Mark Stapleton

Tim and Al, You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit. It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip. How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day? Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

Lee, I haven't got to the Abe Greenbaum bit yet. When I'm through, I'm keen to ask Dick Russell a few things about the book. Excellent book. Thanks for the link, btw. Interesting.

Something's not right, perhaps?

Three that pop immediately to mind are: 1) How did Oswald stage-manage all of this? 2) Could there possibly have been a conspiracy? 3) Can Al Carrier really "defend" this all away? Stay tuned ...! Somehow I suspect it will all get much more interesting .... Hazarding a guess, my answers are he must have been a genius, yes and I doubt it. The question of the motorcycle flanking units is an interesting one. Vince Palamara states that, according to the DPD, this was a last minute change which resulted from a November 21 meeting via David Grant (Vince Palamara's words). The decision to downsize the number of flanking units from 18 to 4 was unique to Dallas. 18 units were used in Fort Worth earlier that day. Strange things were happening which were unique to Dallas. Second and third stringers were being put in charge (in some cases for the first time). Palamara's analysis of the SS White House Detail reveals that SAIC Jerry Behn took his first holiday in three years leaving ASAIC Floyd Boring in charge--but he organised the trip from Washington, leaving third stringer Roy Kellerman in charge in Dallas (his first time in charge). Kellerman's order to driver Bill Greer was disobeyed and his authority at DP and Parkland was usurped by a subordinate, Emory Roberts. Roberts was later promoted to be Official Records Secretary to LBJ (whatever that is). Roberts had also ordered Agent Rybka from the back of the Presidential limo at Love Field and also ordered the agents not to move seconds before the fatal headshot. Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, well versed in motorcade security arrangements, was on a plane to Japan. Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, a third stringer and relatively inexperienced, was on his own for the first time. Boring's advance man, David Grant, arrived from Miami on November 18 and, according to Palamara, had a major influence in security arrangements including the motorcade route and motorcycle escorts. The more high profile partner from the advance party, Win Lawson and Agent Forrest Sorrels had driven the route--the one which went straight down Main Street-- on November 14 but we all know it was subsequently changed prior to November 22. Boring was later promoted to Inspector. Niether Boring, Roberts nor Grant were interviewed by the WC, HSCA or the FBI. Remember Al, the HSCA didn't judge that security arrangements for Dallas were insecure. They judged that security arrangements for Dallas were "uniquely insecure".

Some adds: HSCA document F-679 is also WC Lawrence Exhibit 2 found at 20H489 et seq. Immediately preceding that is Lawrence Exhibit 1, seven handwritten pages entitled "Instructions to Capt. Lawrence by Chief Batchelor," which Lawrence followed nearly to the letter. Lawrence Exhibit 3, dated 11/22/63, is "Supplemental Assignments" for the motorcade, and Lawrence Exhibit 4 is Lawrence's 7/15/64 follow-on report to Chief Curry, presumably at the behest of the WC. It states in part: ... other assignments would be made after the President left the Trade Mart (emphasis added) ... in other words, they had nothing pre-planned for the return trip, even despite the fact that the plans TO the Trade Mart were compiled and discussed for several days leading up to November 22, including in a meeting at DPD with USSS personnel during which these arrangements (and the fact that motorcycles were not to be at the sides of the limousine) on the evening of November 21. Duke, Very interesting. It's either the biggest stuff-up in USSS history or it was planned as a one way trip. It raises some interesting questions.

Although I've never read the LBJ tapes, I've read so many excerpts from it that I feel I must have read most of it by now. The conversations between Hoover and LBJ remind me of amateur actors reciting a script. I can't take these two at face value. Don't they both have massive credibility problems?

Tim, Good post but why always the bit about JFK being a cold war warrior? All the evidence points the other way. That's just your right wing mindset affecting your objectivity. I agree with your points about the poster. They were just policy differences dressed up as treason. Re the zealotry, never having lived there, the right wing zealotry that existed in the South at the time is something I've never experienced. In Alastair Cook's "America", there's a photo of a happy lynching mob with two dead negroes hanging from a tree. Undated but the author suggests the early 1920's. Not really that long before Dealey Plaza.

Mark, I think you're right. Bush isn't called a moron because he's a rabid right winger. He's called a moron because he's a moron. Simple.

Thanks for that,Tim. Ever efficient. Hey Mark. That's an interesting observation. I often wonder what Nagell was trying to say. Yes - I am hoping to get Tim's opinion, and anyone else with any sort of legal background. I also like the idea of running through each one of these 'criteria' and seeing if anything adds. I may be way off base, but at least I'll have some fun thinking about it. - lee Lee, You've caught me out. I didn't know that quote was attributed to Nagell--I just read it somewhere. Re Nagell, I'm just reading TMWKTM now and it's fascinating.

This thread's not about Hoover. Put that link in your Hoover thread and get lost.

Lee, I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination). It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Duke, First class analysis of the security, or lack thereof, provided by the DP. I've got a couple of comments but I'll hold them over until your debate with Al is over.

Ron, Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history. I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never? Mark, I've always found the various "fortuitous circumstances" that befell LBJ to be quite extraordinary. Various authors over the years have exposed the LBJ political machine and the personality of LBJ. Suffice it to say that after reading various accounts of LBJ's exploits, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to have more than "fortune smiling on him." On the other hand, he could be the intended and designed recipient of such good fortune... How better to control than with a dutiful puppet (a puppet fearful on all levels; from life and limb all the way through exposure and political/personal ruin). His personality and actions tend me toward the former, but the latter is certainly within the realm of reason as well. Regards, Frank You're right, Frank. LBJ may have been the innocent beneficiary of such timely good fortune. However, a study of "Lucky" Lyndon's career reveals an alarming pattern of similar man made providence, like the sudden death of an honest Texas Government official named Henry Marshall who was threatening to expose the activities of Lucky and his buddies (see the thread on Larry Hancock's book in the book review section) or his "miraculous" victory over fellow Texan Coke Stevenson in 1948. That LBJ was the innocent recipient of anything other than help from friends who knew that LBJ (like Don Corleone) always rewarded those who did him a service, is about as likely as the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world (apologies to any devout Pastafarians). Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical. Pat and Chris: Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive. We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased). Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here? Dawn ----------------------- The ONLY time that Bobby & Company "backed-off" from hitting Fidel & Company was: When even "non-ex-Fidelista" Manolo Reboso aligned himself with "Harry" in the CONTINOUS ARGUMENTS [by others than just myself] -- and explained that: WITHOUT Fidel & Company, the Soviet Brigade would pull a coup d'etat and thenceforth we would be dealing with a SOLID Soviet satellite !! Too bad you have been fooled by the REAL experts for so long, but you are only one of thousands who have swallowed the tabloid trash about this matter for years. However, don't burn your books yet -- more is yet to come (FORTH) !! Chairs, GPH ______________________ Gerry, this is a strange post. It's well established that the Kennedys were running a carrot and stick game with Castro, trying to get him to jump through a ring of fire and back into the American sphere of influence. It's NOT well established, outside of the tabloid trash gossip of a few discreditable sources, that they had a commitment to whack the beard. It's a matter of historical record--not tabloid gossip--that JFK became quite upset upon hearing of the deaths of Diem and Trujillo. His reaction to Diem's death was even a source of ridicule to the hardened ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. The Church committee, furthermore, discovered that the state department was undecided about supporting the coup in the Dominican, and that Kennedy called it off after the BOP disaster. Nevertheless, the coup went off, due in part to the fact that the CIA's Tracy Barnes had arranged for rifles to be transferred to the plotters without the state department's knowledge, and without higher approval, and had thus set the wheels in motion months before. The record is therefore that the Kennedys were more moderate in their use of violence and murder than the rest of the government. This is proved once again by the October Missile Crisis, where the Kennedys stared down the Pentagon (and quite possibly saved the world from a nuclear catastrophe). And yet you seem to think that those of us who doubt the Kennedy's blood lust for Castro have been fooled by "experts". You seem to be stating that the REAL Kennedys were out for Castro's blood, yummy-yummy, and were committed to ending his life, even while they were secretly beginning negotiations whereby they would quite possibly receive all they could hope for in Cuba--a liberal democracy. If you honestly believe this I firmly believe that it is you who has been duped. I ask you, who among the anti-Castro community is so sure that the Kennedys were REALLY going to kill Castro? How can they be so SURE the Kennedys were not just playing along and giving them something to do (conveniently getting them out of the country) while the Kennedys were in fact secretly attempting to make peace with Castro? How can they be so SURE? I believe that if anyone within that community is SURE, then they are a xxxx. I suggest you take the names of those that are sure and draw a ring around them. I suggest that within that ring you will find the names of those that should be immediately investigated in order to determine who REALLY killed Kennedy. And it wasn't a commie. Pat, Great post. Revisionists like Gerry and Tim G would have us believe that Kennedy was secretly planning to invade Poland next and his assassination was a milestone for world peace.

Ron, Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history. I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

Pat, The plan involves stunning the Soviets from action (by framing someone with obvious Soviet ties... someone like Oswald ... for the murder of Castro) and the *Cubans* insisting on U.S. intervention. If someone like Che Guevera openly ASKED for U.S. intervention following a coup, that would have been an entirely different situation than if the U.S. invaded on its own accord. -Stu Stuart, Although I haven't read the book either, this really sounds like a scheme more in keeping with Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney rather than something JFK would approve. And why assume the Russians would believe in the guilt of a hand delivered (and undoubtedly dead) patsy? They weren't as dumb as Gerald Posner. As Pat stated, JFK was not about to risk his growing dialogue with the Russians and risk an invasion in Berlin, just to whack the beard. He got his fingers burned badly with the first attempt, so why risk it again, less than 12 months from the election, when he knew Tim's Party was going to nominate a looney right winger who he could beat with two hands tied behind his back? It's ridiculous.

Oh, yeah right, I forgot. We're in there to shove DEMOCRACY down their throats at all costs because it's the American way to deal with these rag heads and goat herders. I would have thought that a lot of young Democrats have died in Iraq on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. A more relevant point is what price are warmongers like you paying. I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War. In 1968, when LBJ wanted nothing more than to finally end the war before going off to his haunted retirement, Nixon's election strategy involved conspiring to undermine the Paris Peace Talks. In 1980, during the Reagan/Bush election bid, there was a backdoor deal to undermine a resolution of the Iran hostage crisis. In 2004, the Republican Senate brazenly admittedly to delaying the investigation of the White House manipulation of the intelligence leading to the war until after the election, only to have them subsequently assert once the election was over that the issue no longer had revelation - since the election was over. And of course, everyone stonewalled the Plame treason (Poppy Bush's term) to get through the election. For four years, every American life lost in Vietnam from 1969 to 1973 under Nixon was wasted; the final settlement was not materially different than the terms available at the beginning of the four years. Even worse, the Watergate corruption and resultant weakening of the government made the later agreement unsustainable. Meaning, for all of those lives lost, we turned a stalemate into a loss. And why? Because we wanted peace with honor. I'm still waiting to hear a single non-excusatory articulation of what honor there is in what Americans did, and what they died for there. As an expression of will, it failed. After the Republican subterfuge leading up to the election in 1980, whaddya know! We started selling them sophisticated weaponry, paying ransom for hostages, and used the mark-up on the arms sales to fund Latin American attrocities in specific violation of American law. And most of us are aware that many of the Latin American Contra activities involved the same School of the Americas thugs trained up to take out Castro, and who possibly turned on JFK. Now this current crowd relies for its power on a constant barrage of fearmongering, wrapped in the flag. But what honor is there in using White Phosphorus against civilian populations? How is it not an illegal occupation when, by democratic standards, the majority wants us out? We relied on an agent known to lack credibility named Curveball to take out the secular strongman dictator of a country with three distinct ethnic/religious factions, never considering that democracy is the worst thing that could happen there. The majority of Iraqis support the Shiite theocracy in Iran. We're not worried that if we "cut and run" there will be chaos and civil war; we're worried that Iraq will become Iran's by osmosis. The use of Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?" is obscenely disingenuously applied to the current circumstance. I know that the death of American soldiers is a minor consideration to some, but how is it that Kennedy navigated the most dangerous era in the history of humanity without any combat troops dying? Less than two hundred military personnel died during the entire course of his presidency, including training accidents and advisors in Vietnam. And most forget the value he placed on the incarcerated Bay of Pigs Cubans, whose ransom was greatly opposed by Republicans. Manuel Artime alone cost $500,000. The lesson from Vietnam, the so-called Powell Doctrine (how does he live with what he's done?) is that you don't go into a military conflict without overpowering force and a clear Exit Strategy, along with a tenacious avoidance of mission creep. Absent all of these requirements, with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, every life lost contributes to worse than nothing; it contributes to diminished respect and influence for America in the civilized world and diminishes civil rights and liberties domestically. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN IRAQ THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORISM IN HISTORY. T.C. T.C. Now that's a fine post.

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis. "....for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people" JFK

Tim, Thanks for your comments. While Astucia may be a nut, others have supported his claims concerning Israel's possible involvement. So I guess he's not a "lone nut". Many nuts have put forward ridiculous theories about the assassination. My favorite is the one blaming Jackie. All those nutbag theories collapse under the mildest scrutiny. However, the claims concerning Israel don't collapse. They hold firm. Lack of public discussion doesn't diminish the significance of the fact that Israel emerged from the assassination as a clear winner. The other two parties who recieved tangible benefits from the event were the MIC (Vietnam) and LBJ (a "get out of jail free and proceed straight to the White House" card.) Others, such as Texas oil, big business, the intelligence agencies and the mob also benefitted but I see their main dividend as preservation of the status quo rather than tangible gain. While preservation of the status quo can't be ruled out as motive, I rank tangible gain as a more reliable indicator of complicity to induce change. As such, I now believe the three aforementioned parties as the prime movers behind Kennedy's removal, with assistance from an amalgum of the lower ranked parties. p.s. I don't believe Astucia (or anyone) should be banned from the Forum. Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already, IMO. A more pressing concern is to find closure before we all go to that big Dealey Plaza in the sky.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

Tim, American soldiers aren't there to kill innocent civilians. I believe most don't want to be there. They are there to follow orders. If innocent civilians die, responsibity lies with whoever gave the orders. Who gave the order to invade Iraq ? That's where the buck stops.

I was incredibly naive back then. I hesitate to say I was stupid because, after all, I was a college student. I too watched Ruby execute LHO live, but I don't recall the thought of conspiracy ever even occurring to me. The only thing that made sense in the United States of America was that it was a lone nut killing another lone nut, just like the government concluded. I even voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. I still haven't lived that down (never will), and I haven't voted since then in a presidential election. Fool me once, shame on you . . . Ron, So you first began to suspect LBJ sometime between '64 and '68? Or were you like many others, just protesting America's involvemnt in Vietnam by not voting? I ask because it's unusual for someone not to vote for so long. Over here it's compulsory to vote, Or I should say, it's compulsory to get your name marked off from the electoral roll. Once in the privacy of the polling booth, you can write anything on the ballot paper, as many do. Failure to vote results in a nasty fine. One wag noted that compulsory voting was designed by our politicians to keep us from becoming fat and lazy. (A walk to the polling booth every couple of years might improve our fitness). They keep us fit--for free!

I've got to proceed with some tact here but I feel it's quite important to respond. I've never owned Astucia's book but, like Lee, I've read lengthy excerpts on the net before, including the material Lee posted. I agree that Astucia seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Israel but I also think that Lee's remark about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is an extremely important comment to bear in mind. Since joining the Forum, I've learned many things about the assassination and a great deal about US history as well. It's all a steep learning curve and I'm extremely grateful to be able to access the research of the many excellent researchers who post here (too numerous to name). John Simkin's recent comment about authors using the Forum in preparation for publishing their works didn't surprise me because the Forum is the best research tool available anywhere, IMO. However, the one aspect which I've found surprising and disturbing is the inexplicable reluctance of the Forum to seriously investigate the possibility that the Israeli Government and, by extension, Mossad, were implicated in this crime. While Astucia, rightfully or wrongly, may be branded racist and anti-Semite, it is a poor investigator who subsequently dismisses his every utterance concerning this unsolved crime as the ravings of a madman. Discussing the possible involvement of the Israeli Government is no more racist than discussing the involvement of the Cuban, Russian or American Governments. I've yet to read of Cubans or Americans complaining of racism. No aspersions are being cast on the people of these nations, the focus of investigation is on the behavior of these Governments, not the people. The absence of discussion concerning the Israeli Government is consistent with the inexplicable silence of Forum members on other matters concerning the Israeli Government, for example the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli forces in 1967, and the subsequent coverup of this tragedy by LBJ and the American media. The coverup seems to have been effective, as few seem to know of it. I knew nothing of it until visiting sites such as Astucia's because it doesn't rate a mention elsewhere. It's incredible to accept that people who rail (justifiably) with such unctuous zeal about the duplicity of politicians, agencies and Governments regarding other events can be stony silent about outrages such as this. It worries me. The possibility of agendas rears its ugly head. If this is to be a genuine investigation into JFK's murder, I would have thought ALL possibilities need to be examined otherwise we're just a newer, more well informed version of the Warren Commission, aren't we? Does Israel warrant scrutiny? IMO, they do: 1. JFK and Israeli PM Ben-Gurion had heated exchanges about JFK's insistence that Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona be subject to inernational inspections. JFK's policy was one of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons for all Middle Eastern countries, with no exceptions. Ben-Gurion was reported to have stated that JFK's policy was a "threat to the very survival of Israel". Under LBJ, military aid to Israel increased exponentially and it became the superpower of the region. The issue of inspections of their nuclear facility was quietly dropped. 2. Yitzakh Rabin's memoirs fail to mention the assassination or even JFK. Rabin was highly placed in the Israeli military at the time. His presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination was only discovered when his wife mentioned it in her autobiography. Rabin's memoirs detail his great excitement at being in America at the time, his admiration for the US military and yet fails to mention a word about JFK or the assassination. Why? 3. The Israeli Government defied America during the Suez crisis in 1956, refusing to withdraw from territories acquired, unlike France and England who did withdraw, until Eisenhower cut off their aid, which was subsequently restored after Israel finally relented. 4. Mossad's efficiency as an agency has long been held in awe by the rest of the world. Their pursuit and execution of all the terrorists involved in the murder of their athletes in the 1972 Montreal Olympics shows their skill at breaching international borders. It's quite a story. I can post links to various sites which expand on these matters but they can be googled and I prefer researchers to investigate for themselves rather than being directed to sites by me. When investigating JFK's murder, which has remained unsolved for so long, I don't believe any area should be "off limits".

Tim, are you familiar with the Chartists?A mass working class movement of the late 19th century, that demanded the franchise from parliament, at the point of a gun if needed, and was decried and hated by so called religious leaders. Have you heard of the Communards in France, and their ultimate fate at the hands of Christian leaders, I have lots more examples if you want. No "philosopher" ever changed a damn thing, pressure from below is what counts. Oh and BTW, look up the role that the Catholic church played during the Spanish civil war. Anti democrats to a man. Steve. Don't forget that particularly undemocratic performance by the Catholic Church a few years back known as the Spanish Inquisition. Took the masses by surprise, I'm told. Why? Because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

So Tim, if I argue against Christian fundamentalism, this makes me a supporter of Muslim fundamentalism? Is that your reasoning?

Since you feel so strongly about America's global role of removing harsh dictatorships, I assume you advocate immediate American intervention in various countries, like North Korea and China for example. You could also help with America's current recruitment shortage by donning the khaki yourself, of course. If there was no oil in Iraq, the Bush group wouldn't be there and no amount of sanctimonious crocodile tears about the suppression of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein can change that indisputable fact. If Bush's motives are as pure as you asking us to believe, then why aren't they spending billions removing dictatorships and enforcing "democracy" on dozens of counties, non-oil producing ones, all around the globe?