Stephen Roy

The Andrews thing makes no sense. It's hard to believe that a group capable of pulling off the assassination would inadvertently have Bertrand contact a flamboyant and unpredictable lawyer, known for Marcello ties, in New Orleans and not in Texas, to defend a man they intended to silence by murder. Even if we speculate that Bertrand - a man some suggest was savvy enough to manipulate Oswald - goofed by calling Andrews, why did the conspirators stand idly by while Andrews reported him to the FBI, and stand idly by again when Andrews testified before the Warren Commission? Why didn't they shut him up? If an unwitting Andrews was determined to rat-out Bertrand, why did he describe him as so unlike Shaw (early 20s, blonde crewcut)? Why (outside of a comment to Weisberg, who was skeptical of Andrews' truthfulness) did Andrews always deny (or fail to confirm) that it was Shaw who called him? Why bring up Bertrand in the first place but then seemingly protect his identity? If one takes Andrews at his word, he never actually did receive a call from Clay Shaw. On what basis do we disbelieve this and speculate otherwise?

If I read your comments correctly, Don, I share your confusion about the Andrews story. On the face of it, it makes no sense at all. Why would the conspirators engage an attorney of Andrews' flamboyance/eccentricity, and one based in New Orleans, to boot? What made them think they could trust him as part of the plot? If he was part of the plot, why would he immediately contact FBI Special Agent Regis Leo Kennedy and tell him about it, blowing the whole thing? If Andrews was determined to tell Kennedy about it, why didn't he name Shaw? Why were his earlier descriptions of Bertrand so different from Shaw? Why, from time to time, did Andrews even suggest that he may have misunderstood or mischaracterized the call in the first place? Why didn't the conspirators find a way to shut Andrews up? Why, after Orleans Parish DA Jim Garrison started questioning him about it and speculated that it might be Shaw, did Andrews (by his own account) deny that it was Shaw, and stick with that position?

The relationship between JFK and JBC is interesting.

Just found this. D. H. Byrd in his CAP uniform:

It's not just that he recycles ideas long discarded by better-informed researchers; that he almost never budges from his viewpoints; or that he has false faith in critical thinking, which can be easily misused to push a bias. The reason that he gets little respect - that he, himself, has squandered his respect - is that he treats anyone who disagrees with him with condescending disrespect. Any good teacher knows that you have to teach on a wavelength to which the listener is attuned; But his teaching style seems to be that "I'm smarter than you, and you must be uninformed, unintelligent or a disinfo agent if you don't agree." I'll never admit to his face that he's a smart guy of some substance, but he has a fatal flaw in terms of intellectual maturity which draws him into conflict with others and prevents him from seeing the causal connection between his own actions and the response by others.

http://www.nola.com/movies/index.ssf/2012/04/new_feature_film_planned_as_an.html In marketing Oliver Stone's 1991 New Orleans-shot, Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theory "JFK," Warner Bros. referred to it as "the story that won't go away." Now, some 21 years later, another film company is doing its part to make sure that claim remains true. The Los Angeles-based Atchity Entertainment, in partnership with the Florida-based Ramos & Sparks Group, announced plans today (April 16) for a feature film based on one insider's account of the Kennedy assassination. The production is described it as an "answer to Oliver Stone's fanciful 'JFK.'" The new film will be based on the New York Times bestseller "The Kennedy Detail," written by former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine - a former member of Kennedy's security detail -- with journalist Lisa McCubbin. The book has already spawned a Discovery Channel documentary, also called "The Kennedy Detail," which was narrated by Martin Sheen and nominated last year for a News and Documentary Emmy in the long-form historical programming category. For its part, Stone's 1991's "JFK" was based on a book by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison who -- unsatisfied with the official line -- launched his own investigation into the assassination. Shooting for two months in town in summer 1991, "JFK" stands as one of highest-profile films to shoot in New Orleans prior to the state's 2002 adoption of filmmaking tax incentives. Upon its release in December 1991, the film earned more than $200 million in worldwide box office, as well as eight Oscar nominations, including for best picture. (It won two, for film editing and cinematography). It also, however, generated no small amount of controversy, as Stone was widely criticized for playing fast and loose with the facts. The new film, producer Rich Ramos says, will be different. "As a life-long student of the Kennedy administration and the events of November 22, 1963, I could see immediately that this book provided a clear picture and keen insight into the everyday workings of the administration as well as that horrible day in Dallas," producer Rich Ramos said today in a news release. "The true story contained in 'The Kennedy Detail' needs to be brought to theaters around the world so that history can be presented accurately, once and for all." Producers are targeting a 2013 release date - exactly 50 years after the assassination -- although it's unclear when production will begin or where it will take place. No cast has been announced.

