Dawn Meredith

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris. Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more? This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda. Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible. Punch & Judy show. Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will. I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route. Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer. Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level. The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again. The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere. A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon. BK Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!'' Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act. Yo! Miles, You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ? I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government." He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well. I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue. He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?" And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then). And take a sip of my drink. I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style. The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one. If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions. It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous. BK I thought Talbot started a bit shakey but then held his own. The Bug was trying to intimidate him, and Matthews was a jerk, but David gathered himself together and made his points. I think he will get better and better at this. BK you need to tell David about Peterbaugh, as well as who he is,and how he was in the position to determine the motorcade route. (Older books have Dallas mayor Cabell as the responsible party on the route) . He needs to be ready and prepared for this question. Last night Scarboro (sp) just had Bugliosi and it was afwul. He twists, distorts, lies....He had a good 10 minutes to brain wash the unknowing. Bug said basically all the same things he said on Matthews, so I think any future debates will be won by David. Dawn

Holy cow! Thanks Trygve. And good find Dawn. O'Reilly pontification about the Kennedy conspiracy and evidence of DeM's murder. Since Fonzi said he thought it was suicide I had my doubts. Now however... Wow! Thanks Trygve. I have NEVER believed that this was a suicide. This was the day after Fonzi had spoken with Alexandra, de Mohrenschildt's daughter, who told him that her father would be back that night. Fonzi would later learn that DeM had been with CIA- connected author Jay E. Epstein. (The prior day when Fonzi came calling). How convenient. CIA is everywhere in this case. Ahead of everyone.... Now we have a tape and witnesses saying they heard the Security alarm where DeM was staying, just before the fatal gunshot? Sounds like murder to me! Dawn

As a final note: Bill O'Reilly he of the No Spin Zone, was once a TV newsman in Dallas, TX who went to J. Walton Moore's office when 'it became known that he [Moore] was in the loop, [so to speak] when it came to George DeMohrenschildt, ostensible de-briefing of you know who; O'Reilly practically camped out at Dallas CIA HQ's waiting for the big interview, to get to the truth about the 'Kennedy Assassination and the CIA's connection to Oswald. Look at him now doing the 'right wing Geraldo' routine, which all goes to show the 'futility of having knowledge, without the framework to improve a leaking, rotting status-quo, or worse.' This post has been edited by Robert Howard: Jun 3 2006, 09:01 AM I see Robert Howard posted this a year ago. Sorry !!) about the damn typo in the heading of this thread. In my excitement (anger!) at finding this I was careless in posting. BUT it's clerly the same Bill. Damn, Fox- "fair and balanced "NOT! Dawn

I am re-reading Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation. When I first read this book cable news was yet to be, save for CNN, so this passage, in terms of cable guys, meant nothing to me: Right after Fonzi tracks down DeM. in Miami, and is supposed to meet with him he recounts (p 192) receiving a call from a friend, Bill O'Reilly, a Dallas tv reporter, who tells Fonzi that he's just been imformed that DeMorhrenschildt has committed suicide. (!!!) Surely there is not another tv reporter with this same name? And, darling of the right Bill O'Reilly is on record as saying -(of course) "no conspiracy"....yet he is pals with Gaeton Fonzi during HSCA and seems to know all about DeM. ODD!!! Dawn

