Pat Speer

I accept Tim's word that he's sincerely interested in this topic. Would still love to read someone's translation of one of the many Italian articles about Gaetano Ianni's confession. Meanwhile, I re-read Daniel Yergin's account of Mattei's death in The Prize. He says the plane crashed 7 miles short of a runway in a rainstorm and was almost positively an accident. He also says the only passenger with him was Time magazine's Rome bureau chief. Perhaps someone could find Time's next issue after Oct. 27 1962 and see what they had to say about the death of one of their own. One of the things that makes me suspicious is that Mattei was making deals with the Soviet Union. As we now know, the United States' game plan going back to the fifties was to lure the Soviets into an arms race and then spend them into oblivion. Tim's hero Reagan only performed the coup-de-grace, albeit with a quite cooperative Gorbachev. Since this was the case, Mattei's game plan of cutting a deal with the Soviets and using them to undercut Arab oil may have been suicide. I don't see any way the U.S. would sit back and allow some paisan, whose ass was saved by our forces during WWII, to come along and teach the Soviets how to walk economically speaking, while simultaneously de-stabilizing the mid-east. Wasn't gonna happen. If Mattei wasn't killed by either the CIA, the mafia, or U.S. oil interests, or some combination of the three, it was only a matter of time. IMHO

I read that too, Tim, but with your posting of it I realized the so-called confession probably came from Ianni. I googled Ianni along with 1994 and received a couple of hundred hits............ Does anyone here read Italian?

John, I think the "bear trap" comment was simply Dean kissing up to Nixon's paranoia. Nixon believed, not entirely without basis, that the Kennedys were out to get him. He suspected the Watergate investigation was Teddy's doing. Dean was simply saying that if Teddy pushed the investigation Ulasewicz' research into Chappaqquiddick would be uncovered and be exposed to a much greater extent than could be controlled.

While watching the History Channel the other night I heard something which made my ears perk up. According to the program "Godfathers" Enrico Mattei, an Italian oilmen, was killed by the mafia in 1962 as a favor to American oilmen. Upon a quick search of this forum, I found only 3 references to this--all in regards to Thomas Buchanan's Who Killed Kennedy?, which asserts the same men who killed Mattei killed Kennedy. I then performed a Google to see what else I could find and found that various articles over the years have indeed made the assertion Mattei was killed by the mob for one reason or another. A couple of articles assert that the OAS and the CIA's Thomas Karemessines had it in for Mattei as well. I was, however, unable to find a reference to the History Channel's claim that in 1994 a former member of the mafia admitted they'd killed Mattei by planting a bomb in his plane. If anyone knows who made this confession and under what circumstances it may be helpful. Perhaps this man knows something of the JFK assassination as well.

Tim, I'm not sure if you've ever been a contributor to other forums, but I have. Anyhow, to my undertstanding, when you go to a forum it's like visiting someone in their home. The webmaster has the right to tell you to leave. Knowing this, I've been amazed at the way you've treated John. I've also been amazed at his level of tolerance. I think you should acknowledge that if John was as a conservative he would have kicked you out long ago, as only a practicing liberal like John would tolerate so much. NO WAY would a pro-Bush website tolerate someone taking over their forum and arguing with everyone, and then threatening to sue everyone who implies he might be a commie (or a murderer). I believe you owe John an apology so we can move on.

Man, this thread has gone to hell! It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer. In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points. Hopefully, I won't upset anyone. 1. Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted. It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them. While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions. If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory. You can defend it if you like. By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them. In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy. In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays. I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back. If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD. It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me. To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald. Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other! 2. Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work, I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination. The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc. If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men. When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself. So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say. I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books. Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

The point I'm trying to make, Tim, is that you have to look at the body of evidence, not just one aspect. There are those who think if one autopsy photo is fake that proves the CIA did it. They then stare at autopsy photos and convince themselves they're fake. It seems you're doing the same with the Castro evidence. If there's one hundred CIA agents and one DGI agent, you'll focus on the DGI agent and ask yourself "what was he doing there...my GOD...this proves CASTRO DID IT!!!" I'm suggesting a DGI agent could have been lured there as easily as any CIA agent, maybe even to stop Oswald...how about that scenario???

