Mark Stapleton

Well put!! By Wesley Pruden, editor of "The Washington Times":

"Ironically, or maybe there's no irony at all, the Islamic nations of the Middle East are not nearly as squeamish as the girlie men of the West in recognizing the true nature of the beast at the village gate... The delicate sentiments of frightened Western girlie men have no currency this morning in Amman or other capitals of Arabia, where there is fear of how the radical Islamists will try to erase the indifference that thrived when al-Qa'ida seemed preoccupied only with the infidels of Israel and Christendom... The warfare, now spilling over in unexpected places, has a little to do with poverty, joblessness and maybe even ennui, but everything to do with the Islamist campaign to replace modern civilization with something bad from the Dark Ages."

Tim,

Finally, you've revealed your agenda.That piece is just a crude argument in support of a holy war, probably to fulfil a biblical prophesy. Like Islam, Christianity has a small minority of hardline fundamentalists advocating holy war. That's you, Tim.

Published on Thursday, February 27, 2003 by the New York Times

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

by John Brady Kiesling

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-13.htm

Published on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Letter of Resignation by John H. Brown, Foreign Service Officer

To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.

The president has failed:

--To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

--To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

--To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

--To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

--To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

John H. Brown

Foreign Service Officer

John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow.

A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s03/0312-11.htm

Tim and Gerry,

You really should read these letters of resignation carefully, especially Kiesling's:

"Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, supersticious empire thrashing towards self destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

With respect, you guys need to realise that things have changed since the fifties and sixties.

Robert, I don't know exactly what you do for a living, but have you ever considered a career in tv journalism? The cable news stations here could REALLY use a guy like you!!!

Sorry, Dawn, but I have the face for radio, not TV. Besides, I don't have ALL the qualifications for success in the current US TV game: while I may be a middle-aged white male, I'm not a cranky, barking-mad screamer with a persecution complex. Then again, perhaps by the time Gerry Hemming is through with me, I'll have those qualifications, too.

LOL. Robert, you also don't possess the most important characteristic necessary for the job--you must be a loyal apologist for your corporate masters.

It's probably true that Saddam poked his tongue out at America at a time when America was in deep shock over 9/11 and not in the mood to be ridiculed. While Hussien's provocations were a foolish error for which he and his murderous cohorts paid dearly, he prompted the Bush Administration into a much larger and more costly one.

How naive was the Administration to think it could establish an American style democracy in a country with such a vastly different culture to their own. They were convinced that the swift defeat of Saddam would result in a wave of business opportunities in a nation whose grateful people would embrace the US as their liberators from oppression. American construction, engineering, manufacturing, banking and finance companies were lining up to begin operations in this oil rich honeypot. The sudden appearance of suicide bombers abrupty ended any such plans. From this point the whole plan unravelled. The occupation has resulted in massive numbers of Iraqis willing to volunteer as suicide bombers. Companies can't set up operations in a country where they are the target of suicide bombers because the staff just won't go. How could Bush and his backers have failed to anticipate such a problem? Kennedy would have foreseen it because, unlike Bush, he understood the cultural differences which exist between countries. He travelled extensively before becoming President. Bush didn't. He served his country in foreign theatres of war. Bush disappeared. He read widely and was empathic towards nations which were emerging from colonialism. Bush didn't and isn't. Kennedy would never have considered such a stupid and dangerous foreign adventure.

Another dubious dividend is that terrorists have now discovered the effectiveness of suicide bombers in driving off American business interests not just from their own country but in all foreign countries where these interests operate. They are now threatening US interests in Europe and elsewhere. If this materialises, against whom does Bush intend to retaliate? Venezuela perhaps?

I read Stombaugh’s testimony. He found some of Oswald’s pubic hairs on the blanket that the rifle was wrapped in in Ruth Paine’s garage. Unfortunately, in reading this testimony, I learned more about pubic hairs (particularly Oswald’s) than I really wanted to know. For example:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. . . . Pubic hairs ordinarily are rather thick. Oswald's hairs were relatively narrow. Pubic hairs also have what we term nobbiness. You can see a nob right here, it is twisted----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?