Today is JFK's birthday- what better way to acknowledge this date than by a (re) reading of this wonderful speech. (Try to imagine W giving this address) (Not in our lifetime!) Dawn It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the nation deserve the nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating. Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support. "There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield, in his tribute to English universities -- and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see." I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived -- yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by 11 of the Allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn. Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use the is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles -- which can only destroy and never create -- is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war -- and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament -- and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude -- as individuals and as a nation -- for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward -- by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home. First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable -- that mankind is doomed -- that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade -- therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable -- and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace -- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace -- no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process -- a way of solving problems. With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor -- it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it and to move irresistibly toward it. Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims -- such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars." Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements -- to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning -- a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements -- in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage. Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least twenty million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland -- a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago. Today, should total war ever break out again -- no matter how -- our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first twenty-four hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this nation's closest allies -- our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting to weapons massive sums of money that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons. In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours -- and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. So, let us not be blind to our differences -- but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last eighteen years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy -- or of a collective death-wish for the world. To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility. For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people -- but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth. Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system -- a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished. At the same time, we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others -- by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada. Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge. Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope -- and the purpose of allied policies -- to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured. This will require a new effort to achieve world law -- a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis. We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament -- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three Administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort -- to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are. The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security -- it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard. First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow, looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history -- but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind. Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it. Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives -- as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home. But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete. It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government -- local, state and national -- to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land. All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights -- the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation -- the right to breathe air as nature provided it -- the right of future generations to a healthy existence? While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can -- if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers -- offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race. The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on -- not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace. NOTE: The President spoke at the John M. Reeves Athletic Field on the campus of American University after being awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Law. In his opening words he referred to Hurst R. Anderson, president of the university and Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senator from West Virginia.

Brian: Good idea, and good review. There is no way of knowing how many look to reviews written by regular people vs. the mainstream press. However this is something people can do to alert the unspecting masses. I was sickened to read David Talbot's noting that my old hometown paper The Boston Globe was panning his book while praising the disinformation of the former DA. Michael (Hogan) I don't disagree with your reasons for getting the book; you just have more time and patience for disinformation trash than I. Tho it's best to really know the enemy. Dawn

This level of disinformation goes way beyond the (human) desire for money. This is pure evil. Dawn

Why would he? Armstrong's work is proof of two Oswalds-something the Bug would never acknowledge. But not having the book- and would not waste the $- someone who does can check the index. Dawn