He doesn't really say why he seems certain that "the government" was behind the film. My skepticism is tweaked on this a bit; some needless melodrama, etc. Certainly the USG had its own 8mm-to-BetaMax capability in 1979.

Jim DiEugenio wrote: "Which is one of the goofiest things I have heard on this thread. Which considering what some people have written here e.g...Roy...is really saying something." Go back and read my post, Jim. I was uncomfortable expressing it; I pointed out that it was a different time, that it is difficult to judge such behavior by standards that emerged later; I noted that JFK might have had an early version of an open marriage; I mentioned that I admire JFK and would have excused an incident or two, but that I, personally, was disappointed at how frequently it seems to have happened. What I wrote was personal, understated, polite and respectful. It wasn't goofy.

I'm glad you articulated what I, with some discomfort, felt. It was a different time back then, with a different moral compass. I suspect that his friends and family probably felt somewhat proud and even envious of his ability to seduce women, and to get away with it. It would be later, toward the end of the 60s, that American men first started to catch on to the concept that promiscuity and cheating were immoral and demeaning. One could argue that his marriage may not have been mutually satisfactory, that it was maintained only for "show," but it appears that he was still having some marital relations and children even while cheating. It almost seems to have been something of a game. As I admire President Kennedy, I was willing to overlook an incident or two of infidelity, but the the slow trickle of names and stories, some of which are probably true, makes it a lot harder to excuse or ignore. What was he thinking?

There are a few mistakes in that article. I'd be careful about taking it all as gospel. 1) Ferrie was not Banister's employee. (That's Banister with one "n", not two.) 2) To say that Arcacha's office was in the same building as Oswald's is chronologically misleading, by about 18 months. 3) CIA considered using Guy Banister Associates in 1960, but the files say it was not approved. 4) Banister was not SAC in Chicago "in 1945 and 1949." He served as SAC there 1954-5. 5) The evidence does not support Marcello funding Arcacha's group. A fellow named Dalzell told Arcacha that he THOUGHT he might be able to get money from Marcello in exchange for gambling concessions, but he said he never actually approached Marcello. 6) The skating/hunting reason for Ferrie's trip leaves out some more conventional business reasons.

Others will probably disagree with me: You mentioned Arcacha in your topic line. We're basing this identification of Arcacha on an ID made some 3 1/2 years after the fact, by a bartender no longer alive to answer questions, after Arcacha's name and picture were all over the Louisiana and Texas news media. And if true, it would suggest that Arcacha led a double life: a quiet family man selling air conditioners in Texas, but secretly driving late at night around Louisiana, involved with strippers, drugs and worse.

Stephen, I got the account from Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Russell quotes Mrs. Natasha Voshinin on page 317-318, speaking of George DeMohrenschildt: "George said, 'that scoundrel took a potshot at General Walker. Of course Walker is a stinker, but stinkers have a right to live.' Then he told us something about the rifle. But Igor and I felt Oswald had something to do with the CIA. Anyway, I immediately delivered this information [from DeMohrenschildt] to the FBI." The footnote (55) is on page 763, and it reads: "Voshinin on de Mohrenschildt/reporting to FBI: author's interview (April 5, 1992) All best, --Paul Thanks for checking, Paul. My Russell book was lost in a flood. So I guess we have Mrs V, which carries some weight, but no FBI document or reference to corroborate it.

Is there a record that Mrs. Voshinin told the FBI that Oswald was suspected (by DeMohrenschildt) of shooting Walker?

Schoener makes no mention of the film showing anything to do with General Walker.

One more odd thing: I've been looking online in the free genealogical files, where one can usually find traces of anybody, and I can't seem to find any trace of Martin having been born Edward Stewart (or Stuart) Suggs in Phoenix AZ on July 1, 1915. I also can't seem to find a death date. I don't have a paid membership to Ancestry.com. Can someone who does look up Martin (Suggs)?