Tim, I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are QUITE wrong about this. In our discussions of the Secret Agenda lawsuit between Ida Wells and Gordon Liddy, Ron Ecker pointed out that she lost not because what he said was true, but because she failed to prove he had NO REASON to believe what he said was true. The burden of proof would be on you, buddy, to prove that Shanet had reason to believe Sprague's book was not credible. As a result, I don't think your case would even get off the ground. Our country wisely protects Shanet's right to be wrong, at the expense of your right not to have anyone say any mean things about you or impugn your spotless reputation. Sorry. As a conservative you should be happy that the constitution is designed to keep Uncle Sam off your back, even when you're wrong.

Tim. Get some cold water. Wet face. Slap face. Wake up!!!! Now you're claiming Larry's book, which compiles a ton of information linking the assassination to your Cuban neighbors--not the ones 90 miles away--the ones down the street--is an argument for your Castro did it theory??? If so, I'm afraid you owe Larry an apology. Before he sues you for libel. His book says no such thing and you're insulting him by implying as much. Secondly, you really need to take a look in the mirror. While you and your friend Gerry theorize that all kinds of people were lured to Dallas to muddy the waters, you assert that if even one DGI agent was in Dealey it's proof that Castro did it. That's weaker than a Karl Rove "I never said her name!! excuse." Please! If you're gonna make that argument you HAVE TO play fair and say that if even one CIA agent was in Dealey the CIA did it, in which case you should be trying to prove Rip Robertson WAS NOT at Houston and Main. Similarly, you HAVE TO acknowledge that there was indisputably a man with MOB ties in the Dal-Tex Building--a man whose loyalty was apparently to Lansky, not Trafficante. If he was there by your rationale it means the mob did it, perhaps with Castro, perhaps without. And yet you CHOOSE to ignore these men and focus on DGI phantoms. Can there be any doubt you're blinded by an agenda? Can there be any doubt your abilities as a researcher/historian have been crippled by your political slant? Wake up, buddy! It seems your brouhaha with Shanet has knocked the sense OUT of you.

Thanks, John for posting that letter. So there it is, Tim, the talks with Castro were real and were in the works. Now show us that the second invasion was anything but wishful thinking by some desperate anti-Castro Cubans. If the Pentagon left things like Northwoods lying around wouldn't they have left behind some very specific plans for a second invasion? Where are they? What ships were being prepared? What troops were being trained? It's a myth! This doesn't mean Kennedy was killed by the anti-Castro Cubans or the MIC. It does mean that Castro had no legitimate fear of invasion from Kennedy. And probably knew it.

Tim, I think you're losing this skirmish. You want to believe Kennedy might have lost and was desperate to attack Cuba in order to win, when the facts show just the opposite. Attacking Cuba is the LAST thing Kennedy would have done. READ Shackley's memoirs. There was NO second invasion! It was a fraud designed to incite a rebellion in Cuba. No way would Kennedy risk a second Bay of Pigs. No way! Secondly, just WHO do you think could have beaten Kennedy in 64? Rocky didn't have the support of his own party. Nixon had decided to sit this one out. And Goldwater was considered unelectable even by most Republicans. It was a shoo-in. JFK was no George Bush I, who found a way to lose a sure thing by refusing to lead. Kennedy would have been re-elected, Cuba invasion or no. Thirdly, the Republican party in 64 was in the beginning stages of its Southern Plan. You know this. While the Democratic Party was the traditional party of the old South, the Republican party was the party of abolitionists. In 64, however, with men like Buckley, Goldwater and Tower in the lead, the Republican party became the states' rights party, actively fighting against civil rights. Motivated by an unquenchable lust for power, the Republican Party decided to court hate groups across the country, particularly the Birchers, Klan, etc. In 64 the plan failed, but in 68 Tricky Dick reworked the campaign as a campaign against violence, won over the so-called silent majority and squeaked out a victory. By 72, he was scared the divisiveness and anger HE'D created with his policies and behavior might backfire and send votes to someone whose policies were even more cynical and hateful than his own, George Wallace. Nixon was scared Wallace might pull just enough votes from him to give McGovern the victory. But then Wallace was shot. Will you at least admit the "southern plan" was real, and quit talking about the Repubs as the party of Lincoln? Bush I was a states-rights candidate in 64. Will you at least admit your saintly elephant party were the bad-guys, if only once upon a time?

Since the earwitnesss testimony indicates that a shot came from west of the TSBD but not the stockade fence, I've been in a quandary trying to figure out where the shot came from. One of the possible solutions is that the shot came from the far west window of the TSBD and just seemed west of the building.

John, if the DPD faked the photographs it is indicative of a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald while he was still alive. To most minds, this is absolute proof of a vast conspiracy to kill Kennedy, as why would the DPD frame a man who was merely a suspect, and might still name others?. I suggest you read the other threads on the photos to get a better understanding of their significance. I reactivated one just the other day in hopes some here would do so. The existence of 133 C as revealed by Geneva White is one of the most damaging discoveries of the post WC period. Here we have a first generation print of an Oswald photo that was never given to the WC or the FBI. The HSCA investigated--an investigation that apparently has no paper trail, by the way--and discovered that one of the DPD officers, Studebaker, had made copies of the various photos and given them to his fellow officers. There are huge problems with this. One problem is that the detectives who found the photos testified to finding only two. I believe the FBI agent who was a witness to Oswald being confronted by the photos also said there were only two. That NO ONE at the DPD who had all three photos ever said there were three is highly suspicious. Furthermore, the negatives to 133 A and 133 C have never surfaced. Famed newspaper editor Gene Roberts, who was at that time a young reporter for the Detroit Free Press, is reported to have purchased a bunch of contraband photos in early 64. One of these photos was 133 A, and it was published by the Press before Life Magazine could print their version which they purchased from Marina. In the HSCA report on the photos there is no mention of anyone ever contacting the Detroit Free Press and seeing if they still have this material or if their 133A was a first generation copy. I have suggested that interested researchers here do as much. Since the photo found in the DPD files of the detective mocking the pose of 133 C indicates some sort of re-enactment was attempted or achieved, it would seem that a careful study of the photographs should begin with 133-C, which the shadows indicate was the first photo taken (the HSCA report said as much) and was the photo completely concealed from the WC. I don't have the photographic equipment to do so, but perhaps you can do a comparison of Oswald's hands in the photos. To my eyes it looks like Oswald's hand in 133-c has been smeared in some way. This led me to compare it to the other photos and it seemed to me that the rings on his fingers change hands from photo to photo. This led me to suspect that 133-C was kept from the public because the body double had left his wedding ring on. Just a hunch. That said, I'm not completely convinced the photos are fake. I am 100% convinced that members of the DPD stole some of the photos and that this obvious blatant FACT was largely ignored by the HSCA and the mainstream media. WHY? If the LAPD can be crucified for beating Rodney King why wasn't the DPD criticicized fro mishandling evidence in the biggest case of the century?

Mr. Schorr, now in his late 80s, I believe, continues on as the voice of American independent journalism. I've read Clearing The Air, and looked through his most recent, which is more an over-view of his career. Clearing The Air is the real deal however and one of the best books written about the political climate of the seventies. Schorr stepped over the lines of journalism when he leaked the report of the Pike Committee to the Village Voice, the House of Representatives investigation into intelligence activites which in many ways went even further than the Church Committee. He lost his job at CBS as a result, as William Paley couldn't stand the heat from his Washington cronies. As I remember, CBS' supposed reason for dumping Schorr was that by not immediately coming forward he allowed people to suspect other CBS employees, and that was unfair. Weak. The highlights of the book include his encounters with Richard Helms, who nearly attacked him in front of a large crowd, calling him a killer, and his bizarre encounters with the seriously disturbed James Jesus Angleton. A great read. While it was Schorr who put the idea into Haldeman's head that the assassination and Watergate were related, in his most recent book he seems to have retreated somewhat from this position, and seems even to be leaning towards a lone-nut position. One of the best things he's written was an article for Oliver Stone's published screenplay to Nixon, which also included fresh articles by John Dean and Howard Hunt. Those who subscribe to the wacky "Dean did it because his wife was a whore" theory of Watergate should read these articles before ever spouting such nonsense.

Earth to Tim. There are a number of people on this forum who, for a multitude of reasons, suspect that Kennedy was killed by a right wing conspiracy. Since you're what amounts to a right-winger here, and since you actually were involved in a right-wing conspiracy (the Segretti operation), some of us have attempted to explore your involvement, to see if there are any parallels. Unfortunately, Shanet found your arguments too annoying and said some dumb stuff unsupported by the facts. I'm sure he was just trying to get your goat. The point I think John has been trying to make is that, much like Harry, you may know a lot more than you think you know. You saw a conspiracy up close. While you try and make light of the whole thing, to some of us here the Nixon Administration is alive and well in your old pal Karl Rove, and is worthy of investigation.

Tim, I was once the chief whistle-blower at a corrupt record company that went down in flames, after being swallowed up by organized crime. Someone got their revenge by going to a record industry chat room I frequented and outing me as one of the crooks involved, and stated further that my assistant and I were gay lovers. It was a low blow, particularly because my girlfriend had left me and miscarried our baby as a result of her fears about my safety. Her father had been murdered and she wasn't about to stick around and see me get killed. Anyhow, I dealt with the allegations made against me by making a joke out of it. You should have done the same. A blind man could see that Shanet was just talking out of his butt. If you'd have made a joke of it instead of threatening a lawsuit, everyone would have been better off. There is something beyond being right, and that's being credible. Your bully tactics have won you no friends, and NOBODY'S respect. I suspect you could find the smoking gun against Castro tomorrow, and very few people here would even read your post. IMHO You need to take a chill pill, apologize to John, apologize to Shanet, and talk to your pal Gerry. If anyone knows how to blow off allegations it's Gerry. As a man familiar with the justice system you should know that in the eyes of most Americans there are far worse things than being accused of being a murderer, and one of those things is being accused of having no sense of humor. I'm afraid you've proven the latter without so much as a trial.

Robert, are you saying the "Family Jewels" have been declassified? If so, where do we get them? It could very well be that the document you mentioned was something prepared for the Church hearings, when Colby was still DCI. Hopefully someone will know for sure.

Perhaps I should explain. None of the three men directly below the sniper's nest heard a first shot miss. They all reported activity in the car after the first shot and/or the last two shots coming right on top of each other. That the Posnerites continue to cite their testimony as proof Oswald acted alone, and get away with it, is annoying as heck.

I believe the nature of the palm print was such that it was determined to have been an old print, from some time before the assassination. The palm print at best lends credence to the fact that it was Oswald's gun, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Oswald fired it that day. It may even be evidence against his firing the weapon that day, since he had no access to gloves at work that anyone has reported and since he left no fresh prints. (Will Smith?)