A few people that we know were in Harvard Square at the Bugliosi book signing the other night. Ed Tatro, one of the stars of the History Channel's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" chapter #9, The Guilty Men, writes this synopsis. It is almost as good as being there, according to another author. By the way, only the first 6 chapters of Nigel Turner's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" is still available on DVD from the History Channel. The aforementioned #7-#8 and #9 DVD has been removed by a cartel consisting of the late Jack Valenti, Bill Moyers, with letters from the late President Ford, Pres. Jimmy Carter and Ladybird Johnson. One of the 50,000 DVD sets sold before they banned the DVD can be purchased on eBay for about $150.00. Youtube had segments that could be viewed on line, last time I looked. FROG in FLORIDA ******************** On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend, Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's presentation. Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, the journalist with CIA links, who interviewed Oswald in Russia and subsequently pegged him in a published article shortly after 11/22/63 as an obvious loser who must have killed JFK, sat one row in front of me, but approximately 20 seats away. She kept turning around to look at me. I expected she recognized me from somewhere, but couldn't remember who I was. One row behind me, and two rows directly behind MacMillan sat a couple who clearly recognized me, but I didn't know who they were at the time. Bugliosi began his speech by complaining about the podium which possessed wheels. As a result he couldn't lean on it at all. He also complaiined about the instability of his microphone stand. He admitted that he complains all the time and employs sarcasm incessantly. He interjected an anecdote about a hotel room in which the bathroom light didn't work unless he managed to push a switch near the front door of his room. He made mention about the difficulty in pronouncing his name which clearly irritates him since he has brought the issue up at other speaking engagements. He cited one person who called him, "Mr. Bella Lugosi." The audienced found his schtick amusing. The rest of the night was all business, selective preference dripping in condescending ire. Bugliosi called Reclaiming History, "A book for the ages." He made it clear that "Modesty is not a vitue" in his self-absorbed mind. He felt it a necessity to be assertive and confident in overdrive in order to assure all conspiracy theorists that he is beyond reproach in integrity and fighting spirit, that they just can't beat his positions on the JFK matter. He admitted that he wanted to make a lot of money, but that marketability was second in priority to scholarship. There is no question in my mind that Bugliosi absolutely loves himself and intentionally projects that image, one that also oozes with controlled disdain while on stage. He said that he could have prosecuted Oswald in two-three-four days, but after 44 years of conspiracy books, the JFk assassination has become "the most complex murder case in history." It has become a "bottomless pit" and that admission may have been his one assertion that will not be challenged. Basically, his speech paraphrased the introduction to his book and the half hour filmed interview available on his web site. His primary contention is Oswald's sole guilt. He cited that 53 pieces of evidence confirm that Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit murders and he rattled off five points concerning the matter.... Oswald owned the Carcano; he was the only TSBD employee to flee; he killed Tippit; he pulled a gun at the theatre where he was arrested; and he lied about owning a rifle. Bugiosi knows Oswald lied because the backyard photos show him with the rifle. Bugliosi boasts that "no reasonable person" can disagree with him. The unyielding arrogance and unmitigated self-assurance of his declarations were endless--- No credible evidence of conspiracy exists. Bugliosi admits that motive, means and opportunity abounded for many organizations to commit the crime, but these basics, espoused constantly by conspiracy theorists, are just not enough. Motives prove nothing. Besides, the FBI found no Oswald connections to groups like the Mafia or the CIA, and no one who is "credible" has ever leaked anything substantiating a conspiracy. The integrity of the FBI, is obviously unquestioned by Bugliosi as he made his assertions, and the definition of "credible" certainly is one that might be interesting to determine if a phalanx of reseachers were allowed open access to him in a proper forum. Bugliosi states as fact that Oswald was such a loser that no organization would have trusted him as a hired killer, and that the Mob or the CIA would have killed him instantly, if they had employed him. He cited that he has amassed 32 concrete proofs that no conspiracy existed and those who believe in a conspriacy are either silly or ignorant of the evidence. The simmering rage and belittling of "conspiracy buffs" was ever-present. Bugliosi stated that the parade route was set so late that no conspirators could have been ready in time. To think otherwise is just "silly." He explained the head snap as a neuro-muscular reaction, that the Zapruder frames show a 2.3 inch forward head movement before the eventual snap backward. And anyone who alleges that the Zapruder film has been altered is a fool. Before answering questions from the audience, he made it clear that no other weapons were found and no other bullets were discovered either. I do not claim that the above synopsis covers everything Bugliosi offered, but it covers most of his overview. The questions asked by the audience showed little or no knowledge of the inticate and complex aspects of the case. Most annoying were those who gushed over him like rock and roll groupies as well as the philosophical questions as to why the masses would (foolishly) buy into conspiracy theories. Such discussion never pressed Bugliosi to defend any of his premises and the Q & A was so short-lived, there was little time to engage him in any meaningful dialogue. One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a xxxx at one point and Bugliosi just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's outburst tended to reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists" are obsessive and rude in their approach to the case. Audience members behind Marsh lashed out at him later as book buyers lined up for Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh angrily shouted back at them. At this point I walked over to Priscilla Johnson MacMillan and asked her if I could get a photograph of the two of us together. The gentleman who had sat behind her offered to take the picture. I thought I might be able to use it if I ever publish my own book about the complicity of LBJ, his handlers and his cronies in the Dealey Plaza caper. She asked me who I was, and I told her that I had testified before President Clinton's Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Boston in 1995 right after her testimony. I told her I was a member of those who spoke in Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men," that I had corresponded with Oswald's mother, was friendly with Marina Oswald and Judyth Baker. I concluded by saying that I disagreed with everything Bugiosi had just said. The man who took the photo was named Paul and he told me that he had taken my course years ago at Quincy College. His derisive tone was such that it was evident to me that he was rejecting EVERYTHING I had ever said in twenty-five hours of class (3,000 slides). I was momentarily stunned and a little hurt. I told him that my class was twenty years ago and I added, "Imagine what I know now." He replied, "Unless you can link that little weasel, Oswald, to LBJ, you don't have a case." His constant smile was hard and unfriendly. I tried briefly to cite a few issues, (nine witnesses who observed a bullet hole in the windshield), but he had no intention of listening. I was just not "there" in his closed mind. As