Pat Speer

The one thing that people miss when discussing Deep Throat, particularly those who insist that he must have been more than one person, is that Deep Throat might very well have received some of his info second-hand. Who knows what Dean told Fielding, for instance, and if Fielding was also buddies with Henry Peterson, who knows what Peterson told him? What one should look for therefore is somebody NEAR the investigation, but not directly involved. Fielding is the best candidate. Meyer is not bad, it's just that his connections to the Justice Dept. are not as obvious.

I've posted it before but I'm quite convinced a lot of the confusion over Oswald in Mexico has nothing to do with the assassination itself. In the U.S., where wiretapping was illegal, the FBI would say they had an unimpeachable source whenever they used a bug. I believe the CIA had a similar system overseas, where they could legally bug. Whenever they used an internal source (a mole) to gain information, they would seek to protect the existence of that source by creating a fake phone call. I believe this is something Angleton worked out with Phillips. Therefore, the phone calls on the 28th wre probably legit. The other phone calls, made on days when Oswald failed to visit the embassy, were the ones that were scripted, and performed by actors, probably under Phillips' direction. These transcripts included a lot of valuable information--Oswald's meeting with Kostikov, for example--that Oswald himself didn't need to say over the phone. The clincher for me is when he asks if his visa has been approved, when he never even filled out the form. (At least that's how I remember it.)

My investigation would include: Nicholas Katzenbach, on his discussions with LBJ leading up to the memo to Moyers. I would also demand a better excuse than the HSCA was given for his role in the memo. Michael Paine, about the backyard photos. Members of the Stovall family regarding the backyard photos. Former journalist Gene Roberts, as to his source for his acquisition of a backyard photograph whose negative was stolen. Dr. John Lattimer, on his relationship with J. Edgar Hoover, and on whether or not he was shown the autopsy photographs by Hoover. Sen. Arlen Specter as to why after seeing the autopsy photograph of Kennedy's back, he allowed the Rydberg drawings into the final report. Sen. Ted Kennedy, as to the whereabouts of his brother's brain, and any conversations on the assassination he had with Jackie or his brother Bobby. Caroline Kennedy, as to anything her mother might have told her re the assassination. (I would also subpoena all of William Manchester's notes and interviews.) Former President Gerald Ford, on any and every conversation he had with members of the Commission regarding the autopsy photographs. Former President George HW Bush, on the Hoover memo. Joseph Trento, on the Angleton memo, and Angleton's role in the Mary Meyer incident. Ladybird Johnson, as to her husband's concerns about the Bobby Baker scandal. Nellie Connally, as to why she changed the description of Kennedy's wounds in her memoir, From Love Field. McGeorge Bundy (alive?) as to the writing of NSA 273. He may have explained this already, I'm not sure. Robert Maheu, on his mob ties. I would treat him as a hostile witness and demonstrate the many inconsistencies in his previous testimony. Phyliis McGuire, on her pillow talk with Sam Giancana. Dr. Carlos Bringuier, who was he working with, who orchestrated his disinfo? Did he ever suspect oswald was CIA? Loran Hall, what was he really up to? Gerry Hemming, I would re-read his every interview and find his inconsistencies and then call him on the carpet. Shake him up a little. See if anything real falls from the tree. Sen. Christopher Dodd, on his father's attitudes towards Kennedy and Cuba and on his own role in the HSCA. Thomas Canning, on his construction of trajectory myths for the HSCA. Michael Baden, on the HSCA medical panel's outright distortions and their stubborn denial of the hole in the hairline..

John, as far as I know, Angleton was never asked why he wanted the diary. Bradlee makes it sound like Angleton went after it purely as a favor to his wife, one of Meyer's close friends. Furthermore, I've never understood why the Bradlees would give it to Angleton to destroy when they could have done it themselves. The only thing I can think of is that Angleton was hoping to use it against Robert Kennedy, with Bradlee's blessing. When Angleton's safe was opened, the CIA found a complete autopsy report on Robert Kennedy's death, with autopsy photos. This has never been explained. (One possibility is that Angleton, the CIA's liaison with Mossad, suspected Sirhan was a Palestinian or KGB operative.) Anyhow, maybe you can get Joe Trento to pipe in on this thread with his impressions.

