Tim Gratz

Dec 9, 1961, Teamster Pres Jimmy Hoffa was in town inspecting the once grand Casa Marina Hotel the Teamsters had recently acquired. He later leased it to the U.S. military and it was used for military housing. Less than a year later, on November 26, 1962, when JFK was in Key West, his motorcade went by the Casa Marina so he could see where the military was housed. I have not been able to determine whether JFK knew that the military was leasing property from his brother's arch nemesis. Some of course believe that Hoffa was either involved in or ordered the murder of the President and that Hoffa's own murder in 1975 may have related to his involvement in the Kennedy case.

Peter: Questions and comments for you:

I am not quite sure what you mean by "short shot". CE399 was NOT found on Connally's stretcher per Tomlinson (see his statements in Nova show availablle on YouTube).

Why couldn't CE399 be the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and entered only shallowly? Why couldn't in be the "short shot" as you call it?

What evidence is there that there was a "short shot"?

I certainly agree with you that the SBT does not work.

The Court then went on to discuss how the FOIA applied to Morley's document requests. It is possible some documents will have to be released even under the provisions of the FOIA but then again maybe not. More on this aspect tonight.

This is somewhat complicated but here we go with the first “step” in looking at the decision of the Court of Appeals. The decision you can see at the PDF is, as I recall, called a “slip opnion”. I will call it a slip opinion in identifying page numbers.

The Morley case was filed as a Freedom of Information Act request for assassination-related files. The Court held that despite the existence of the JFK Act, the CIA properly conceived of Morley’s request as requiring the more conservative disclosure standards of the FOIA than the "more relaxed" standards of the JFK Act. “Morley cannot invoke the Congressional purpose [in passing the JFK Act] . . .on to FOIA requests”, citing a 1996 9th Circuit decision. Slip Opinion at pages 6-7.

In other words, once the ARRB ceased operations in 1998, any FOIA requests would have to meet the more restrictive FOIA standards for disclosure. In a 1995 decision by the same court (the D.C. Court of Appeals) with Mr. Lesar’s organization as plaintiff, the court stated: “There is no evidence that Congress intended that the JFK Act standards be applied to FOIA review of documents involving the Kennedy assassination.” That decision was rendered while ARRB was still in operation. ..

Morley had contended that after the termination of the ARRB, the so-called “MOU” should govern the release of assassination related records. The MOU is the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Continued Obligations of the CIA under the JFK Act, dated September 30, 1998 and executed by the ARRB, NARA and the CIA.

The Court stated that if Morley wanted to avoid FOIA strictures he would have to follow the enforcement mechanism of the MOU. The Court noted that the MOU “merely provides that the appropriate records shall be released [by the CIA] to NARA.” The Court went on: “If Morley has identified new assassination-related records, then NARA can seek their release pursuant to the MOU.”

I have not of course read the entire MOU. But the Court is stating that Mr. Morley should notify NARA and NARA, not Morley, should seek the documents from the CIA. The Court did not discuss Morley’s judicial remedy if NARA simply refused to act.

Obviously Morley (we) are in this position because the CIA failed to reveal to the HSCA just who Joannides was. If anyone had known who Joannides was while ARRB was still operating, no doubt the ARRB would have vigorously fought for the release of the Joannides documents.

Now I am sure we all agree that when Congress passed the JFK Act in 1992 it did not intend for this morass.

Bill Kelly had asked for Congressional oversight regarding government compliance with the JFK Act. But the Court seems to be saying that after the termination of the ARRB, the provisions of the JFK Act do not apply; instead the provisions of the MOU do.

It seems to me that what might be more important than oversight hearings would be a Congressional determination that after termination of the ARRB, private citizens such as Morley can seek release of assassination-related materials through a FOIA-typre request but the standard for compliance will not be the standards of the FOIA but rather the standards of the JFK Act. A carefully drafted act so specifying could end the morass that now exists. I know that Jim Lesar also suggests that Congress should simply move the final release date of the documents from 2017 to 2008.

More tonight but the decision is not as clear cut a victory as I had assumed based on Mr. Morley's e-mail. CIA still has some manuevering room.

This is now the third thread on the Morley v CIA case!

The "victory" is not as clear cut as it may appear on first blush. I will explain why tonight.

By the way that blog is ridiculous. I doubt Joannides was involved in the assassination but let's say he was.

Do you think the CIA would ever have put that in a document? And if it had, do you seriously think they would hand over the document to Morley? They'd be better off saying their dog ate it while they were parsing through the documents.

If the documents are ever released there is no doubt in my mind they will advance the case but there is even less than "no doubt" that there will be a "smoking gun" document ever delivered to Morley.

It could be as simple as this: I think care should be given to writing to Caroline about the case, and extreme care in how such a letter is worded, but it might make it more likely she would read such a letter if someone started the letter stating: "I read your article in the (date) issue of The Rolling Stone about Elvis Presley and found it fascinating. I particularly liked . . ." In other words, if an assassination researcher who is really an Elvis fan finds and reads the article it could be useful as a way to initiate a "one-way" conversation with her. So in that sense my reporting that she penned an article about Elvis that can be found in an easily identifiable issue of the Rolliong Stone could--could--be helpful sometime down the line.