I walked away, knowing the futility of pursuing any meaningful interaction, I was thinking to myself that I knew Oswald's best friend, George de Mohrenschildt, is described in recently declassified military documents as a "business associate" of Lyndon Baines Johnson, but those Brattle Theatre folks wouldn't have read them if I had those documents right in my hands. I decided to have Bugliosi sign my book and get a photo of him too. When I reached the signing table, I told him, "I've known Gary Mack for thrty-five years." His eyes lit up and a broad smile beamed. He said, "I'll be seeing Gary Thursday." Then I told him that I had edited Madeleine Brown's memoirs and was a primary recruiter for those who participated in "The Guilty Men". The smile faded. I told him that I had read some of the book and I said, "We will have to agree to disagree." I added that I knew a lot of information that he didn't. He advised me to read the rest of the book to make sure of that. I told him I would do so. He smiled again. He wanted to know my name, and when I said, "Ed Tatro," he admitted knowing it in some vague manner from his research. I concluded (sarcastically), "I'm one of the kooks." In a rather gracious moment, he said, "But you're searching for the truth." I replied, "Yes." I refrained from saying that I knew a lot of it, but I didn't want to act like him, and it was clear throughout the night that the book buyers behind me were barely tolerating folks like me. The line of people behind me was lengthy and I saw no real purpose in confronting him on any issues of substance. The time, place, and circumstances were just not conducive to anything productive. While in line, I had briefly offered advice to Tony Marsh that this was no place for him to get into a shouting match, that he was not appreciated here by this gathering, and it might be best to keep his cool. I managed to meet Priscilla again and she said, "Paul told me you used to teach a course on the assassination. When is your book coming out?" I wasn't sure I had mentioned my book previously, but it was clear to me that she and Paul were friends. The question was---Did they become friends later in life or were they friends when he took my course? I don't know that answer. I do know an FBI informant named Hollis Mosher, (identified as such in his obituary), took my course four or five times so it shouldn't surprise me if a friend of a CIA asset had done so also. Am I being wisely cautious or am I paranoid? We know that Bugliosi would call the latter notion, "just silly." I told her that she must be thrilled with this book, and she said she had not read it yet, but she admitted that she was glad that Bugliosi had confronted the conspiracy theories. I spoke candidly by telling her that many researchers had brought forth some outrageous concepts, but for Bugliosi to lump all assassination critics into one lump was unfair. Having earned three college degrees, I certainly do not consider myself insane, irrational or unreasonable. She seemed to accept that criticism, but stoically so with an accepting shrug. Bugliosi headed in Priscilla's direction and thanked her profusely for her input. He told her that he could not have written the book without her help. The gathering was breaking up and Bugliosi's rather sizable entourage of disciples followed him out to a waiting auto. Rick Russo and Bugliosi began a rather intense debate over the nature of JFK's head wounds. Rick cited many witnesses who had observed a frontal shot, but Bugliosi rejected anything he pointed out. It's difficult to share any meaningful postions on a street corner, one inundated by youngsters unwilling to hear any viewpoint contrary to Vince Bugliosi's. One 20-something said, "No one said any shots came from the grassy knoll that day" to another Bugliosi supporter. I snapped, "What are you talking about? Sixty-four witnesses said shots came from the grassy knoll." He said, "Not that day!" Of course, as this clown was defending his comment, I could still picture the video of Bill Newman telling a Dallas television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the grassy knoll. It was time to leave. I talked to one 28 year old who admitted knowing virtually nothing, and I advised him to read as many books as he could. Twenty years ago I had watched Bugiosi debate Mark Lane in Boston. After the debate ended, I engaged Bugliosi in conversation. A lingering crowd of twenty or so observers gathered around us. I told him that there were lots of problems with the evidence and I gave him one example. Since I was constantly teaching a course at the time, the names were fresh in my mind. I discussed the chain of transfer for the "magic bullet," CE 399. The bullet was found by hospital employee, Darrell Tomlinson who gave it to O. P. Wright, a hospital security guard. Wright gave it to a Secret Service man named Richard Johnsen, who brought it back aboard Air Force One. Johnsen turned it over to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service and he gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd who gave it to Robert Frazier of the FBI who conducted the ballistic tests upon the bullet. Unlike Todd and Frazier, Johnson and Rowley admitted that they never marked their initials into the bullet, a grave error in judgment if Oswald had ever been properly brought to trial. Any clever defense attorney would have introduced the possibilty of a bullet switch to frame his client, particularly in a political murder such as this. Bugliosi dismissed the issue immediately by claiming that errors like that occur all the time. I countered that they shouldn't happen, especially in a case concerning the murder of the president of the United States. It is evident to me that Bugliosi's cavalier approach and powers of denial concerning the BIG DALLAS LIE have existed for decades. Thus, I wasn't really surprised when his advanced placement version of Posner's Case Closed hit the book stores. Now we know, thanks to the excellent research by Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, (See the History Matters web site), that FBI agent Bardwell Odum's name was cited on FBI documents in which hospital employees, Tomlinson and Wright stated with confidence that the bullet they had handled resembled CE 399. Odum insisted to Thompson and Aguilar that he never handled the bullet, never showed it to the two witnesses and never wrote the FBI documents in evidence. Furthermore John Hunt's meticulous research (see his essays, particulary, "Frazier Speaks,") confirms that CE 399 does not contain the carved initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd. Thus, CE 399 is NOT the same bullet which Todd handed to FBI agent Robert Frazier. I doubt Bugliosi even knows about Hunt's explosive essays about the bullet/ballistic anomalies in this case. Twenty years ago, I tried one last time with the Manson prosecutor. I told him Emory Brown and I had discovered a sidewalk mark consistent with a bullet scar (and a suspicious history as well in its background), which coincided with photo blow-ups in my possession of a human-like figure holding a rifle-like object on the grassy knoll south, the unfamous knoll. Bugliosi said he wanted me to send him copies and wrote his name and address on a piece of paper. But the next night the Boston newspapers quoted Bugliosi as saying, "Kennedy assassination buffs are like wolves baying at the moon." I never contacted him. I'm glad I didn't... Suffice it to say, on May 22, 2007, Rick and I left Cambridge with a general sense of cynism, but with a quiet understanding, that even if we can't win this mighty quest, that we have much work to do in an effort to fight the good fight for the principles of justice and democracy. We must never capitulate despite the odds against our success. We must not allow Bugliosi's mastery of fallacious arguments to stand unchallenged. He is a worthy adversary, but his lone nut theory is more than "silly." It is a classic representation of Orwellian propaganda and needs to be addressed despite our limited resources and minmal access to the national media. SINCERELY, EDGAR F. TATRO

