted Shackley, in his memoirs, comes down against Angleton. Of course you know of the post-Angleton review by the CIA that said if Angleton himself had been KGB it would have been hard for him to have done as much damage as he accomplished on his own, by giving in to his paranoia. Like the "missile gap" the "intelligence gap" turned out to be American paranoia. It was the Iraqi WMD of its day.

The doctors testified the photos were taken before they did any inspection of the wounds. They took x-rays and photos while they awaited Dr. Finck's arrival. In order for a fragment the size of a few grains to continue on and exit from Kennedy's throat, as has been speculated, its intitial speed would have to have been well over 2,000 fps. Probably more like the impossible 10,000 fps. I'm not an expert, and do not even own a gun, but I can read. Larry Sturdivan's testimony before the HSCA is particularly helpful. No way does such a small fragment possess the mass and speed necessary to traverse Kennedy's neck and exit his throat. Those of you familiar with my seminar know I believe it was the bullet to the EOP that exited Kennedy's throat. When I studied what the effects would be of a bullet traversing the bottom of the skull I discovered that someone suffering minor cerebellar damage and/or a fracture of the posterior cranial fossa would be likely to have difficulty talking, sitting upright and grasping things with their hands, precisely the behavior kennedy exhibits on the Zapruder film between 224 and 313. While anyone, especially Tom, is entitled to believe his theory, they shouldn't convince themselves it's the only theory that attempts to resolve the mysteries of the medical and ballistic evidence.

-------------------------- And here I was, partially convinced that "Miss Congeniality" had given up self-abuse in the shower ??!! -- It just leaves me emotionally drained. A "Rasslin'" fan ??!! Do those big bruisers in their oily muscled bodies turn you on ?? After the Bay of Pigs, it was not a healthy move to claim ANY affiliation with the hated CIA, especially amongst the Miami Cubans. After 1967 [Garrison follies, Ramparts Nat'l Student Assoc., etc.], it wasn't wise to even mention knowledge of "The Company" anywhere in the USA. Dick Russell's use of the term "Agent" in the Argosy article was NOT well received by me, despite the fact that an "agent" is an informant reporting to a CIA Case "Officer". "Informant" for the FBI ??!! The only time that S/As Bob Dwyer and Jim O'Conner could get a decent meal was to set up a phony "meet" with me, because,as they reported back repeatedly to the MIA/FO S.A.C. "...Hemming won't speak with us unless it is at Toby's restaurant [sW 12th Ave. & 1st St.] and it MUST be a steak dinner (for all).." The only info that JM/WAVE got on me [NOT from me], was via the Castro DGI agents they employed as spotters and snitches against ALL of the exile raider groups. After Howard Davis had arranged for cash and thousands of dollars worth of maritime equipment, arms & munitions, radios, etc. from Texas & Maryland financiers, Tony Cuesta veto'd Ramon Fonts OK for both of our persons on the "Baku" sinking operation !! Why? Because Tony swore that a "CIA buddy" had tipped him that "Davy" was a "Company Man", and that only I could go. Font got between our fistfight, and that is how Andy St. George & our Tom Dunkin made the trip [with a little cash from Billings at LIFE naturally]. The same occurred with "Bayo" [who had broken with Tony after the "Baku Op"], when -- after we had gotten heavy financing for a Haitian Op, Martino, Sturgis, et al. coopted our funding from Baltimore, and ultimately brought in Pawley on the deal, which was switched to a phony Sov/extraction Op. More wasted money, and more interference from the "Company Pogues" !! "Bayo's" coxwain [Cantin] left a large family behind, and they came to me in July '63 wanting to know why I was alive and their father/husband/uncle/cousin was MIA ??!! I took them straight to Bill Pawley's office in the Ingraham Bldg. and explained that one of our lawyers would soon be in touch. Against my verbal protestations, he handed the boys a wad of $100 bills. I remained behind after they left, and told Bill that it was a big mistake to give out the cash, as they were going to sue LIFE, Billings, and him for a bundle. All parties later settled out of court and the family was awarded a large sum. My extended family joins with "Miss Congeniality" in the infliction of abuse upon moi -- as they are furious with me for even uttering a word on these matters, despite that many years have passed in the aftermath of Kazak Jew Weberman's spurious foibles. When they learned of my giving an interview to a Canadian writer [Cigar Afficianado & Oliver Stone confidant] at a Ft. Lauderdale MacDonald's !! [vice the near Out-Back Steakhouse]; they have since defamed me as the "Kiddy-Meal Commando". "....What did he pay you Dad?...a Kiddy-Meal with extra fries !! Can't win for losing. If anybody has a serious query, let me know down the road sometime. GPH _______________________________ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gerry, here's a serious query. You clearly have led an interesting life. You clearly are a talented and colorful writer. Why haven't you written a book? I wasn't kidding when I said I'd buy it. I'm sure many others would as well. FWIW, my comment about story-telling was not meant to imply you were a xxxx. It was an acknowledgement that many of the events you write about happened 40 years ago. Human memories blur together. As a result, people are prone to expand upon true-life stories, and fill-in the blanks where the details have been lost. This is a fact of life. I make stories out of events that happened yesterday; I can only assume others do the same. After 40 years, God knows what I'll be saying about this internet exchange. Maybe by then I'll be telling people you and I had a wrestling match and you beat me with a chair. No harm intended. I was trying to defend your position as someone who had insight into the case. Sorry if you took offense.

I was skeptical about McCord until I read his book. I believe he was exactly what he said he was--a believer in the CIA and the Justice Department who was horrified when Nixon, for self-preservation, soiled the reputation of one and corrupted the other. McCord, unlike too many, could separate an individual from an institution. He was quite patriotic in his own way. On the back of his book, it's announced that he was working on TWO other books which would further illuminate the problems in Washington. And yet, near as I can figure, these books never came out. My question for him then would be what happened to these other books, and whether he was pressured into shutting up once Nixon resigned.

I had a question for John, but kept delaying my asking. Now I'll never get to ask it. Peace be with him.

Al, while I have no idea where the truth ends and Gerry's stories begin, enough records and information have been derived from the government files to indicate Gerry was indisputably a SOF who had contact with Castro, Sturgis, Hall, etc. I believe there's also evidence he was an FBI informant somewhere along the line. So the man is no "wanna-be." He could very well be prone to exaggeration and story-telling, but to compare him to Files is unfair.

James McCord's book A Piece of Tape is quite revealing as to the cooperation between the original lawyers for the burglars, the Justice Department and The White House. McCord makes it clear that the original prosecutors were helping to cover everything up. It was their behavior, as much as anything else, that alerted him to the fact that his country was no longer a nation of laws, and that every branch of the government was infected by Nixon.

According to Pfeiffer's history, Barnes also knew of the plots. Bissell's memoirs back this up. Barnes was Bissell's mentor and point man on all things dirty. Smathers said that he'd recommended assassination, but that JFK had shot him down. I believe he also told Smathers that he was being pressured to do such a thing, but that he would not. Or am I mixing up Smathers' statement with Szulc's? I've read a few of these histories, and am under the impression that CIA historians are given a lot of leeway to state their own conclusions, almost as much as an IG. There are a number of times in the Pfeiffer history where he says "In the opinion of this writer" etc. A CIA history is not necessarily an official viewpoint. In the opinion of this writer, they are writtten in large part to help educate future directors and agents.

Sure, I believe that men like Hawkins and Esterline were kept in the dark. I believe its likely Nixon created his own "secret team," who, working with groups like Operation 40, were all set to clean house.

Jim, the Pfeiffer history deals with both of these issues and concludes that Nixon was not involved in the planning after mid-1960 and that Dulles did not brief Kennedy on the BOP when he briefed Kennedy on Cuba. Its conclusions seem correct. Of course, if Nixon was not overtly trying to plan the BOP, he may have been making covert plans. He was expecting to become the next President. His eventual Presidency reveals that he would not hesitate to go behind the backs of the CIA and the State Department when it suited his needs, i.e.-the bombing in Cambodia, Kissinger's secret meetings with Vietnam and China, the Plumbers... I suspect he had his own plans for Castro and the BOP as well. Let's not forget that Lansky offered one million for Castro's head during this period and that many researchers have unveiled ties between Nixon and Lansky. We should also remember that Sam Giancana discussed an assassination attempt on Castro performed by a girl--almost assuredly Marita Lorenz--and that this occurred months BEFORE Maheu gave Rosselli any pills. Her sponsor on this attempt--by his own admission, Frank Sturgis, eventual Watergate burglar. We should also remember that Maheu's partner, Robert King, was by Maheu's own admission, traveling with Nixon during the 1960 campaign. And let's not forget that by Hunt's own admission one of the original recommendations for assassinating Castro was prepared by him and sent to Robert Cushman, Nixon's military aid. Finally, one should remember that Hunt pulled out of the official BOP planning when the coalition replacing Castro came to include too many liberals. As the Pfeiffer history indicates that Nixon and Pawley did the same, this makes me suspect that Hunt began working with them on a side project. As Hunt's new boss in this period was none other than David Atlee Phillips, who reportedly handled Oswald, and as Pawley committed suicide before he could be questioned by the HSCA, this door leads many places.

I followed a link posted by Tim to read an internal CIA history of the Bay of Pigs, newly declassified, and learned a lot. Maybe this stuff was previously available, but it was new to me. http://www14.homepage.villanova.edu/david.barrett/bop.html The history corroborates a number of suspicions, and provides fresh evidence to tie the BOP with the Kennedy assassination. In a section on Nixon it corroborates Robert Morrow's story that Nixon, along with Marshall Diggs and former Senator Owen Brewster, backed a Cuban exile named Mario Kohly as a replacement for Fidel. It also reveals that Kohly threatened to blow the lid off the upcoming invasion when the CIA and state department decided he lacked the right stuff to lead the new government. This section also reveals that Nixon was heavily backed by William S Pawley, and that Pawley was similarly miffed when his candidate, Rubio Padillo, was written off as a reactionary. It also notes that shortly after Padillo and Kohly were cut out of the action, Nixon's contact with the CIA dropped off considerably. Since Nixon was certainly planning on becoming the next President, and since Nixon was undoubtedly committed to having a commie-free Cuba, this makes me suspect that Morrow's other contention, that the exile government sponsored by the CIA was to be killed upon arrival in Cuba, has merit. I just don't see Nixon walking away from the BOP, after he was so involved in its beginning stages. I believe he'd made plans of his own...plans he would have implemented once elected. In a section on assassinations, there's even more dirt. In a discussion of whether or not assassinating Castro was part of the plan, one agent is quoted as asking "can we get a Rip Robertson next to him?" This indicates that Robertson, who looks exasctly like a man seen in Dealey Plaza, was THE man in the CIA most likely to be involved in assassination (as evidenced by his role in Guatemala). At another point, a memo is quoted that says Jake Esterline discussed a program of assassination with David Atlee Phillips. Even more surprising, in a discussion of a program called AMHINT, it is mentioned in passing that the DRE, (yes, those wacky student protestors who had that goofy fight with Oswald on the streets of New Orleans) were provided with high-powered rifles with silencers and scopes. (Have you read this, Jeff Morley?) It is explained that these rifles may have been part of a canceled plan to kill the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba. The writer of the history describes as well a "must go" list found in the files. This is presumably a list of Cubans who were to be killed once Fidel was overthrown. The list was from someone using the initials E.L., which one of the CIA men involved says must mean Edward Lansdale (who wasn't directly involved in the Bay of Pigs). What's intriguing about this is that in the section on Nixon it is noted that Nixon suggested the CIA contact Lansdale early on in the planning of the BOP. This raises the question: was there a separate assassination element to the BOP planning kept separate from the main plan, and did Nixon supervise this element behind Eisenhowers back? I find it hard to believe Nixon would ignore the BOP planning because he was too busy campaigning. He planned on winning the election. He would not want to inherit an unwinnable situation in Cuba. I believe he had his own plans, on hold, ready to go.

Someone on this Forum, knowing of my interest in Maheu, asked me to submit some questions for the man a few months back. While researching the questions, I found a half dozen major gaps in Maheu's story, where his book and his interviews contradict his sworn testimony. If any octogenarian needs to be put on the stand and grilled, it's Maheu. Now, whether or not his lies and disinfo have anything to do with his involvement in the assassination, it's hard to say.

A few curious things about Hinkley...one is that he knew Neil Bush, and had met George W., whose father was set to become the next President should Hinkley's plan have been successful. (Is it possible they'd said something somewhere sometime which encouraged his act?) Two is that Hinkley's supposed motive of impressing Jodie Foster was only half of the story. The book by Hinkley's parents reveals that John wanted to draw attention to the weakness of American gun laws, and the evil of the NRA, and that he thought he could do this by shooting someone famous. His dedication to gun control was what he thought would impress Foster, not his killing Reagan. The press, however, under the influence of the Reagan Administration, opted not to publicize this part of the story, as it might make Hinkley sympathetic, and put the Administration in the unwanted position of having to betray one of its biggest sponsors--the NRA. Instead, it fell on the shoulders of Sarah Brady, the wife of the wounded press secretary, to fight the NRA, a fight she lost just recently when George W. refused to extend the assault weapons ban. Anyone interested in this should see the film The Day Reagan Was Shot, which revealed the incredible amount of mistakes made by Reagan's young Administration in the hours after the shots. Getting shot could have been Reagan's Bay of Pigs.

You are correct, John, that forensic anthropologists, are often given no respect. The HSCA asked Dr. Angel to give them a quick consultation, gave him little opportunity to come to a conclusion, and then ignored just about everything he said.

John, my statement that forensic pathology was firmly established by 1963 is, I believe, accurate. While Mark is quite correct that small towns and rural areas often had coroners with little or no training in 1963, and still don't, large cities have had well-trained professional forensic pathologists since well before WW2. I'll try and get some exact dates if you think it is necessary. Ironically, one of the top forensic pathologists in the country in 1963 was Dr. Earl Rose, of Dallas, who was all set to do Kennedy's autopsy before those pesky SS men absconded with the body. Pathology and Forensic Pathology are very different. As Dr. Wecht explains, a pathologist starts out with an assumed cause of death, i.e. cancer, and then studies the slides and organs to demonstrate that this was the cause. A Forensic Pathologist, however, is trained to look at all the evidence of an autopsy, and then conclude from studying all this evidence, what would be the likely cause of death. The Pathologist therefore looks for an easy solution, and concludes the glass is full if it appears half-full, while a forensic pathologist is taught to reserve his judgment until he makes sure there isn't another glass that is also half-full. When one reads about the autopsy one can see how this difference in training helped bring about some flawed conclusions. When the doctors saw an entrance hole near the EOP and an exit hole near the top of Kennedy's head, Humes concluded the one lead to the other without tracing it through the brain or determining Kennedy's location in comparison to the sniper's nest. He also decided that the bruise on the lung must have been caused by the bullet on its route from the back to the throat, without studying for one second the trajectory or the effects of bullets on lungs, to see if it made sense. The glass was half-full so he said it was full. He gave it all away when in his report he quoted newspapers saying there were three shots fired from above and from behind; this indicated he was trying to get his report to match what he believed were the facts, rather than coming to an independent conclusion.

Robert, I thought the same thing about the Elder reference to Conein. A transfer of money on the same day as a coup? Sounds like a payoff to me... Another interesting bit is on the 8 page Rosselli document. It says that Maheu talked to O'Connell on November 17 and told them that Rosselli was gonna talk if they didn't prevent his deportation. It says the CIA told Maheu on the 18th that they weren't gonna intervene and that he respoonded by saying he wasn't concerned about any negative publicity that would result. What's intriguing to me about this is that Maheu leaves this out of his book. He makes it sound like he had nothing to do with Rosselli's blackmailing the CIA, when in fact he was the delivery boy for the threat. This makes me wonder if he wasn't a party to the threat. After all, Rosselli could have used Harvey to get the CIA a message, or Edward Morgan, as Morgan was Rosselli's attorney as well as Maheu's. But no, it's Maheu, who supposedly had washed his hands of Rosselli a few years before, after Rosselli asked him to arrange for Howard Hughes to pay his legal fees, claiming "you guys owe me." Hmmm. Why would Rosselli think Hughes owed him anything? Also intriguing is the timing of this incident. On November 18 1970, Maheu tells the CIA he is unconcerned with the negative publicity he is bound to receive from being a cut-out for political assassinations. He says nothing of the damage this could do to his employer Howard Hughes, for whom he is the public face. And then less than a week later Hughes, who hasn't left his room for four years, sneaks out of his own hotel and flies to the Bahamas, firing Maheu in the process. When finally asked about this by the press, Hughes says that Maheu was a crook who'd robbed him blind, and implies Maheu's loyalty was with the mobsters, and not with Hughes. I take from this that Hughes was told of Maheu's meeting with the CIA, possibly even by Nixon himself, who'd planted General Cushman in the CIA to keep tabs on what was going on. Nixon may have warned Hughes that Maheu was in the middle of this mess, and that to protect himself from being subpoenaed he should immediately leave the country. This isn't as far-fetched as one might think. Maheu admits he told Hughes of the Castro plots; if Hughes had stayed in the U.S. he almost certainly would have been called before the Church Committee. This raises the possibility in my mind that Hughes left the country not only because he dreaded the possible publicity, but because he knew something he wasn't supposed to know about and didn't want to talk about. I know it's as out there as Tim with his Castro theory, but I'm constantly dancing with the possibilty that Hughes had something to do with the assassination. The timing of Maheu's talks with the CIA added fuel to this fire.