Same could be true using her new Christmas book as a reference.

However, these points may be too minor to keep this thread in the Assassination Debate section so Mr. Burton it is totally your call and I have no objection to whatever your decision may be.

Mr Burton, I agree with you that its relevance to the Kennedy assassination is of marginal relevance and do not object to your suggestion.

Many who are interested in the assassination are however interested in the later history of his family and knowledge of the interests of his daughter could potentially be of some help in persuading her to "break the silence" and support a new look at her father's death. So in that admittedly marginal way following Caroline Kennedy's activities could turn out to be helpful.

In fact, coincidentally, within minutes of posting this I saw her being interviewed by Tim Russert about a new book she has written about the history of Christmas.

Mark:

Caroline was his daughter and one of the reasons we care about the assassination is not only its historical implications but its effect on his family, including that gut-wretching photo of a three year old saluting his slain father obviously without an understanding of what it all meant. Fair enough?

********************************************************************************

*************************************************

Speaking of Caroline I was watching a public television story on "Rolling Stone: Voices of our Generation" and learned that Caroline Kennedy had authored an article on Elvis Presley for the issue about his death.

Shouldn't bring that up--now no doubt someone will claim Elvis was murdered!

Greg, as is often the case, you are correct. In a trial neither Marina's testimony would be admissible nor would the note (because Marina would not be allowed to testify to authenticate the note even if she wanted to.

The distinctions you make between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination are most interesting.

But since we are not bound by the rules of evidence, we do need to consider both Marina's testimony and the note. If her testimony is true not only did Oswald shoot at Walker, he also wrote the note. So I think that given where we are now it comes down to whether Marina's WC testimony was true.

Query whether a new examination of the note by an independent document examiner might be able to determine if the note was indeed a forgery. If it was, then clearly: (1) Oswald was being framed; and (2) Marina was offering false testimony against him.

The opinion certainly contains detailed statutory construction that would be worthwhile to summarize for assassination researchers and the holdings of the Court of Appeal has significance for Congressional statutory review as BK has suggested. I am frankly too tired tonight to summarize all of statutory procedures and loopholes.

But this is an intereting fact. The CIA admitted in the proceeding that there are 1,100 (exactly?) CIA documents in NARA's "protected collection" that will not be released until 2017. 1,100 documents!! Query what agency if any (the ARRB or NARA) reviewed the CIA's determination that such documents should be held in the "protected collection"?

Jack, I would accept your amendment as correct, hypothetically.

But my syllogism is what a prosecutor in the Oswald case would have argued to the judge to get the evidence in.

However, who knows what would haver happened had Oswald survived to stand trial. Aware of problems in the case against him, the prosecutors might have argued that he was part of a conspiravy the other membes if which had not been identified or apprehended.

Another example of how factual error creeps in to the case.

JFK never spoke to Fleming.

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

I submit evidence of prior crimes or conduct is admitted in American criminal trials far more often than Mr. Carroll contends. But his argument here is an example of the bad logic he condemns. It matters not how often evidence of prior acts is used in American criminal trials. It may not be used in many trials simply because the prosecution has no such available evidence to try to get in. What matters is whether the evidence of the WAlker shooting would be admissiblle had a trial of the Kennedy case occured. I submit it would have been.

Mr. Carroll argues that I am offering this to "distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Oswald." How can he say this? Surely he knows that not only am I a vocal advocate that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I also believe, though somewhat less strongly, that Oswald was indeed as he proclaimed just a patsy, and have so argued here repeatedly. I think both the paraffin test results and Oswald's "alibi" are quite exculpatory. Nevertheless if he in fact shot at Kennedy I think that does tend to support a claim that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But I also believe that absent the note and Marina's testimony that he told her what he had just done, the evidence against him in the Walker shooting is very weak. So I think it all comes down to Marina's testimony (is it true?) and the note (was it forged?).

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

I submit evidence of prior crimes or conduct is admitted in American criminal trials far more often than Mr. Carroll contends. But his argument here is an example of the bad logic he condemns. It matters not how often evidence of prior acts is used in American criminal trials. It may not be used in many trials simply because the prosecution has no such available evidence to try to get in. What matters is whether the evidence of the WAlker shooting would be admissiblle had a trial of the Kennedy case occured. I submit it would have been.

Mr. Carroll argues that I am offering this to "distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Oswald." How can he say this? Surely he knows that not only am I a vocal advocate that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I also believe, though somewhat less strongly, that Oswald was indeed as he proclaimed just a patsy, and have so argued here repeatedly. I think both the paraffin test results and Oswald's "alibi" are quite exculpatory. Nevertheless if he in fact shot at Kennedy I think that does tend to support a claim that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But I also believe that absent the note and Marina's testimony that he told her what he had just done, the evidence against him in the Walker shooting is very weak. So I think it all comes down to Marina's testimony (is it true?) and the note (was it forged?).