[quote name='Jack White' date='May 28 2007, 12:36 AM' post='103906'] Bill...in my opinion Chris Matthews is an uninformed jerk with no scrupples. He has sawdust for brains and puts his mouth in gear without knowing what he is talking about. An unpaid disinformationalist can do just as much damage as a paid one. Jack Bk: I hope Jack is wrong on this, but I really think most of the media whores just have no choice. They spout the party line. Just like the JFK insiders did. That was one of the many eye openers in Talbot's book. Just how many DID know- but stayed silent. Hey if you have Chris' email address let's all email him and beg him to have David on. Can't hurt. Obviously he'd need to read the book first and perhaps...he'd have some balls, but I really doubt it. As most of us have known forever, the media has been our biggest enemy in educating the people. Not a lot has been wirtten on this. My old pal Jerry Policoff did an excellent article in the 70's, a few others, but it's been largely overlooked. And this MUST change, somehow. Dawn

[quote name='Evan Marshall' date='May 24 2007, 09:34 PM' post='103572'] anybody aware of any comments or statements by the veteran homicide dick's Tannebaum brought to Washington? Not sure I understand this question Evan. Gaeton Fonzi covers the wonderful Bob Tannenbaum in some debth in The Last Investigation. Do you mean statements he may have made since HSCA? Dawn

