Mark Stapleton

Bernice, Another fine post. If the MIC was responsible for the assassination, it's de facto hold on Government has only tightened in the intervening years. The defence budget this year is, I believe, $480B (up from $430B last year). One question. If, as you argue, the Ultra Right/Texas oil failed to possess enough influence to carry out the assassination on their own, is it not possible they may have formed a co-operative "joint venture" with the MIC in order to achieve this? The reason I ask is that, to me, the fact that it was carried out in Dallas is too much of a coincidence for those groups (they may well be one and the same) to be uninvolved. The other thing for me is LBJ. As Ron points out, the timing of the hit was just too good to be true for him. His background also condemns him. The counter arguments forwarded by WC supporters are coincidence (Re Dallas) and coincidence (Re LBJ) to which I would reply "crap" (Re Dallas) and "crap" (Re LBJ). Hoover's involvement in the coverup is an historical certainty by now. Boggs said "he lied his eyes out" to the Commission. I agree that JFK would probably not have retired him, although he would have loved to--he had too much dirt on everyone. It's likely every pre 1972 President feared him, with good reason. The problem, IMO, was that he was elevated to Chief when he was too young, making his tenure almost a half century dynasty--a mistake they would never repeat, IMO. Thanks again for a great post.

Stan, Thanks for that. I've been out all day and, as I often do, I forgot to log off. Tim must think I'm gobsmacked or something. If I resist the temptation to reply, his interjections will gradually grow in volume and intensity, just watch. I can read him like a book. Anyway, I noticed Bernice just posted another piece so I think I'll check that out. There's more interesting pursuits than arguing with right-wing toadies who masquerade as assassination researchers--oops, I think I just replied. If I ever get back to the States again I might take you up on that drink.

Tim, Your arrogance is truly breathtaking. You hijack a thread, after asserting that it was full of garbage, you then make a rude demand that I answer 18 questions, then you fail to address the one question I asked you (saying it's "preposterous" is no answer) and just for good measure you say my attitude discredits the assassination research community. I would never bother answering a question asked by you. That would be playing into your hands by turning the thread into another tedious debate about Castro. I'm far more interested in the questions being posed in this thread by the genuine researchers. Also, I consider your credibility to be permanently damaged. This is because you attempt to prevent all discussion from going anywhere but Cuba or Russia. IMO, you're not a genuine researcher, just a pest running an agenda. Also, judging by the replies from Robert Charles Dunne and others, it appears your speculations on Castro are just that--speculation. It's amazing how many times your arguments have been strafed on this site, yet you always come back claiming your theory is the lead contender. Are you related to Mike Tyson ?

Tim, Dear oh dear. I've seen you hijack threads before, but this is ridiculous. Why don't you give us a full seminar. I'll answer all your 18 questions at once--I believe anti-Castro Cubans may have been used in a minor way or to attract some suspicion as the blaming of the hit on Castro seems to be part of the big picture. But Castro didn't plan it. It's sad that your myopia prevents you from seeing why domestic interests had far more to gain by killing JFK than Castro did so I won't bother. This tired old argument which you are addicted to resurrecting is getting as boring as daytime television. Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information. OK Tim, now is your time. You answer my question now. Unlike your 18, mine relates to the thread. How can you be so certain that Dillon didn't have other friends--better friends, older friends--than JFK? Friends who suggested to Dillon that JFK's departure was in the best interests of all. Dillon was well connected with Eastern banking and finance interests was he not? This is no accusation, only a question. I'm saying it's possible that Dillon knew, nothing more. You are saying this is impossible--how so? Answer it, don't bury your head in the sand. Also, spare us the teary eyed speeches about bismirching the reputations of patriotic Americans. It's pathetic.

Tim, I must take offence at you describing some of the posts here as garbage. There's speculation, I agree, but isn't the whole JFK debate speculation ? (based on the available facts) You've stated before how you "deplore" speculation (usually just before you embark on an orgy of speculation -- LHO being your favorite topic for speculation), but without the truth about the JFK asassination what else can we do? Everyone's speculating or offering their opinion--it's the same thing. Moreover, I speculate the most blatant garbage on this website is the theory put forward by you. The Castro did it theory. My contempt for such a contrived distortion of shared knowledge is supported by most of those on the Forum, among them John Simkin, a genuine authority on the case and not a mere speculator like me. Your theory has been comprehensively rebutted so many times on this Forum that it's rebuttals could be made into a thick book. Thick, Tim. One more point. Your ferocious defence of Dillon amuses me. I've also read that he was a friend of JFK's--I said as much on one of my first posts. However, as Treasury Secretary, the Secret Service answered to him. The Secret Service was nobbled (mere speculation) on November 22. So here lies the dilemma. On one hand he's a friend of JFK but counterbalancing that is the fact that he was boss of the SS and the SS didn't perform near well enough to save JFK. Close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK. Like an ostrich, you hang your hat on your fervent hope that this apparent friendship precludes any involvement or foreknowledge and scald dissenters with pious accusations about bismirching reputations, then bury your head to any evidence to the contrary. The evidence may be circumstantial, but there's a lot of that coming from this site, especially from you.

Shanet, I don't really know why, but that is a very funny response. lol.