And I have learnt the hard weight that if I pointed out a misspeling I would no doubt comit a mispeling myself!!

The case was decided by three of the thirteen judges on the DC Court of Appeals.

Judge Henderson is a female judge appointed by GHWB. Judge Rogers is a female judge appointed by President Clinton. Judge Tatel is a male, black and blind judge appointed by Judge Clinton. Aa is to be expected, all have distinguished careers.

Tonight I will read the opinion with care (I have barely looked at it) and for those open enough to trust my judgment offer my opinion on what it means and what will happen next. A quick reading says it was remanded (ie returned) to the Circuit Court Judge with clear instructions on what the judge was to do. More later.

My concern is that even publicly talking about the asassination of Obama could be like a "self-fulfilling prophecy" if some nut wants to do something to: (a) call attention to his "issues" (ala the Va Tech killer); or ( simply go out in a "blaze of glory" and become infamous.

I really think the topic ought not even be discussed. We can only hope that the Secret Service is taking the guarding of ALL candidates very seriously and the staff of each candidate is also doing so. I think any serious candidate probably ought to have his or her own intelligence apparatus--not for spying on other candidates but just to attempt to identify threats.

Terry, that is indeed an honest reply, that when the life of the POTUS is at stake "all bets are off". I would hope most would agree with that.

I believe I would draw a distinction if the crime has already been committed and the issue is only the apprehension conviction and punishment of the guilty parties. In that case, with no human life at stake, there are not exigent circumstances that could justify a relaxation of standards.

It is more and more clear that BK has no idea where I am coming from.

With my assistance, Mark Howell publicized the Joannides case and Morley's FOIA legal action in the "Key West Citizen", so the "Key West Citizen" was one of the few newspapers to cover the issue. And of course it was I who posted Mr. Morley's excellent Internet article on the current status of the case.

(In the past, Bill has minimized Morley's work because Morley disagrees with him about Morales and Campbell being in the Ambassador Hotel.)

And Michael is absolutely correct that public attention and focus will have no affect on the CIA. It has not for years, why should it start now? What might affect the CIA is pressure from Congress which is sure to be focused on CIA's destruction of the torture tapes.

And again Bill does not understand the legal process. The CIA actually has three legal options now. (1) It can ask for a rehearing before the three judge panel (it is the decision of the three judge panel whether to grant a rehearing); (2) it can petition the entire D.C. Court of Appeals for a hearing en banc (i.e. before the entire membership of the D.C. Court of Appeals). (3) Finally, either before or after it has taken either or both of these steps it can file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which essentially ASKS the S Court to hear the appeal; the CIA has no absolute right to a hearing before the Supreme Court (unless perhaps there is a special statute of which I am unaware allowing an appeal by a federal agency). The rule is that certiorari is granted if four of the five S Ct Justices request it. All of these steps require permission by the Court, none is given as a matter of right.

In my opinion, looking solely at the law, neither a rehearing, hearing en banc or appeal to the S Ct is LIKELY to be granted. Normally, a decision of the Court of Appeals is the end of it. One qualification is if there is a general issue and there is a "conflict in the circuits" over the issue. A second would be if the matter was of major national importance e.g. the Watergate tapes and the 2000 election issues.

If the CIA DOES comply with the decision, further developments are likely to be VERY interesting. It must be assumed there was a reason the CIA fought disclosure of these documents so long and so hard. It is pointless to speculate what the reason is and it is possible it will even take lengthy review of the documents produced to figure it out. It may be that the documents are significant because they may lead to even more documents that should be produced and the damaging material may be in the second set of documents.

Don quotes Frank Church:

The people will recognize that the CIA was behaving during those years like a rogue elephant rampaging out of control . . ."

As they say, the more things change . . .

I find it rather incredible--well I guess rather believeable--that the CIA would destroy tapes against the advise of WH legal counsel and its own congressional oversight committees. One could probably characterize that conduct as "out of control".

But why did the oversight committees not request (demand) that the WH intervene to prevent any document destruction?

Comes from an article re the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy.

In Parmet's biography of JFK he recites a story that took place in the early fifties when JFK was at a Harvard dinner or seminar and the speaker denounced McCarthy and praised Alger Hiss. This infuriated JFK and he rose and asked the speaker with obvious indignation: "How dare you praise a traitor and attack a patriot?" I will check his exact words tonight, as well as the date of the dinner.

One other thing: World Net Daily is one of the few conservative organs that has called for a new investigation of the JFK assassination.

Looking at the field of Republican presidential candidates, one is reminded of that Leslie Gore song of the 1960s:

"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to. You would cry too if this happened to you!"

Sleep deprivation while being forced to listen to Neil Sedaka records? Aye, that's it!

As Rudy Guiliani said, "If sleep deprivation is torture, I am being tortured by the presidential campaign!"