Stephen Roy

I agree that the Easterling thing just doesn't add up to a serious topic of research. But just FYI, I was struck in reading a Garrison-era interview with Betty Parent, a close friend of William Wayne Dalzell of Friends of Democratic Cuba in New Orleans in 1961, which includes this: "Members of the group included Sergio Arcacha Smith, Bill Craig, Bill Dalzell, Grady Durham, an individual named Logan, who was also a member of the CIA, Bill [Klein], an attorney, Regis Kennedy, a member of the FBI, an individual named Hoffman, and an individual named Easterling." This was written nearly 20 years before Hurt's book came out.

I'm going to beg to differ just a bit. Certainly Hoover "knew" that the FBI's position was 3 shots by Oswald from the TSBD. But how do we know how aware he was, at this early juncture, of the orientation of the limo and its occupants to the TSBD? WE know where the TSBD was in relation to the victims, but we've had 43 years to study films, photos, aerial plots, visit the site, etc. As this was the FBI's biggest case to date, I doubt that Hoover had time to study such details. Yes, the FBI had the Z-film, but even if Hoover saw it, it doesn't show where the TSBD was (or the grassy knoll, for that matter.) Yes, Johnson was there, but he was there very briefly, and with Rufe Youngblood sitting on him for a portion of that time. Hey, I was very interested in this matter at the time, and it wasn't until some weeks or months later that I understood the relationships of the various landmarks in DP. When we consider what somebody "knew" at a given time, we have to do so in the context of that time. Not in the context of what we now know. This is an education forum, with the implication that we take a reasonably scholarly and objective approach to this. I read the early Hoover transcripts (and other materials) as him being relatively clueless and inept, talking without knowing all the facts. Had he known the facts, he might not have been so quick to prejudge the case.

I recall talking with Mark Lane in the early 70s. He said: There are enough legitimate mysteries in this case that we don't need to be creating them where the evidence doesn't warrant it. That's one reason why I'm very cautious about making allegations or casting aspersions. If the only possible interpretation of some sequence of events is sinister, so be it. But if incompetence or ignorance are equally possible explanations, I err on the side of caution. If we took everyone who has been the target of suspicion on this and other forums, in books, articles and films, it would have to be a "conspiracy so immense" that "sombody would have talked" (apologies, Larry H!) I would incline toward the smallest possible conspiracy. I would hate to accuse some person guilty of nothing more than incompetence. Just my take on things.

Stephen; I just see it as Hoover being hoplessly out of touch. We can see lots of examples, especially in the earlier tapes/memos, of Hoover asserting things that we now know are ragtime. (As I've cautioned before, WE have had some 43 years to absorb and discuss all this, so we know much more now that "they" did at the time.) Hoover seems to be trying to piece it together, to fit his notion that it was lone nut Oswald. But if one reads the section you quoted literally, Hoover is advocating a front shot, isn't he...? The three shots/three seconds bit is Hoover at his dopiest.

The Baton Rouge bivouac Barry Seal attended occurred on July 23, 1955 (New Orleans Times Picayune). Lee Harvey Oswald joined the Moisant unit 4 days later, July 27, 1955 (CAP records, CD75).

...of what? Of killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Don't get me started.

Simpson was guilty.

What it boils down to is this: Oswald did use the address on some pamphlets and possibly some leaflets. In one FPCC letter, Oswald said he was thinking of opening an office. The FPCC advised him not to. In a later letter, he said he had disregarded the FPCC advice and initiated rental of an office, but the rentor backed out. Building owner Sam Newman gave conflicting accounts. He basically denied ever renting to Oswald or talking with him, but he made references to people inquiring about an office that MIGHT have been Oswald. A few witnesses of unknown reliability specifically said Oswald had an office in the building, including Jack S. Martin and Delphine Points Roberts. Some other people who worked in the building that summer said they don't recall Oswald having an office there. I guess the answer is maybe, but maybe not.

I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT HE DID.

Building owner Sam Mike Newman testified to HSCA that the second floor could only be accessed via the Camp St. entrance. However, Martin Shackelford reports information from Judyth Baker that the second floor could also be reached from a pull-down ladder in Banister's first-floor office. I have been unable to confirm this, but there WAS a pull-down fire escape on the exterior of the building that could get one from Lafayette to the union office on the second floor. In a sense, it doesn't matter. Oswald DID choose to use that address, for reasons unknown. The Cuban Revolutionary Council had been out of that building for 18 months, but Guy Banister did have an office in the building. David Ferrie was not a Banister employee, but he did work with Banister on several cases, and could be found in that building at times. One more interesting note: Sometime in 1963 and prior to the assassination, Banister's office had been broken into once or twice by someone cutting through the wall from the adjacent Mancuso Cafe.

Does anyone know if Banister was autopsied? The 6/8/64 police report (Wilson/Hayward) on Banister's death notes that Coroner Chetta "arrived on the scene at 8:00pm and pronounced Mr. Banister dead at 8:02pm." and adds that "the body was transported to the City Morgue in the Coroner's wagon." A 6/13/64 Supplementary Report adds that the NOPD was "notified by the Coroner's Office that the death of the above mentioned subject had been classified as a Natural Death. This case is closed and it is being carried on our files as a Natural Death which is in accordance with the classification of the Coroner."

Sorry, I'm with J. Raymond Carroll on this. Gaudet was the next numerically numbered passport that day, but we have no way of knowing whether or not he was there at the same time as Oswald. Considering that Gaudet had travelled throughout Central/South America for many years, it is unlikely that he required a passport. Especially since the line was reportedly for the Tourist Visa required for visiting Mexico. So, if Mr. Gaudet was in the line, then he was there to get a Tourist Visa to visit Mexico. I'm writing from "on the road", so I have no access to my files, so apologies if I misstated passport/visa. however... You use the phrase "in the line". Again, we don't know for a fact if there even WAS a line that day. Maybe Oswald was there at 10 and Gaudet at 11:30. On matters like this, I am an "evidence follower", going as far as the available evidence will reasonably allow. We know that Gaudet was the next name on the list, on the same day. We don't know if there was a line or if they were both in the office at (or even near) the same time. They may have been, but they may not have been.

Sorry, I'm with J. Raymond Carroll on this. Gaudet was the next numerically numbered passport that day, but we have no way of knowing whether or not he was there at the same time as Oswald.

A number of books indicate that the first lead to Maclean came when Venona revealed a source named "Homer", and susbsequent investigation focused suspicion on Maclean, who shortly fled the UK. I think Straight did finger him at one point, but the initial lead came from Venona.

Oh, NO! Say it ain't so, Steve... Steve, So Davy Jones couldn't play the tambourine? I'm shattered. What next, Danny Bonaduce couldn't play bass? James James, NO! Danny didn't really play his bass??? Next you'll tell me Milli Vanilli didn't sing on their hits...

Oh, NO! Say it ain't so, Steve...

I can think of a couple, a little more obscure. It wasn't known until 1973 that the Allies had broken the German and Japanese codes, and that many events of WWII could now be seen in a different light. And it wasn't known until the mid-80s that the US had broken the Soviet codes at the end of WWII (Venona) which led to the prosecutions of (at least) the Rosenbergs and Judyth Coplon, and to the unmasking and defection of Cambridge spy Donald Duart Maclean. And, of course, the CIA/mafia alliance did not become widely known until about 1975.

Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say? I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing.

Interesting. I, too, am historically fascinated by Venona: I was convinced that the Rosenberg and Coplon cases were phonies until I heard about Venona. The first place I recall hearing about it was in Chapman Pincher's Their Trade Is Treachery, as "Vanosa", as I recall. Just a guess: There was certainly a fear that Oswald's time in the USSR, his trip to MEXI and the whole Golitsyn-Nosenko MIGHT point to some kind of KGB or DGI plot. I recall hearing somewhere that code experts were called upon to examine Oswald's address book and other writings for any evidence of codes or secret writing. (Certainly, the FBI did a job on them by soaking them in chemicals, ostensibly for fingerprints, but more likely for secret writing.) Maybe Gardner was called upon for his expertise in detecting any kind of codes in those writings. Why Rowlett might have stopped it, I don't know, unless it was the whole "Never Say Anyhting" mentaility.

Mr. Ray Sergio Arcacha Smith was Varona's choice for New Orleans delegate of the Frente Revolucionario Democratico and later the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Did you ever hear of him or know how he was regarded among the exile community? Arcacha worked with a man named David Ferrie. Are you aware of Ferrie or any of his activities in the movement?

Even so, I'm not sure how it can ever be precisely replicated. Even on the same day/time, the climate will be different. The vegetation will be different. Even with stand-ins, there would be dramatic differences. The street surface is higher, signs and posts have been moved, all sorts of things. I don't see it ever happening.

Very interesting. I wonder if this is "our" Jack S. Martin. I've never had him at that address, but you never know.

Although it may have no connection to this thread, FYI there is another Hyde who makes an appearance as a friend of Dave Ferrie. He was George Augustin Hyde of Washington DC, involved in one of the "odd churches" Ferrie was drawn to. Ferrie was trying to get Hyde to help him get ordained in a Basilian offshoot in 1963, and appears to have been in contact with him in 1964. When Ferrie died in 1967, Hyde was one of the persons he wanted notified.

I reason that, if someone was intercepting emails, they would not want it to be detected. To hijack and delay the email would invite detection. An undetectable method would be to simply fire off a copy.

Woops! I just re-read this section, and you aren't necessarily saying Ferrie had a machine gun, just that he kept a loaded rifle, if I get it correctly. Sorry for my misreading!