Mark Stapleton

Tim, Thank you. I would prefer you to quote the author verbatim rather than any summaries, though. It only has to be the main points, perhaps only a couple of sentences--the main points which convinced you that Dillon's involvement was not possible. I eagerly await your response.

Tim, Nice answer. Yes or no would have been OK. Your legal training may explain some of the tactics you employ. Anyhow, I've a very important question for you on the "Communication Breakdown" thread, concerning C. Douglas Dillon for which I respecfully request your urgent attention. Thank you.

Tim, I agree with Greg. How can you assume his innocence just on this. Quite ridiculous. As Greg suggested, it could be anything from sadness, regret, guilt or even cover. This is why Forum members take issue with you so often. You jump to conclusions when it suits you. True intellectual dishonesty. On a more important point, namely the very important and as yet unresolved matter of C. Douglas Dillon and his possible involvement, I have a request. Since you are convinced that Sorenson's bio of JFK proves beyond doubt Dillon's innocence of any involvement and since I don't happen to have this book at the moment, perhaps you would be kind enough to quote the passages from which you derive your stunning conclusions. I assume the references to Dillon are only minor in the overall scheme of the work--after all, it's a book about JFK not Dillon, so it shouldn't give you writer's cramp. Just the important, conclusive sentences will do, then I can evaluate them for myself. I've seen some of your posts have been up to 1000 words at times so the collation of the relevant data and its transcription to this site would be child's play for a person of your prodigious output. I believe you are a super member. I know you won't let me down, Tim. I would dearly love to see that proof vis-a-vis Douglas Dillon. Don't let me down now. Otherwise people might think that you're phony.

Tim, That's very nice but would you mind answering John's question.

John, Nice work, John. Similar forum to this one. Can never have too many, IMO.

Tim, Sorry to disappoint you but I did say "maybe". At the moment I'm going through some of the material Bernice linked to her post (#124). There's a mile of stuff there including some from Weberman. Some of it I've read before but I recommend forum readers give it more than a passing glance. The Rockerfeller Commission is interesting and probably doesn't receive sufficient coverage on the Forum, IMO. I don't know if Dillon had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination but as I've stated ad nauseum, he can't be ruled out as a suspect, IMO. Thus I disagree with your iron clad conviction of his innocence. Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement. John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments.

Ron, Just a mild case of "post assassination prognostication". Dinkin had it bad.

Just try that again for clarity. Tim, Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

Tim, You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note. JFK's hiring of Sorenson, appointment of Dillon etc, showed what an exceptional Chief Executive JFK was. He wanted the best people, political and religious affiliations being secondary considerations at best. I know he made Bobby AG, but Bobby was outstanding as well. JFK made a great joke about it when asked why he appointed his brother to be Attorney-General without having ever practised in a legal firm, "I wanted to give him some legal experience before he goes into practise" JFK said. Tim, you seem obsessed about me reading the Sorenson bio of JFK. Why just me? And why just it? Apparently, my reading it is the only way of preventing you from throwing another tantrum. OK, I'll read it........maybe.

Ron, You crack me up .

James, Thanks for the ID on the others. For me, it's always difficult to identify LeMay without his stogie.

Stan, lol. Yes, it's quite amusing. Tim apparently wants to make it a requirement. We're very lucky we have headmaster Tim to tell us what we must read (and presumably, what we must not read). Sorenson's bio must be the Holy Grail, the definitive work, the final word on the relationship between Douglas Dillon and JFK. He doesn't mention looking into Dillon's background and connections--that must be irrelevant. According to Dallek, Ted Sorenson was a lawyer from Lincoln, Nebraska. He came from a progressive Republican family and his father was a former Nebraska Attorney General. I believe he was a good friend of JFK's and a great speechwriter. Some were surprised that JFK hired him, being non-Catholic. However, his apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon. A small point re speed reading--Manchester mentions that JFK could speed read at 1200wpm. Can anyone confirm this to be true? It's not mentioned in Dallek's biography of JFK. Just curious.

Hi James, The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). Hard to tell, but looks similar from the photos I've seen and he wore glasses. Nice photo, Greg--I'd love to see the one of a distressed Ike that you mentioned. A man of integrity, IMO.

Stan, "What differentiates the military from US Banking and the War industry?". Good question. There's a bit of circumstantial evidence which points to the Federal Reserve, owned by major U.S. and European Banking interests. This was the removal of the notes printed under the JFK Administration which omitted reference to the FR and replaced it with "United States Banknote". Their swift removal from circulation after JFK's death might mean nothing. If so it's another coincidence.

Bernice, Many thanks for the material. Lucky I've got tomorrow off. This could be very interesting.

Dixie, Nice post. Good points. I'm the same. Without pre-judging him, he's got strong connections with banking and finance and that sector wasn't in JFK's good books. Also, he was boss of the Secret Service. I'm going to research him too-- Bernice's material looks like a good start.

And to quote another famous saying, "How many forum members concur with your theory, Tim?

Tim, You really are a master of misattribution. I haven't assumed the plotters gave no thought to the aftermath of the assassination, as you incorrectly assert. On the contrary, a plan to shut down the DC telecommunications system shows great pre-planning, if this is what they did. My point was that with a scheme of this scope and complexity, a modicum of flexibility must be factored in, allowing the conspirators to, if necessary, modify their strategy as events transpire in the critical period following the assassination. Flexibility to adapt the plan at short notice would be the hallmark of any prudent plan. Don't forget the DPD was in the mix, performing with the clinical efficiency of the Keystone cops, so anything was possible. They may have been waiting to be informed of LHO's whereabouts and fate, for example. As I said, I'm only speculating, offering a suggestion. Frankly, after reading the posts of Robert, Larry and Ron, I'm inclined to think it might have been a coincidence, although I'm very suspicious of that word. What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there. If your credibility shrinks any more, I'll have to start referring to you as Tiny Tim.

Tim, You're a slippery little rodent. My post was in response to your claim in Post#50 that there were posts on this thread which were garbage. Aghast at the thought that this thread might go places other than Trafficante/Castro/Pro-Castro Cubans, Tim thinks "how do I get my material onto centre stage?". Answer: just say those posts are garbage--someone's bound to respond 'cause I've got more garbage than anyone there. True genius. Then claims that this often happens, which translates as "I use this strategy lots". Despite all that, this has turned into a very interesting thread, covering a good range of controversial issues. It's been fascinating to watch Robert clinically dispose of most of your assertions. Have you responded yet ? You see, I don't know as much as you on the Castro/Mob theory on the assassination. I doubt if I ever will as you've obviously devoted thousands of hours to it. Trouble is, those who do know what they're talking about on your theory don't appear to back you up. Robert Charles-Dunne and Mark Knight seem to know what they're talking about but still no backers. What conclusion do I draw? The funny thing is that if anything new comes out of this thread, it might be some research into the background of C. Douglas Dillon. I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.

Ron, From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.

Steve, Good post. Have to go out now, but I will comment on it later.

Larry, The failure of the DC phone system seems like another one of those coincidences. From my reading of your post and the earlier post of Robert Charles-Dunne, I gather that there are two possibilities: 1. It was accidental, coincidental or 2. It was contrived. (I'm a genius) If it was the latter, the military is most likely the party responsible.

David, Thanks for that. I was in Vegas in '98. Great weather. Memorable town.

David, I agree. The naivety of Tim's statement is incredible. His hysterical overreaction to the mere suggestion of Dillon's foreknowledge only reinforces my suspicions. While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear.