Stephen Roy

I've studied the New Orleans angles A LOT. Ron Lewis's story is simply not true.

I can't quite follow what you're asking.

Are you wondering if Albert Osborne might have picked up the leaflets?

How are Osborne and Gaudet directly related to 544 Camp?

How does Thornley figure in?

I am one of those who is very reluctant to make IDs from old photos.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/07/in_the_death_of_doctor_mary_sh.html

I might add that the evidence strongly argues that there was NOT a linear particle accelerator in any of the locations suggested, or even anywhere in New Orleans.

We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the murder of Dr. Mary Stults Sherman of New Orleans and as a result, we are seeing publicity by the publisher for a new edition of the book "Dr. Mary's Monkey." The book posits a cabal involving Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Baker in an underground medical laboratory, as well as other prominent New Orleanians in a plot too contorted to describe here.

I wish to emphasize, as I have in the past, that this book is not considered good history by any serious JFK researchers. The author fails to offer verifiable evidence for any of his claims, and has failed to consider contradictory evidence. A much deeper investigation of this case by another researcher will shed new light on the matter.

Kris Millegan has authorized me to state that TrineDay Publishing Company will make a donation towards keeping the Education Forum active and will help with its administration if needed.

Would such an arrangement prohibit any criticism of certain TrineDay authors?

If that be the case, let me offer my profound thanks to John Simkin, to the Moderating Team, to all the members and readers. I've read and posted lots of good stuff out here, and I've engaged in many lively discussions, some pleasant, some not. To all of you, I offer a gesture of Thanks and Respect.

Not to jump in the middle of this, where I have no skin in the game, but...

Despite certain reservations about the SBT, I do not concur that JFK is clearly hit before he goes behind the sign, and that JBC is clearly not hit until after he emerges from the sign. There are some good arguments against the SBT, but this is not one of them.

I strongly disagree. We are constantly told that we're supposed to listen to the experts. Well, in this case, the experts have concluded that Kennedy showed a response to being shot as he went behind the sign. And the experts weren't blowing smoke. This was clearly demonstrated in the video I wrote for Black Op last year.

I respect your opinion on this, and those experts who share your opinion, but I still disagree.

Years ago, when we were working from jumpy optical copies of the film, I was unsure. I don't believe it is possible to determine with precision the moments of impact from still frames. When much clearer, closer to the original versions of the film became available, and especially versions reframed to minimize the jumpiness of the film, it became easier to focus on the movements while in motion. I am not able to see, with any degree of certainty, a pre-sign reaction which I could interpret as "obviously hit."

I have reservations about several things, especially CE399, but I now think that the observation that JFK was hit before going behind the sign is not a strong argument. Not strong enough to be sure. Just my opinion.

Not to jump in the middle of this, where I have no skin in the game, but...

Despite certain reservations about the SBT, I do not concur that JFK is clearly hit before he goes behind the sign, and that JBC is clearly not hit until after he emerges from the sign. There are some good arguments against the SBT, but this is not one of them.

Just to clarify: In the 1955-6 period, William Guy Banister (correct spelling) was recently retired from the FBI, had been appointed by the mayor as an official of the New Orleans Police Department. By 1956, as Banister went after corrupt police officers, the mayor was having second thoughts and eventually forced him out in 1957. Banister started his detective agency later, in January 1958.

FACT? not in a court. but you cannot deny that maps had been discussed, sewers discussed, and Smith/Anti-Cubans/CIA is at the center of it...

If you are so certain, based on "He thinks that captain Will Fritz might have mentioned something about that, but that Mr. Fruge was not sure on this point," then no, we are not on the same page.

If we're going to regard the exalted law enforcement people of the original investigation of Oswald with some caution, we're going to have to regard the exalted law enforcement people of the later investigations with some level of caution, too. Certainly you see the hypocrisy of not doing so. I'll have more on one of those officers in my book.

There is a point that needs to be made here. It is striking that we spend a lot of energy - rightly - considering the possibility of Oswald's innocence, including discounting weak evidence; And yet, when it comes to people like Arcacha, Banister, Ferrie, etc., we will accept any evidence of guilt, no matter how weak, and even elevate it to hard fact. It's intellectual hypocrisy.

What the evidence relating to Arcacha and the diagrams amounts to is that person A (now dead) was unsure if person B (now dead) may have told him this. Hardly solid enough to elevate to a fact.

Which anti-Castro Cuban was found with maps of the sewer system in Dealey Plaza?

Sergio Arcacha Smith

See this thread recently started on the other forum:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,10049.0.html

So we don't know that such maps were found there; We just know that Fruge alleged that Fritz said it?

Which anti-Castro Cuban was found with maps of the sewer system in Dealey Plaza?

OK. As it turns out, this location is close to me, and I might be able to comp a ticket. Vince, is it worth going? Anything I should ask, if I have the chance?

I can't say whether or not Seal met Ferrie later in life, although I've never seen any evidence that he did. But the claim made by Daniel Hopsicker, in "Barry and the Boys," that Seal went on a Civil Air Patrol bivouac at Barksdale in July 1955 is provably wrong. Ferrie was a guest lecturer, not a member of the CAP at that time and he did not go to Barksdale. Oswald actually submitted his application to join the CAP in the middle of the Barksdale event, and would have been ineligible to attend. In fact, an exisiting roster shows that he did not attend. Finally, Barry Seal was not a member of the CAP, and did not attend Barksdale; It was his brother Benjamin who was pictured boarding the plane for Barksdale.