Paul: I still haven't found my files in the piles of boxes in my barn (it's not a comprehensive Martin file, just collected bits) but I did locate some chronological notes I made. Some of this came from the file and his rap sheet, some probably from Weberman's nodule 24. Weberman notes that Martin (then Edward Stewart Suggs) claimed to have served in Claire Chennault's Flying Tigers in the prewar period, and that he may have served in the Far East theater. As you see, the rap sheet info shows Martin/Suggs seemingly into and out of the service (?). I'll know more when I find the file. QUOTE ON: November 6, 1939: ESS unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Naval Intelligence January 18, 1940: ESS unsuccessful applicant for Santa Monica California Police Department February 27, 1940: ESS enters U.S. Army at Fort McArthur in California; Air Corps, Pacific, radio work, military intelligence March 26, 1940: ESS unsuccessful applicant for Hawthorne California Police Department February 17, 1944: ESS unsuccessful applicant for Memphis Tennessee Police Department July 28, 1944: ESS unsuccessful applicant for Special Officer with Los Angeles Police Department QUOTE OFF

I'm still searching for my Martin file (I moved recently, and it's in a box) but I did locate my notes, taken from that file. I wrote that Jack S. Martin Sr. (as Edward Stewart Suggs) "was an unsuccessful candidate for the US Navy but served in the US Army in World War II." More as I re-locate it.

A few years back, Johann Rush, who worked at WDSU, gave an accounting of all various WDSU and WWL films, including the brief studio interview, and he indicated that it was shot on 16mm film by a cameraman he named (but I don't recall).

I'm trying to get in touch with Shackelford to follow up on this. I must admit that I'm surprised that I've never seen any other reference to such a film. "Our" Jack S. Martin Sr. does not seem to ever have referred to it in any of his numerous writings. Videotape: While videotape existed from the mid-1950s, it was only in the form of expensive studio-only machines; portable videotape (ENG-electronic news gathering) was not widely available until the late 1960s at the earliest. Any footage of Oswald and Bringuier would have been on film, 8mm or possibly 16mm. As far as I know, the only moving footage of the encounter was the 8mm home movie by Doyle. Parts of this were shown (I think) in the 1993 PBS special on Oswald. A slightly longer version circulates among collectors. All these versions seem murky and washed-out, appearing to have been shot off a movie screen (instead of through a "telecine").

I'm on the run, but let me take a quick stab: 1) I think the film in question was taken by a tourist named Doyle. I've seen the part with Oswald, but not the earlier part. Drop me a PM or email. 3) I would need to check my file on him. I have an FBI rap sheet and other materials, but no military file. I'm not sure if he ever served in the military. 4, 5) I'm not sure if he was a Bircher of Minuteman. Banister was certainly involved in right-wing stuff, and Martin was close to him, but I don't recall anything specific. A guy out her specializes in Banister and the right-wing stuff - let me try to remember his name.

David: A quick shift back to what you said above. For the record, I am no expert on the JFK medical evidence, I'm going from memory here and playing Devil's Advocate, with a question about it: As I recall, is it not true that the folks at Bethesda did not know that the front neck wound was, in fact, a wound? That they thought it was just a tracheostomy incision? I seem to recall that Humes only learned this after the autopsy in a conversation with Perry. If so, could that explain (one of the reasons, at least) why Humes thought there was no pathway? That he did not see any possible exit wound? (I am aware that the wound was also probed with a finger, and that a path was not felt.) Just wondering.

Didn't Oswald claim that he changed both his jacket and shirt at the rooming house? Which is to say, the brown shirt of his arrest might not have been the shirt he was wearing earlier?

Wow. This is the most poorly-reasoned article I've read here in a long time.

And if you had, you wouldn't admit it. As I said, the book has been out a year. That should be plenty of time to prove that something she said in the book is not true. Something besides your word against hers. What on earth is a "Ferrie-related reason"? I wouldn't admit it? What an unfair thing to say. Since the book has come out, I've found many problems with it (and posted about a few) and others have found other problems. It is not accurate to say that it hasn't received criticism and analysis. In my case, the world doesn't revolve around trying to prove something about Baker's book. A Ferrie-related reason is a matter involving Ferrie, a topic with which I have special experience.

Judyth's testimony is credible evidence. Credibility is determined by the person who hears the testimony. Eye-witness testimony has always been admissible in any court of law. Hear her testimony at George Freund's show on ThatChannel.com Then judge for yourself. Hi, Linda: I've seen your name around the internet, and it appears that you think a lot of Baker, so I'm not sure if anything I say will change that. I've looked at the Baker case for a long time, and I have many Ferrie-related reasons for doubt, and many non-Ferrie reasons for doubt. I don't think Baker's assertions can stand alone, and we certainly can't use Baker to corroborate Baker. Her story, by the way, is not testimony (under oath, cross-examined). I've never seen any credible evidence that she knew Ferrie.