Buckley devotes a chapter to Williams in one of his books. I read it in a used bookstore-should have just bought it. As Ii remember it, he hated Willaims for his ego and hypocrisy--purporting to be liberal while representing Hoffa and his ilk.

It's been a suspicion of mine for awhile that the police officer who yelled at Vickie Adams and the men lurking around the back didn't stop anybody from going in or out because they were looking for one person in particular, Oswald. I don't believe Oswald was supposed to escape. He outsmarted them by strolling through the offices and walking out the front door.

In 1962 rumours began circulating that Bobby Baker was involved in corrupt activities. Although officially his only income was that of an aide to Lyndon B. Johnson, he was clearly a very rich man. Investigated by RFK it was discovered that Baker had links to Clint Murchison and several Mafia bosses. Evidence also emerged that Baker was also involved in political corruption. This included the award of a $7 billion contract for a fighter plane, the TFX, to General Dynamics, a company based in Texas. On 7th October, 1963, Baker was forced to leave his job. Soon afterwards, Fred Korth, the Navy Secretary, was also forced to resign because of the TFX contract. He was replaced by John Connally. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwilliamsBT.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, It's probably just a typo, but Korth had been Connally's replacement.

If you really want to spin your head, think about Warren Caster. Caster was the guy who brought two rifles into the TSBD two days before the assassination. One of the guys who checked them out was Oswald. Supposedly he got the idea of killing Kennedy from Caster's guns. What's mind-boggling about Caster is that he was interviewed some time later and said the FBI NEVER EVEN CHECKED to see if he was telling the truth about taking the rifles home. What killed me was when I realized that he showed off the rifles on the way up to his office on the fourth floor and that they were in cases. There is no report of anyone checking the rifles on the way out. Well, that's a classic scam right? A person carrries something in in a box, reveals the contents, then leaves with the box, leaving the contents behind. As soon as the person gets outside he refills the box with extra contents so no one is the wiser. A classic Mission Impossible scheme. What made me extra suspicious is that Caster wasn't even at the TSBD on the 22nd, which gave him a perfect alibi. If someone can tie him to Walker or the Klan, I'll buy his involvement in a heartbeat. The fourth floor was the top floor for offices, above that was just warehouse space. It wouldn't have been hard at all for someone to open up a closet and sneak the guns up a couple of floors around lunchtime after everyone's come down. Maybe the guns were hidden back inside afterwards; it's hard to say how thoroughly the TSBD offices were searched once the sniper's nest was found. I'm just throwing stuff out in case anyone wants to run with it.

I think Oswald set himself up. If not the TSBD he would have found another "room with a view" over the parade route. Some guys are just lucky that way. As for the Paine's, I suspect Ruth was probably for real, but that Michael has a secret or two. It just seems a little suspicious to me that 1. He had a Minox camera. 2. He moved out just when Marina needed a place to stay, and returned right after the asassination. He paid for Marina's room and board and never complained. 3. He suddenly remembered Oswald showing him the backyard photos thirty years after the fact. 4. He was the one who returned Marina's records to the de Mohrenschildts. When the de Mohrenschildts returned from Haiti they looked through the records and voila, a backyard photograph, dated and everything. Michael Paine spent the evening of the 23rd, the day Stovall etc. found the photographs, at the police station being questioned separate from his family. They may have questioned him about his cameras, so they could establish which one was Lee's to better fake a photo. Or perhaps Paine himself planted the photos--he spent the night with Ruth on the 22nd. Something about his relationship to the photos just isn't right. I still haven't completely figured it out. I mean, would you let a commie who poses with rifles stay in your house every week-end rent free? 5. He regularly discussed politics with Oswald and took him to an ACLU meeting. 6. He admitted moving the blanket which supposedly held Oswald's rifle numerous times, and yet swore he never looked inside. Moreover, he claimed he thought it was camping equipment. How? And why, when he knew from the backyard photos Oswald had a rifle? SUBPOENA MICHAEL PAINE

I went back and re-read this in light of my comments on the other ACLU thread and now understand what you're saying Greg. You suspect the ACLU was deliberately sullied by people like Nichols. I suspect the opposite. I suspect Oswald was not sure what he was supposed to do after being captured, and so continued on in his leftist pose, and deliberately discredited the ACLU, much as he discredited the FPCC in New Orleans. His failure to mention the ACLU in any of his press conferences might indicate you're onto something, however. What's weird is I can hear his voice volunteering that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union in answer to the question if he is a member of the communist party. Maybe that's in the movie JFK.

Jack, while I do find much of your analysis fresh and interesting, I don't take it too seriously. Why, you might ask?. Because to my way of thinking the men in power's need for widespread falsification of photos and evidence is an unnecessary risk. After all, history has shown us all they need to do to control our country is LIE LIE and LIE. They found with Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs (It was Kennedy's cowardice and not CIA incompetence that was at fault), the Gulf of Tonkin, and Chile (Allende was a dangerous communist) that all they have to do is repeat a line long enough and loud enough and a certain sector will believe it. They sold the American people a bunch of lies about how conservatives are good for the economy, about the need for Star Wars, about our need to invade Iraq, about the lack of patriotism of liberals, about the genius of Richard Nixon, about the courage of George W Bush, about the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, about how Kennedy killed Diem (while leaving Lodge out of it), about how Kennedy and LBJ started the Vietnam war (neglecting to mention that Nixon interfered with the peace talks so he could get elected, and then kept the war going for 4 more years so he could get re-elected), about how Jimmy Carter was weak (when Carter tried to free hostages through military force as opposed to Reagan who traded arms for hostages) etc. The new BS line most are buying is that Clinton made us a target of Bin Laden by being weak. They don't need gizmos and simulations, Jack, they own this country simply by LYING. When you lie you leave no record of your true intentions; you simply say it was a misunderstanding or an alternative take on history. If they were into simulations don't you think we'd have found ONE WMD in Iraq?

Dougherty, D-o-u-g-h-e-r-t-y, I spelled it wrong on my last post. Anyhow, I think Dougherty testified he took the elevator down after the shots, mentioned hearing something to Eddie Piper and then headed right back up. According to Truly's testimony, Dougherty was an emotionally fragile man living with his parents--I've worked with a few of these myself--and that is why his testimony is unclear on certain points. He gets really upset when the counsel tries to get him to a commit to a time frame for instance--he seemed to believe the shots occurred at 12:45 after he went back to work. My guess is Dougherty was scared he'd get in trouble if he admitted he was working on his lunch break. Anyhow, while I haven't read the testimony for awhile, I spent a lot of time thinking abolut this at one point and a lot of it is coming back to me. I remember Truly saying the disappearance of the West elevator when he ran up to the fifth and reappearance of it when he came back down made perfect sense to him when he saw that Dougherty was working up there. As I remember it the West elevator, the one preferred by Dougherty, had gates that could be left open so no one else could use it. Since Dougherty was on the fifth floor but was not seen by Jarman, Williams, and Norman, the possibility exists of course that someone had manipulated Dougherty into helping them come down in the elevator with him. This is far-fetched I believe but no one was as invisible at the book depository as Dougherty. If he was helping someone get in and out of the book depository no one would have been the wiser.

Pat: Could you check details of the people who Williams represented before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). It seems very strange that soon afterwards he was representing Joseph McCarthy during the Senate censure proceedings against him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Acording to Thomas, Williams' first HUAC client was the screenwriter Martin Berkeley, who named 154 names, purportedly at Williams' urging. Williams later denied this, but acknowledged he did nothing to prevent his client from ratting out everyone he ever suspected of leaning left. Another client who ratted was Robert Rossen, the producer of All the King's Men, who named 57 reds, including two who would be blacklisted, Budd Schulberg and Ring Lardner, Jr. (Ironically 57 is the number of commies originally cited by Joseph McCarthy as working in the State Dept. The Manchurian Candidate hinted that he picked this number because it was the number of his favorite ketchup and easy to remember...even more ironically, it was the ketchup company that created the wealth of Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry's wife, and this has upset the new McCarthys so much they've decided to create W, the right wing jingo-istic super ketchup, as advertised on websites everywhere.) Williams went on to represent screenwriter Howard Koch, screenwriter Carl Foreman and producer Harold Hecht, a man named by Berkeley, charging them exorbitant fees in what might well be considered extortion, seeing as Williams also represented their chief accuser, McCarthy..

I agree that 3-4 running out would probably have been noticed. I believe no one who witnessed men running out the back saw more than one at a time.