Just because someone makes a poorly-reserached claim in a book doesn't make it true.

When Ferrie mentions that Del Valle was his "CIA Paymaster"......do we just ignore or count such claims as irrelevant especially given the context and nature of not only Del Valle's death but also Ferrie and a myriad of other LA-based witnesses?

My original response was only to two narrow points from John's article. Where does Ferrie himself allege any relationship with del Valle?

I think sometimes there's a tendency to pile-on Ferrie, to believe any accusation without any attempt to verify the source. Ferrie was an interesting guy with some interesting real connections, but we should be careful about weaker ones.

Its certainly weak with no "stone ground proof" (then again....this is the JFK murder, nothing is as concrete as it should be here and there) but just based on just one source. I actually mean to put that quote as from Stone's film but I am not aware of Ferrie actually saying that to even Garrison as the film depicts. Ultimately its not something I'd say for sure was a certainty but worth looking into (as you seem to have already). It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it were ever revealed as a fact however.

If proof emerges that Del Valle paid Ferrie for flights, so be it. If proof fails to emerge, so be it. Look, there's no doubt that Ferrie had an active period as an anti-Castro fighter, one which led him to imply to friends that he had a CIA connection. I'm trying to nail down details, names, places, times. It doesn't make a huge difference if some details prove true, others do not.

Correct, it does say "almost every day." Ferrie's flight schedule is from EAL records obtained through ARRB, at NARA but not online. In essence, Ferrie made numerous flights from New Orleans (by 1960, he was a senior pilot) and couldn't have been in Miami almost every day. I have asked his surviving friends about del Valle, but none recognize the name, description or picture.

When I started researching Ferrie, I looked to try to verify stories like this. I noticed that every published account tracked back to the Tendedera story. The seeming conflict of the "almost every day" with the work schedule made me want to seek another source to verify the Tendedera article. I haven't been able to verify it, so I personally put it in the "maybe, maybe not" column. So as I said above, it's never been proven from any reliable source.

De Brueys' Church Committee testimony:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1421&relPageId=2

His HSCA testimony:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/de%20Brueys%20Warren%20C%20HSCA%205-3-78%20Executive%20Session%20Transcripts/Item%2002.pdf

Stephen - I agree on the piling on of Ferrie, but do you dismiss the Tendedera article in the National Enquirer?

Let me give you just one example. Tendedera - who is the one and ONLY source - claimed that Del Valle and Ferrie worked together every day for a six-month period, which, in context, has to be the second half of 1960. But Ferrie's flight record from Eastern Air Lines in New Orleans completely precludes that. (Further, I can't find any friend of Ferrie who knew about any such relationship.) As this article is the ONLY source for Del Valle-Ferrie relationship, yes, it needs to be regarded with caution. Doesn't it?

When Ferrie mentions that Del Valle was his "CIA Paymaster"......do we just ignore or count such claims as irrelevant especially given the context and nature of not only Del Valle's death but also Ferrie and a myriad of other LA-based witnesses?

My original response was only to two narrow points from John's article. Where does Ferrie himself allege any relationship with del Valle?

I think sometimes there's a tendency to pile-on Ferrie, to believe any accusation without any attempt to verify the source. Ferrie was an interesting guy with some interesting real connections, but we should be careful about weaker ones.

Stephen,

The important point here is that, no matter what you or I think, Jim Garrison regarded del Valle as one of his most important witnesses, and he wound up dead. Shot and with a hatchet through his head dead. Those kinds of very, very unnatural deaths are all too familiar to those of us who research the JFK assassination and similar cases. Combined with Ferrie's own unnatural death, it defies credulity to believe there was no connection to the Garrison investigation.

Someone must have thought Garrison was on the right track, because his witnesses were either dying before they could help him, or being denied extradition in unprecedented, uncooperative actions by Governors like Ronald Reagan and John Connally.

I can't find any interest in him in any of the contemporaneous materials, but perhaps there was some interest which was not recorded. As for del Valle's death, one has to factor in some of his alleged underworld connections. How do you see del Valle relating to the assassination probe? As for Ferrie's death, I keep finding little hints that he was sick in 1966 and 1967.

In the linked Spartacus article, John describes del Valle as associated with the Free Cuba Committee in Florida.

Stephen,

Do you agree with John that del Valle was associated with the Free Cuba Committee?

Thanks,

--Tommy

I think I've seen references to it, but I haven't confirmed it.

In the linked Spartacus article, John describes del Valle as associated with the Free Cuba Committee in Florida.

I disagree with two of the claims in John's article. It has never been proven from any reliable source that del Valle worked with or even knew David Ferrie. All such accounts track back to a National Enquirer article which contains disprovable information. Second, the committee del Valle was associated with had no connection with Sergio Arcacha Smith.

Just for the record, the story that Barry Seal served in the Civil Air Patrol with David Ferrie is untrue, contradicted by and not supported by the evidence. Other assertions in the cited article are also untrue.