Tim, for someone with a legal background, you seem to miss a few things. First, if Shanet has committed a crime, go at it. As established by our other discussions, you KNOW that to establish libel you have to prove both that you were harmed by the allegation and that the libelous party would have had no reason to believe that what he said was true. While I believe you are innocent, there are written accounts suggesting you were involved to which you did not take action. As far as I can see, you have no leg to stand on regarding anything Shanet has to say. On the second point as to whether you have been harmed, your case is once again a loser. Shanet, sad to say, has embraced so many different conspiracies and elements of conspiracy that his statements carry no weight in and of themselves. He has never presented himself as an expert on you or on the case and as a result I doubt you could convince anyone that people out there would take his word for granted. He has never intimated that he had secret information about you that led him to his statements. Your differnece with him is therefore one over interpretation of an accepted set of facts. I believe the first amendment protects his right to be wrong. You better hope so before Fidel comes after you. (A joke.) Secondly, if no crime was committed in revealing Plame's identity why in heck is there a special prosecutor spending millions to uncover who was responsible? While the information released so far indicates Rove was probably not guilty of a crime, we still don't know how Rove uncovered that Plame had CIA ties, or what he told others. If he used his role at the White House to uncover her role at the CIA, and then revealed that role for political purposes, his security clearance should be revoked and he should be fired regardless of whether or not he told anyone her name, or whether or not he technically committed a crime. Can we at least agree on that?

I believe it was only Norman who heard the shells. I also believe the WC tested whether or not someone could hear the shells hit the floor from his position and found they could. I've studied Norman's, Williams' and Jarman's testimony, and not only found them credible, but a convincing argument for conspiracy.

You almost certainly know this, but the fifth floor window was where Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams were crouching. Dillard caught them in his picture immediately after the shots. Nothing happened there. If you're trying to track down whether the fifth floor was pointed out as disinfo, in order to blame the black guys and let the sixth floor men escape, it might be important that Hoover told Johnson that the shots came from the fifth floor. I wonder if he forgot which lie he was supposed to be telling.

That's right, it was Sawyer, not Harkness. As I remember, a lot of the confusion comes from Brennan's testifying that he gave the info to Sorrels, who went directly to Parkland and didn't arrive at the TSBD til after 1, long after the description was broadcast. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Brennan just got confused over the names. Somewhere also I remember seeing a photo of Brennan talking to the police immediately after the shooting. The man really did see someone in that window. I do agree, however, that after being told that it was Oswald he saw, his memory gradually changed to make the shooter look more and more like Oswald. That's the way memory distortion works. If the police had told Brennan that Jack Ruby was standing next to Oswald during the shooting, he'd have gradually come to remember seeing that, too.

Once again, I'm away from my books and forced to work off the top of my head, but I distinctly remember that there was an official government project--was it ARTICHOKE-which sought to test and classify virtually all plant life and determine its poisonous properties. It makes sense that cancer-causing agents would have been identified as a result and studied. The question is whether such government research took place at the Ochsner clinic. My gut instinct says "no." IF Judyth is telling the truth and she and Lee were working on a project with Ferrie, I find it EXTREMELY doubtful their ultimate sponsor was the CIA. Ochsner was an extremist and white supremacist--I recently found a book (from the late 60s even) where the writer advocates sending African-Americans back to Africa in order to solve the ongoing racial tension. I thought it was a bit of a hoot until I noticed that Ochsner was quoted on the back cover saying that the author had the best understanding of America's problems of anyone today blah blah blah... Since we know Ochsner had ties to Murchison, who shared some of these sensibilities, I'd suspect any attempts on Castro using Ochsner's research were funded by the far right. The CIA simply wouldn't have been so sloppy as to let a girl barely out of high school and a known pedophile conduct such important research. She may be a nice person. She may have known Oswald. She may believe she's telling the truth. But her basic story is highly doubtful and is in my opinion a major distraction from the case.

John, the Weissman you suspect was involved, is that the same Weissman who purchased the ad in the paper? After reading his testimony I was quite convinced he was an innocent. Are you implying that he was a sniper trained by Walker? If this is true, this is an important and little-know detail. And Harry, excuse me if this is a dumb question, but were you aware at any time of any JBS activity at the TSBD? Is it possible that Truly or Caster were members? What about the DPD? Were you aware of any members there? Any ideas on which men we should focus on?