In William Kunstler's memoirs he says that Oswald was holding out for Abt, but then Abt said no. Oswald then requested an ACLU attorney. Kunstler claims he volunteeered and was on his way to the airport when Oswald was murdered. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, how the hell would Kunstler know? We only have two sources for Oswald asking for the ACLU... Fritz and Nichols. Now there's two you can trust... It never happened, publicly or otherwise. The only public statement by Oswald Kunstler could have responded to was his request for "somebody to come forward". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On page 153 of Kunstler's memoirs he says that Melvin Wulf, the ACLU's legal director, asked him if he'd represent Oswald, and that he was on the way to the airport when Ruby killed Oswald. Ironically, Kunstler helped Ruby on his appeal, as part of a team of five or six other lawyers, including a Texas ACLU attorney by the odd name of Sam Houston Clinton. Kunstler doesn't say how Wulf got the word that Abt had declined and that Oswald had asked for an ACLU attorney. It could be that Wulf was just filling in the blanks, seeing as Oswald had mentioned he was a member of the ACLU during one of the press conferences.

I assume details will be provided in Evan Thomas' book. I will get a copy and let you know. You might be interested in this. Earl E. T. Smith (the husband of Florence Pritchatt) gave evidence to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960. The committee included Dodd. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have the Thomas book and there is little on Dodd. I assume the case had to do with the corruption charges brought out in Pearson's column. I believe Dodd was the one who did a study on the inter-state shipment of rifles and told the FBI to check into Klein's. Either he knew his stuff or it was one lucky guess.

Connally was guilty as sin. In his memoirs, he tries to pass Jacobsen off as some lobbyist, when Jacobsen and Connally had known each other for 25 years. In Ladybird Johnson's diary she makes several comment about Jacobsen, and mentions how much time he spends with LBJ. It was nonsense therefore for Connally to pretend he didn't know Jacobsen. In Lone Star, by James Reston Jr, the milk fund story is thoroughly examined and has even darker ramifications. Jacobsen and Connally at one point tried to save Connally's rump by placing the ten grand into a safe deposit box and claiming that Connally never touched it (Nixon and Rebozo tried this with the 100k from Maheu as well). Only they put bills in the box with George Schultz's name on it, who followed Connally as Sec. of the Treasury. This would have shown that the money was only recently placed in the box, and would have blown their cover-up. As I remember it, in a last minute scramble, Connally paid a visit to a big supporter who was able to provide him with the proper cash. Interestingly, however, this friend ended up going to jail a few years later after being popped in one of the biggest drug busts in Texas. It was drug money.

I'm intrigued as to what services Williams provided for Dodd. Evidently Drew Pearson wrote a column about how Dodd got drunk when JFK died and publicly bemoaned what a lousy President JFK was; supposedly he wouldn't even let his son listen to the radio. Dodd was of course one of those most strongly opposed to Castro. What's especially intriguing is that Dodd's son (the same one?) Christopher went on to become a congressman, and was one of the main men in the HSCA. He is currently the Senator from Connecticut. Maybe Arlen Specter isn't the only current Senator with something to hide.

Antti, you're quite correct about the elevator shaft. Hemming is making it up. One of the first things I did when I got into this thing was show myself it was possible for someone besides Oswald to have been on the sixth floor and to have escaped. Here's what I came to understand. Truly and Baker arrive at the elevators. They see both of them at the fifth. The East elevator is controlled only from inside. The West can be called but not if someone has the door locked open. When it doesn't respond Truly yells for someone on the fifth to release the elevator. No one does. Jack Daugherty is on the fifth pulling an order. Jarman, Williams and Norman are on the fifth hiding by the stairs and watching the crowd race over to the railroad tracks. None of them hear Truly. Jack Daugherty has heard the shots and is wondering what is going on. He takes the West elevator from the fifth floor down while Truly and Baker are running up the stairs. Truly and Baker get to the fifth. Jarman, as I remember it, sees Baker's helmet, but doesn't bother to alertl Baker that he thinks the shooter was on the sixth. Truly and Baker notice that the West elevator is gone (taken down by Daugherty) and take the East elevator to the SEVENTH where they get off and go up to the roof, where Baker looks for a shooter behind the Hertz sign. Since Jarman, Williams, and Norman take a few more minutes before heading down, this means a shooter or a team of shooters could have a window of 3-4 minutes where they could head down the stairs without being seen. Although Vickie Adams believes she raced straight down the stairs she is obviously wrong because she remembers seeing Billy Shelley when she got to the bottom floor, and Shelley and Lovelady both swear they walked around by the railroad tracks for several minutes before coming back inside the building. Still, her testimony is important because it confirms that no one was checking people coming out of the building. Shelley and Lovedlady's testimony is even more important because they admit they came back in from a loading dock on the WEST side of the building, an entrance/exit that no one ever testified to blocking off. The WC attorney asking them the questions nearly went into a fit. As to the question how could no one notice the strangers in the building it should be remembered that there were a number of small companies in the building whose employees did not all mix. Office people made it a point not to notice warehouse workers etc. I've worked in similar environments. Anyhow, the proof that this was so comes from the WC statements of those who worked in the building--barely any of them remembered seeing Oswald even though he'd worked there for six weeks. Even so they were asked if they remembered noticing any strangers in the building. Of course, they all said no, because there were so many strangers in the building they never stopped to notice.