And this:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. . . . The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. . . . This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.

If nothing else, I think that Stombaugh’s commendable work on Oswald’s pubic hairs is in sharp contrast to, and a further reflection on, the investigative skills of Jim Garrison, who we’ve been told couldn’t find a pubic hair in a whorehouse.”“

couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse"

In defence of Garrison, they might have been referring to a Brazilian one.

Jim,

I agree with Ron and others that your research has been very productive (although I don't really see how you plucked May 29, 1963 out of the hat, except maybe for the fact it was JFK's 46th birthday).

I agree with Ron in that I doubt LHO willingly and knowingly tried to kill Walker, but I agree with you that Walker was involved in the assassination.

Why? Because I believe selecting Dallas as the scene of JFK's murder was no coincidence.

It was possibly the only city where all the settings were perfect. Civic leaders like Ted Dealey and Earle Cabell hated him, the DPD leadership were lackeys of the powerful Dallas Citizens Council (and most disliked JFK anyway), the oil industry, based in Texas, hated him almost to a man and a large contingent of CIA sponsored anti-Castro forces were based in reasonably close proximity to the city. Add to this the almost indecent insistence by LBJ that Kennedy visit Dallas and his unsuccessful last minute request that Connally and Yarborough swap seats and you have, IMO, the most perfectly planned "home ground" fixture. So if it was a home ground fixture, it's almost impossible to rule out Dallas's most vociferous Kennedy hater, General Edwin Walker. The message (if only we could find proof of it) from those in Dallas to LBJ was "we'll take care of him, providing you BRING HIM HERE".

Thanks for your recolections. It would be nice if as many members as possible posted, after all for many of us it was the start of a 40+ year's search.

Interesting side note, my father was a great sports fan, and would often wake me up to watch games, matches, fights beamed in via the new (1960's) satellite technology, on one such occasion we got up at one in the morning to watch the Ali- Liston second fight 1964, we both loved the fights, and had been looking foward to this one for weeks. Anyway to cut it short Ali wiped the floor with Liston in under one round and Dad made some hot chocolate, to help us sleep, we both had a moan about the poor show Sonny had put up, and chatted the way Boys do with their dads,when out of the blue he said, "There's no way Oswald could have made those shots" we chatted a bit about the assassination, and went to bed. Funny thing is, despite my abiding interest in JFK, I cant recall us ever talking about the subject again.

Steve,

Minor point. The second Ali-Liston fight was in 1965--May 25 in Lewiston, Maine. The first fight was February 25, 1964--Miami Beach, Florida.

John,

First rate presentation. I wonder if Teddy will ever reveal what Stockdale really told him and Bobby, instead of merely observing that he was depressed.

One presentation I was very interested in, after reading the schedule you posted, was John Williams, "The conspicuously disowned presence of General Curtis LeMay at Bethesda". How did that go down?

On Mafia involvement, I've always believed that while Marcello and Trafficante are often mentioned as suspects, the person who recieves little focus is Meyer Lansky. While Marcello, Trafficante, Giancana and others were rulers of their fiefdoms, the person who had more influence at a national and international level was Meyer. Still only 61 at the time of the assassination, if the underworld was involved I find it hard to believe Meyer Lansky wasn't a major player. Hence I agree that the term often used (i.e. the mafia) is misleading. I think "underworld influences" is more accurate.

Steve, kudos on a very good thread, considering the date.

Sadly, I can't offer much, save one thing. When JFK was killed I was 6 and don't remember anything about it.

But when Bobby died I had just turned 11. I wasn't very aware of politics but I remember my mother was very angry and told my father, very angrily "The Kennedy's don't owe America a bloody thing".

She only dates boys who do not like Jim Garrison!

Tim,

Who's Jim Garrison?

Lynne,

Is that a recent photo of you. If so, are you doing anything this Saturday night?