I devoured both books and think they both make excellent points and have some drawbacks. As an RFK admirer I had a very hard time with Joan Mellen's view that RFK set out TO destroy Garrison, who IS a hero to me. He did risk his career. Name me one other DA- or other elected official- who has done that? He was sincere but he was also trusting and got in way over his head. His office was so infiltrated that it became very hard for him to know who was working with vs. against him. He had the entire Federal government, CIA, FBI, DIA etc. etc. against him. Good God, give the man his due. I have spent my entire adult life watching JFK researchers throw knives at each other. The enemey has no fear; it is we. How can we ever SOLVE the true crime of the century with so much back -biting? Garrison thought the CIA killed JFK, Bobby thought the same. They should have been allies. But ...the tragedy, for the damn world-as David pointed out earlier, is that they were not. Can't we all learn from their mistakes and turn our anger and divisiveness in the direction of the real enemy: The Nazi government that overthrew its best hope. Garrison said fascism would "come to America in the name of 'National security' ". He certainly had that right. And we have been "there" for a very long time now. Any pretext of otherwise is a myth held by those who don't know our true history. Dawn

Damn! I was afraid of that. I've never heard him cover conspiracy and love him on the war and Bush. So maybe it's time he is educated. Though I fear that anyone on tv has an unspoken agreement to stick with the party line on all things conspiracy. So much for our "free press". Beyond disgusted. Dawn

BK: I'd love to hear it, but I get an error message, because I don't have java script. And when I try to download java it does not work. David: I did read Dallek's book when it first came out and the way he treated the assassination greatly angered me. Then later he was one of the "three historians" on the History Channel to trash my friend Barr McClellan's character. They did not even bother attempting to deal with the substance of the three censored Men Who Killed Kennedy shows, or Barr's book. Aside from "no conspiracy". So I can't stand Dallek and, yes, he's the new conspiracy expert. Has your agent contacted any of the cable news guys who might give you some coverage? Say Keith O? ( Forget the networks, they are steeped in the LN lie.) Dawn

Charles, I respectfully disagree. After reading through Case Closed, and now Reclaiming History, I feel quite confident that both Posner and Bugliosi were not working for any THEY, but were instead representing what they thought was a logical viewpoint. Both men were former prosecutors with over-sized egos and both were anxious to close the case and prove to the world how much smarter than the rest of us they are. Bugliosi, after the 86 TV trial, got it in his head that the adversarial process of a courtroom was a quest for truth. He was excited by the fact that he could "reclaim history" from the conspiracy theorists by using his lawyer skills. Well, he was wrong. For one, people want evidence, not rhetoric. The shocking thing about the size of Bugliosi's book is not how big it is, but how little evidence is inside. He cherry-picks testimony with the worst of them. He shows the reader only the physical evidence he can twist to support his ARGUMENT. Stephen White, the CBS writer responsible for the 67 CBS whitewash of the 64 Warren whitewash, nevertheless made an interesting point in his book on the creation of his whitewash. He noted that one of the Warren Commission's gravest errors was in selecting attorneys, particularly prosecuting attorneys, as their staff. Those trained in the adversarial process are not accustomed to searching for truth. They subconsciously side with their client and focus on representing their client--in this case President Johnson--as best they can. While Warren said their only client was the truth, this is obvious bs as the truth is as nebulous as a Richard Russell fart or an Allen Dulles burp. The attorneys were there to make sure the American people first and the world second knew that LBJ was a decent guy and was not involved in Kennedy's death. PERIOD. All the rest was self-deception. Anyhow, White, surprisingly, acknowledges this and suggests that the commission's staff should have consisted of men from a variety of backgrounds, including public defenders (if I remember correctly). At one point, I was doing a lot of reading on cognitive psychology. On the website of a Stanford Professor i found a number of studies on how our view of reality is influenced by our role in society. One study that has always stuck with me was one in which law students were randomly selected to argue for the prosecution or the defense of an evenly matched case. Afterwards, they were asked what they believed REALLY happened. The prosecutors overwhelmingly believed the accused REALLY was guilty, and the defenders overwhelmingly believed their client REALLY was innocent. I believe Bugliosi--who has argued for conspiracy in the RFK case, and has argued that the Supreme Court was negligent in supporting the attacks on Clinton and crowing Bush king--simply saw the chance to argue this case and pore through all that delicious evidence against Oswald, as the mother lode. He just couldn't help himself, and along the way, deluded himself. Interesting argument Pat, BUT I don't buy it. I remember in law school having to do these kinds of experiments, like representing the view which was the opposite to how you really believed, as a tool to sharpen and learn one's skills. BUT that was- like the 86 trial- a mock situation. I don't think Posner or Bugliosi believe this trash for one moment. If the CIA has a ton of media whores don't you think they have writers of books as well? (And I mean "CIA" in the generic sense). Posner just reeks of being bought and sold. I have seen him on tv countless times and that he is dirty is the strongest thing he projects- to me. I agree that DA's mostly DO believe a client is guilty- in fact their ethical duty is to justice, not winning. Sadly I have seen DA's who don't care about justice....And defense attorneys have no choice. If appointed or retained by a client, what the attorney THINKS is irrelevent. You defend the client. Or as my husband calls it "You defend the Constitution". Many of my colleagues don't even ask the did you do it question. (I always do). So of course they "cherry pick", but Posner especially also out and out fabricates, just like the WC ers did. You give these pigs too much credit for having ethics, imho. Dawn ps This should be on the Bugliosi thread, not David Talbot's.

I caught a cable station report on this about 3 days ago. (CNN perhaps? Don't remember, as I was working at the same time). VERY disappointing. It gave about 30 seconds to this new study then had on the dastardly Robert Dallek for about 3-4 minutes to tell the viewers why there was no conspiracy. Made me want to smash the tv. Yes people do want to know. But how do we force the media to tell them? Dawn

It is currently in 38th position at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books...e=UTF8&pg=2 It is the highest ranking history book at Amazon. The next best is Michael R. Beschloss' Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989 (60th). Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is in 95th position. I won't be happy 'til it is number one and then I still want more. Like every citizen in the US to read it. Then at least people will be informed. But most people just don't care about this. It's ancient history. My friends always ask me " When are you going to let this go?". "Why does it matter today?" , To which I have one reply: "When the government was stolen in 63, do you really think it was later given back? " And I try to demonstrate the links to today's mess. Our Nazi government. ( I am seething about the cowards last night who voted to continue this war, without even timetables). Dawn

I have always been of the opinion that the Kennedy family knows exactly what happened to JFK and RFK, but are in no position to do anything. As pointed out by David, look what happened to the King family- (and Judge Joe Brown)- when they tried to obtain justice. Reno became ....a disgrace to say the least. At a COPA conference in Dallas on the 34th anniversary I met a Kennedy cousin and got to ask the question I have always wanted to ask: "Does the family read conspiracy books?" , and was told "Absolutely. Especially John. " (And look what happened to him). I daresay the family is hesitant to discuss this matter not only out of fear of ridicule, but out fear for safety. And who could blame them? Poor Ted, this must weigh on him horribly. Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen. This stuff is bigger than the president. These forces more powerful and still in control of the history that was not. We need more brave souls in the press like David Talbot and Jeff Morely...but what are THOSE chances? Dawn

For anyone interested in my thoughts (and several other Forum members) on the JCS see the threads. "Northwoods, and JFK" (indexed) and "Dark clouds over Camelot, JFK and the Military." have a close friend who was extremely close to Lemay-I got to meet him once-highly complex individual-people he commanded thought highly of him. Probably should have died at the end of WWII like Patton-neither prospered in a Cold War environment. The things in Brothers about Lemay were so frightening. God the world is crazy now under the Bush waccos but Lemay was truly beyond crazy. Imagine him around now with Bush and Cheney. We'd be in a nuclear war with someone. Iran probably, although that that may still happen. How on earth do people get so nuke happy? I have been a lifelong pacifist so this mindset is utterly beyond my comprehension. "Imagine all the people living life in peace". Dawn