In William Kunstler's memoirs he says that Oswald was holding out for Abt, but then Abt said no. Oswald then requested an ACLU attorney. Kunstler claims he volunteeered and was on his way to the airport when Oswald was murdered.

If Gerald Posner would write a book PROVING the existence of angels separate from God I'm sure 5% of America would believe him. Afterwards Peter Jennings could do an in-depth investigation which reveals nothing and Dale Myers could create a computer simulation demonstrating Posner's proof, using anatomically incorrect models of angels of course.

There was a survey a few years back that was widely quoted for a brief while--I seem to remember seeing Jay Leno do some jokes on it. This survey came out when shows like "Touched By An Angel" were on the tube and films like "Michael" starring John Travolta were at the theatre. Anyhow, as I remember it, something like 75% of those surveyed said they beleved in angels, but only 70% said they believed in the God of the Bible. This struck me at the time as indicative of a lot of people's basic stupidity, and I asked around and found several acquaintances who believed in angels but not the God of the Bible. Their thinking was something along the lines that it was easier for them to believe in invisible spirits that appear on occasion to help people, than it was for them to believe in an all-powerful God who allows babies to die and people like Hitler to gain power. It just never occurred to them that the existence of angels was connected to the existence of a Biblical God. Thanks to shows like "Highway to Heaven" they'd grown up thinking it was completely rational to believe in angels, the same way those who grew up with Back To The Future thought time travel was just a matter of time, so to speak.

After reading the April 30, 1964 Executive Session of the Warren Commission, I'm no longer sure about Warren. In that session he agreed to the necessity of a Commission member and a doctor examining the autopsy photos. And yet this was not done. McCloy in his HSCA testimony blamed Warren. Either Warren stopped the examination because he was an overly-sentimental fool who was worried about upsetting the Kennedys, who had said the photos could be viewed if necessary, or he was worried the examination of the photos would take the investigation down an avenue he couldn't control. I now find it easier to believe Warren participated in a cover-up than that he was completely unqualified to lead an investigation. His comments in his memoirs that the Clark Panel confirmed the Warren Commission's interpretation of the wounds is the height of deceptive polito-speak. He was a politician, first and foremost--maybe he was swayed by fears LBJ would unleash a nuclear arsenal--maybe LBJ told him he would do as much. I find the scenario that Warren was afraid of what LBJ might do (if the evidence pointed at him) more plausible than the scenario that he was scared of what the Russians might do (if the evidence pointed at them). There is no getting around it: either Warren was an incompetent or a participant in a cover-up. And if he covered-up, either he did it out of fear of LBJ or fear of the Russians. If he allowed the Russians to get away with the crime, what assurance would he have had that they wouldn't just turn around and kill LBJ, or all of congress? Therefore, his covering for LBJ after LBJ threatened to use all the powers of the Presidency to protect himself, including perhaps the distraction of starting a nuclear war, makes a lot more sense. Which sounds more reasonable to you?

Al, you're absolutely right that there are a lot of theorists who are more intrigued by the incredible than are interested in the plausible, but that only adds to my conviction that rational thinkers are needed, here as on other forums. We live in a world where more people believe in angels than in God, without ever stopping to realize that the existence of angels requires the existence of God.

Oh yes, Lee, I did read this. I think I even posted on the thread about Oxnard or something. Well, Hunt's involvement certainly would make sense due to his proximity to Phillips. The so-called Angleton memo seems to back this up. Elsewhere I've read that Wean eventually admitted that the John in his story was Senator John Tower. John Simkin should know about that.