Mark Stapleton wrote:

Don't throw your hat in the air just yet. From my standpoint, there's still a small problem with accepting this scenario (as discussed in the Hartmann/Waldron thread) i.e. if JFK planned to overthrow Castro, wouldn't this have made the Soviets mad as a hornet, possibly prompting them to tear up the recently signed nuclear test ban treaty? Not exactly a stunning political result for a President planning to go to the people as a man with a global vision.

I'm keen to know how Lamar Waldron explains this apparent incongruity. He might have a credible explanation but until then I'm not convinced.

Several comments, Mark.

Your objection was the same objection John Simkin had raised when I raised similar arguments re the Kennedys' intentions re Cuba in late 1963. Yet John seems convinced to a 95% certainty after his dinner meeting with Mr. Waldron.

Second, we all need to read the book.

Third, Mr. Hemming's comments are, as always, interesting (and that characterization is an understatement).

Fourth, I read that Martino had written that JFK had made a deal with Khruschev to replace Castro with a less belligerent person (ala Tito?). Query whether the Waldron thesis at all ties in with this?

Finally, with respect to the so-called peace initiatives with Castro, remember that Lisa Howard became convinced they had all been a fraud and she became a vociferous public opponent of RFK, so hostile to him she was willing to kiss her career goodbye.

Tim,

All good points well made. Responses:

1. John's statement that he thinks Waldron has got it 95% is interesting given his initial skepticism. I'm keen to hear the reasons for this because, as you know, I respect his opinions.

2. I agree. Today I purchased Joan Mellen's book as well as Dick Russell's "The man who knew too much" and Dallek's recent LBJ bio (an abridgement of his two volume life of LBJ, "Lone Star Rising", 1991, and "Flawed Giant", 1998). So Lamar Waldron's book is down the list at the moment but I'll get around to it soon.

3. Gerry's comments are always interesting. His cultivated coarse yet savvy machismo style, combined with a tendency towards liberal use of the lingo peculiar to those of his calling can sometimes make understanding his message difficult for someone not expert in the anti-Castro milieu, such as myself. But this is my problem--everyone has their style.

4. I was unaware of any such deal. Are you sure this is not just speculation?

5. I believe JFK was just keeping all his options open. I believe his overriding preoccupation was getting re-elected.

Apologies for spelling errors. I'm still waiting on my new glasses, I sat on the old ones. How about those optometrists? Walk in the shop and they want to fit you up with a thousand dollars worth of eyeware--multifocal lenses, titanium frames. What a racket.

John wrote (about Lamar Waldron):

I think he has got it about 95% right. I suspect that his theory will upset some members because he argues that JFK was serious about his plan to overthrow Castro in December, 1963.

John has seen the light!!!

Tim,

Don't throw your hat in the air just yet. From my standpoint, there's still a small problem with accepting this scenario (as discussed in the Hartmann/Waldron thread) i.e. if JFK planned to overthrow Castro, wouldn't this have made the Soviets mad as a hornet, possibly prompting them to tear up the recently signed nuclear test ban treaty? Not exactly a stunning political result for a President planning to go to the people as a man with a global vision.

I'm keen to know how Lamar Waldron explains this apparent incongruity. He might have a credible explanation but until then I'm not convinced.

Arrived safely in Dallas. I had no trouble getting into the country. Mind you, I did not tell them I was in Dallas to give a lecture on how the CIA killed JFK.

Strange place. Local television is full of news about local murders. A Dallas cop was killed yesterday. So was a man who complained to his boss about the terms and conditions of his employment. The taxi driver who took me to the hotel told me he had to carry a gun to protect himself from passengers (he patted his gun as he told me). I gave him a generous tip.

However, people are friendly and the service in the hotel is excellent.

I always knew Dallas was a city of great innovation. That taxi driver has apparently discovered an ingenious method for improving his tips. I hope Sydney cabbies don't get wind of it.

One interesting thing I learned from Professor Mellen's book, a defense of Garrison, of course, demonstates a rather substantial falsehood in Oliver Stone's "JFK". Perhaps it is too strong a statement to call it a lie but it certainly involves a misrepresentation of a material and important fact.