Tim, It is heart breaking to read this. I just do not understand Stanford in not getting back to you. Perhaps Chris should call them and see what the hold up is. While I am glad you got Hospice and that you will be comfortable and cared for, I am holding out for a miracle. The fight re JFK will continue. There are just no words Tim. love, Dawn

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org Thanks Rex for posting Doug's excellent memo. Bugliosi let it go to his head back in the 80's when he prosecuted LHO in a mock trial. I think he's in someone's pocket. No one with more than 4 brain cells believes the WC nonsence. I have no plan to get his book. It would just infuriate me. I totally agree with Doug's post: that people like the bug resort to name calling when they don't have the facts on thier side. He gives my profession (atty.) a bad name. Dawn

If such a tape had ever existed the whole world would have heard it long, long ago. No such tape ever existed for the simple reason that no such conversation between Russo and Sheridan ever took place. Ray: Given all that happened to Garrison's investigation- phones taped by FBI, CIA, infiltration by those who wished to sabotage the investigation, extraditions not being honored, I think it is a bit naive to just dismiss the possibility of a a tape saying "the whole world would have heard about it". How so? Our very conspiracy friendly media? --------------------------------- David: I so loved your book that I am telling everyone to read it. Even people who don't read books like this. I think it should be required reading in every 10th grade class. Q: Joan Mellen says RFK sent Garrison to NO TO sabotage the Garrison investigation (to hide his involvement with the Castro plots). Your book stops short of this, with RFK sending Sheridan to NO to look at what Garrison had, then turning Bobby against him. This may be a more fine distinction than actually existed, but nonethe less a distinction. I cannot believe that Bobby while trying to find out the truth would immediately try to sabotage the only investigation in the country, if Sheridan did not convince him that Garrison was all smoke and mirrors. Also having met with Murgado, did he try to feed you the same line Joan bought? (That right up to JFK's death they were trying to kill Castro)? If so did you believe this? Would you be so kind as to have someone list when and where you will be making tv appearances, or personal book signing appearances. Thank you for coming here to discuss your masterful and powerful book . (I cried so many times while reading it). Dawn

Joan Mellen has posted the following information on her website: ON THE MATTER OF WALTER SHERIDAN (Since the new book, “Brothers” by David Talbot, suggests, falsely, that Walter Sheridan went down to New Orleans to “find out” what Jim Garrison was up to, I’m placing on this web site the original sections on Sheridan that I wrote for the longer, first draft of “A Farewell to Justice,” so that readers might compare and consider the evidence). Part One: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN.htm Part Two: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN-PART_TWO.htm So Ms. Mellen's got a hair across her a**, again! Her hatred of the Kennedys is so transparent. I believe David got it right. That Sheridan convinced Bobby that Garrison was a phony. And, unfortunately for history, Bobby believed him. Talbot's book is far more credible on this than AFTJ. She needed to stick with updating Garrison's work, for which I will always commend her, not re-killing the brothers Kennedy. Sy Hersh did that already. Dawn

Thanks for that info Myra, David seems very busy. I'm looking forward to hearing his interview with Terry Gross, NPR Fresh Air. And there's Chapter One for those who haven't got to the book yet. BK Thanks BK. Keep em copming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick. So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him. But loved the book. JOhn: When is David Talbot going to come here and discuss it with us? Dawn. Opps sorry, I meant thanks MYRA!!!! And what do you mean by Chpter one, BK? That there is a chapter not included? Or just for those who have yet to read even chapter one??

Thanks for that info Myra, David seems very busy. I'm looking forward to hearing his interview with Terry Gross, NPR Fresh Air. And there's Chapter One for those who haven't got to the book yet. BK Thanks BK. Keep em copming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick. So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him. But loved the book. JOhn: When is David Talbot going to come here and discuss it with us? Dawn.