Everyone is of course familiar with the story of Charles Spiesel, the New York accountant who testified for Garrison but under cross-examination revealed so many idiosyncrocies that his testimony alone may have cost Garrison the case. In "JFK" we see Garrison visibly disturbed hearing the cross-examination and then staring angrily at one of his assistants who protests that he did not know.

In Professor Mellen's book it is revealed that Garrison was fully aware of the problems with Spiesel and there was an internal debate in Garrison's camp whether to put him on the stand. Mark Lane argued strongly against it.

The decision to use Spiesel despite his problems may have cost Garrison dearly but it was his own decision. One can debate the merits of the strategic decision to call Spiesel but it is clear Garrison committed a fundamental trial error. Every trial lawyer knows that if you must present a witness who has "issues" the lawyer must minimize the impact of those issues by bringing them out on direct examination. Doing so significantly decreases the adverse effect; essentially it "takes the wind" out of the defense's "sails".

Once Garrison decided to call Spiesel, he should have gone over all of Spiesel's problem on direct examination. Of course, with the benefit of hind-sight, Mark Lane was correct: Garrison should never have called him.

I find it hard to believe that Stone was not aware of Garrison's knowledge of the problems with Spiesel.

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

While I am on the subject of "JFK", Ian Griggs' "No Case To Answer" does a wonderful job of debunking the myth that there was anything sinister about the coverage in the Christchurch, New Zealand newspaper of the assassination (the famouse scene with "X"). Mr. Griggs is quite critical of Mr. Stone in this regard. This may be more important because it is one of the linchpin's the movie uses to prove a conspiracy.

Tim,

I think Dawn's right about the nitpicking. Garrison might have blundered in regard to Spiesel but it didn't really blunt the main purpose of the trial, which was to bring the assassination to the world's attention. Garrison probably realised he was a longshot so he gambled on calling Spiesel. But if what you say about Spiesal is right, then you're right about it being a blunder.

Re Stone, that stuff about the Christchurch newspaper is a minor point, really. You can't argue that this undermines the movie's theme that there was a conspiracy, with so many other incriminating circumstances surrounding the case. You're not Clarence Darrow, you know.

I'm picking up the Mellen book today. I'm keen to see what all the fuss is about.

John, Dawn, Tim et al,

I'm envious, especially as it's shaping up as a bumper conference. John, thanks for the updates--much appreciated. Three quick questions

What was Lamar Waldron's topic?

Do they now have guided tours of the entire range of assassination related sites, including the Tippet murder scene, Oswald's boarding house etc.? and

Did Vince Palamara attend ?

Tim, interesting post. If I visit Dallas again, I'll definately check out that and about a hundred other things I didn't look at when I was there. Of course, I knew much less about the assassination then.

BTW, is there a memorial or plaque at 10th and Patten?

p.s good luck and best wishes to all the organisers and attendees.

Of course this is only what might be called the General Theory of the JFK Assassination (the U.S. government did it). Still to be worked out, and possibly never resolved, is the Special Theory of the JFK Assassination (who specifically did it on behalf of the U.S. government).

Extrapolating your post, what about a grand unification theory encompassing JFK, RFK, MLK, Chappaquiddick and all the unexplained deaths? The common denominator is the US Government and its unwillingness to set the record straight.

The General and Special Theories, as well as the Unified Theory, must always be qualified by the Uncertainty Principle.

Tim

Good point. Although Einstein didn't like Heisenberg's principle, he couldn't disprove it.

It was my friend's brother who partook of the mind-altering substances. And while his arguments made some sense on a surface level, that tended to evaporate when we started taking into consideration the number of lives lost in this alleged capitalist conspiracy theory...like Vietnam, it made little sense in capitalistic terms once one took the deaths into consideration. Then it became readily apparent that it was all about ideaology.

Kinda like Iraq.

Mark,

I don't think your brother's friend was that far off the mark. The Cold War was very good for the defence and aerospace industries and JFK's attempts to tone down the Cold War rhetoric were probably viewed by them as a strategy which could spell economic disaster for their sector, as Government contracts were their main source of revenue.

Ron,

Extrapolating your post, what about a grand unification theory encompassing JFK, RFK, MLK, Chappaquiddick and all the unexplained deaths? The common denominator is the US Government and its unwillingness to set the record straight.

Mark, while were here buddy, whats happened to your Mr Levy?

Better hurry, I hear Tim's about to break the case with his stunning thesis, JTR, Castro's grandad!!!!

Steve, your topics on JTR has inspired me to do a bit of dabbling in the case, nothing to contribute (I've mostly been fiddling with the letters to do image analysis, etc - a good source would be helpful), but to jump in before Tim!

Throwing all caution to the wind and not meaning to detract from the serious side of the topic but having fun with some coincidences:

The guy who supposedly vanished to the US>

At the time of the Great Exhibition in Chicago (Crystal palace:Ruby,White City:KKK) there was a club around people fascinated by the whitechapel murders. At the same time there was a Texan in town who appears to have been inspired by ole Jack (Jack, Jackie). He built a 3 story murder house where he, in secret chambers and passageways, disposed of ladies who came to Chicago seeking fortune. His assumed name? :: Harry D. Holmes!!!* ( connection to Post Office? he wrote letters

But serioulsly. The DNA thingy could prove most interesting.

(BTW I think one of the centuries old 'bogmen' in Denmark with a rope around his neck has been matched with a report of a taxman disappearing while visiting a village near where the body was found.)

EDIT:: * must have HD on the brain, I mean HH in the ripper instance.

The guys name was H.H. Holmes, aka D.W. Mudget. Try 'The Devil and the White City' for a great read about this extraordinary madman. Who was far too organized and ghoulish to be JTR. Holmes sold the skeletons of many of his victims to medical schools! The apartment building in Lawndale that he built was a death factory.

These methods are so different from JTW that I really doubt that it could be the same personality. Besides, Holmes earlier history is known.

Now that guy Tumblety (?) who ended up in St. Louis, he fits the profile for JTW real well.

Norman,

If and it's a big if, those DNA experts obtain a DNA fingerprint from the saliva on the envelopes, Tumblety's descendants will be among those contacted. He's my second pick after Jacob Levy.

Also you can find all the ripper letters, and much more besides at www.casebook.org this site is a top class resource for all things "Ripperish" be interested to see what you come up with John, bearing inmind your sterling work with the JFK photo archive.

Mark, maybe just post what you have? he is an interesting candidate, and may well spark some debate.

Regards Steve.

John,

Welcome to the Jack the Ripper case. As you can see, Steve's an avid Ripperologist and can help you with any queries. Plenty of other experts here, too.

Steve,

I only have what's in Casebook but I can post it. Might just wait to see what Professor Findlay comes up with. It might make us all redundant.

What makes you think Israel's an ally?

I fell in love with Israel during a visit there in 1975 and never questioned U.S. support for that country until 2000, when Sharon was elected and began overtly provoking trouble. Since then it's all been downhill.

"Remember the Liberty."

Nobody does, Ron. That's the problem. One of LBJ's best coverups, IMO. Much better than his JFK job. Understandable, LBJ was an old hand by 1967. Back to the thread.........

TERROR PLOT FOILED

Seventeen men have been arrested and charged with terrorism related offences in Sydney and Melbourne, Australian Federal Police (AFP) say.

The men, eight from NSW and nine from Victoria, have been charged with a range of offences including sections of Commonwealth legislation that have not been previously used, an AFP spokesman said.

The arrests follow the execution of 22 search warrants across Sydney and Melbourne this morning where officers seized a range of material, including unidentified substances, firearms, travel documents, computers and backpacks," the spokesman said.

Police arrested eight people in NSW after executing warrants in Lakemba, Belmore, Wiley Park, Greenacre, Illawong, Punchbowl, Hoxton Park, Condell Park, Ingleburn, Belfield, Bankstown and Kemps Creek.

The nine from Victoria were arrested during raids in Dallas, Hoppers Crossing, Fawkner, Preston, Coburg, Yarraville, Meadow Heights and Hadfield.

AFP Deputy Commissioner John Lawler said all the men had been charged under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

The charges included acts in preparation of a terrorist act, being a member of a terrorist group, and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.

One man had also been charged with directing a terrorist organisation, he said.

"By working collaboratively Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have managed to disrupt the alleged activities of this group and therefore protect the Australian community from a potential terrorist threat," Mr Lawler said in a statement today.

NSW police Commissioner Ken Moroney said the arrests followed a lengthy operation where law enforcement and intelligence agencies had been monitoring and investigating "the activities of a group allegedly intent on carrying out what we assess as some sort of terrorist act in Australia."

"It will be alleged in court that following months of discussions, individuals had moved to the point of planning some sort of activity including the purchase of potentially dangerous materials," he said in the joint statement with the AFP.

The men arrested in NSW will appear in Sydney courts, yet to be allocated, later today.

The nine men from Victoria are to appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court.

TERROR SUSPECT SHOT

A Sydney terror suspect is in a critical condition after being shot by police who claim he opened fire at them first.

The man aged in his 20s was shot in the neck by a police officer at Green Valley, in Sydney's south-west, at about 9am (AEDT) on Tuesday.

"I can confirm that one person of the alleged terrorist group fled from police in possession of a firearm," said Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison.

"He was confronted earlier this morning by police.

"While this investigation is the subject of an internal investigation by NSW authorities it will be alleged that the offender shot at police, to which police responded, shooting him in the neck and chest and I understand his position remains critical."

The wounded man was one of seven suspects arrested in a series of counter-terrorism raids in Sydney, police said.

Nine more were arrested and charged in Melbourne.

Assistant Commissioner Graeme Morgan said the man, carrying a bag, fired at least two shots at police when they approached him on Wilson Road at Green Valley.

He said police monitoring the man saw him leaving a motor vehicle near a mosque, carrying a bag.

"Police attending Wilson Road saw a man that was of interest and as they did ... witnesses have told police that he produced a firearm and fired at the police," Mr Morgan said.

"One officer was struck, we believe in the hand, and suffered a minor wound.

"One of the police officers returned fire and the person of interest to police was wounded in the neck.

"We can now confirm that the offender fired at least two shots at police and when the police fired back it was not the officer whose hand was injured in the attack."

The wounded suspect was being treated in Liverpool Hospital but his condition was unknown.

Police used a bomb disposal robot to investigate the contents of the bag the man was carrying, and said they had found a handgun.

"The bag also contained papers but no explosives," Mr Morgan said.

Police closed off the road and evacuated residents in the area while the bag was examined.

An independent investigation team from the State Crime Command has been established to investigate the circumstances of the shooting.

Mr Morgan would not comment on the terror raids in Sydney and Melbourne.

"The role of the State Crime Command here is to conduct a completely independent investigation of the shooting. That's the limit of the role we're performing here.

"We're not involved in the counter-terrorism operation that took place elsewhere in Sydney this morning."

Adam,

I live in Roselands, which is between Lakemba and Wiley Park, and I heard those choppers hovering around on Monday night.

Looking forward with interest to the details of this plan emerging. I'm hearing the cops acted on a tip from a chemicals manufacturer. A fertilizer bomb may have been their intention.

BTW Steve, has this apparent breakthrough technique in DNA research been mentioned in any of the Ripper publications? I recall reading about the use of DNA fingerprinting, but it was given little chance of solving the case because of it's apparent limitations.

Mark, while were here buddy, whats happened to your Mr Levy?

Better hurry, I hear Tim's about to break the case with his stunning thesis, JTR, Castro's grandad!!!!

Steve,

Er..Apologies about that. I couldn't find anything about him (except the stuff in Casebook)

so I dropped off it. I strongly suspect its a conspiracy by historians to prevent me from solving the case.

Fascinating stuff Mark, I can see a lot of potential pitfalls but who knows, maybe this method will unlock the secrets of this case once and for all. Steve.

I would rate the chances of closure at 15%. If this case is finally solved it would probably be the world record for time taken to solve a crime--hopefully the JFK case won't break that record.