Nelson Rockefeller and Allen Dulles. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Taylor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet, I think Taylor was one of those present at the Nam summit, so I don't think it was him. Stan's choice of Rockefeller is interesting. Wasn't he part of the banking interests that were being threatened by Kennedy's determination to bypass the Federal Reserve ? If there's anyone out there who knows any more about these calls (or call) please join in.

Anyway, before this thread passes away, would anyone like to hazard an informed guess about who Cabot Lodge might have been calling ?

Tim, Congratulations on turning another thread into a dogfight. I'm not sure what you mean about serving jury duty. I like reading posts from Pat and Ron too. This is because they are authorities on the case but more importantly they have an open mind on the matter, willing to evaluate evidence on its merits. Sadly Tim, the same doesn't apply to you. I was unaware that I am required to have read a requisite number of books, as prescribed by you, in order to be permitted to express an opinion. You obviously don't like the direction this thread is heading. The bio of Dillon which you posted says nothing--I already knew of his career and background. It reveals nothing concerning the questions being asked on this thread. Tim, you are diligent, well-read and conscientious--at digging up fool's gold.

I knew it was too good to be true. Here comes Tim singing his predictable tune.

Shanet, Thanks for clearing that up. I seriously doubt that any NSA docs released would incriminate them. This organisation is allowed the luxury of operating without the burden of any public scrutiny whatsoever. Their predictable defence is undoubtedly that it's for America's security. To some extent they have a point, making it unlikely that researchers will discover more information in the near future. I agree with Bill and Jim that the payphone calls by Cabot Lodge were bizarre. It's probably one the reasons that so many advance rumors concerning the assassination were recieved. Interesting to speculate on who he called. My reading of all this is that it was primarily a military action, with the assent of LBJ and some high level Cabinet members like Rusk and Dillon, giving it executive imprimatur. As we know, there were many powerful groups arrayed against JFK but it's useful to focus on the parties who were in a position to do it and get away with it. The military/executive occupies pole position. The Pentagon then and still does consider itself the Government.

Another very interesting post, Bernice. One aspect I've sometimes considered is who would be the agencies the MIC would have employed to do the actual shooting, assuming no military personnel were used and the conspirators didn't rely solely on anti-Castro forces ? (I don't believe they would have considered such a potentially hazardous option--the anti-Castro force's record on successful assassinations was hardly impressive.) In focusing on the CIA, we might be looking at the wrong agency. The NSA comes under suspicion by it's hard edged secrecy alone. The other alternative is that military intelligence agents were used. Friendly foreign intelligence agencies could also be implicated. The who and why aspects of your post are very convincing. We should now consider the how.

If true, we know who some prime movers in the plot were. Who arranged for JFK to be in Dallas (where a sheep-dipped patsy was waiting) during the last week in November, the week the Cabinet would be off to Japan? But does that mean there was no plot to kill JFK in Chicago in early November, or in Miami, while the Cabinet was still in DC? I don't really see why the Cabinet had to be out of town. In fact, not all of them were. The Attorney General was on the job in DC, as was the Secretary of Defense, back from Hawaii. If there was a coup, what was the AG going to do about it? Tell J. Edgar Hoover to do something? McNamara, if he wasn't part of the plot, could cause trouble, I suppose, if he wanted to try to round up some loyal military forces for a shootout. But it was apparently not seen as necessary to have McNamara out of the country. I don't see what problem the rest of the Cabinet could pose if the military took over that day. I think it would be among the least of the conspirators' worries. I do think the conspirators may have taken advantage of the Japan trip by having Pierre Salinger go along for the ride, instead of him going to Texas where he might have demanded at least normal security for the president in Dallas. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, You might be right but I don't necessarily agree that the Cabinet would be the least of their worries. It seems they endeavored to sever communication in a variety of ways. Cabinets can be annoying sometimes because they have meetings and on some occasions reach decisions. When you want to ensure there's only one decision maker on the day, why not make the Cabinet prisoner of the communication network which you control ? You're not giving the conspirators' the credit due. Meticulous planning was the hallmark of this hit.

It was indeed happenstance that the Cabinet members were away. They were traveling to a third annual joint Cabinet meeting with the Japanese. The first was held in November 1961 in Japan, the second was held in December 1962 in DC, and the third was to be held in November 1963 in Japan. Surely the conspirators did not plan over two years in advance for the Cabinet to be away, by manipulating JFK in 1961 to start annual joint Cabinet meetings, to be held late each year, with Japan, and on a rotating basis so that the third year meant flying to Japan. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, I think Shanet's right on this. They did'nt manipulate the timing of the Cabinet meeting, but the timing of the meeting could have determined the date of the assassination. I don't think it was happenstance.

This raises the obvious question of why Felt didn't "commit suicide," have a "heart attack," die in a plane crash, or fall out of a boat and drown. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, Maybe it's because Hoover was dead by this time.

Mark.. Yeah, he's an interesting one, I have brushed up against him a couple of times in my research, but never really dug deep.Care to do a bit of digging, maybe a Seminar peice? BTW, Ive got lots more on our Mr Bury,IMHO he's right at the top of my suspect list. Dont want to give to much more away at this stage, Ive started posting on that site "JTR Casebook", they seem like a friendly bunch. Steve. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Steve, I've been googling for more info on Levy but the only thing that's popping up is the Casebook site. It's going to be difficult. BTW, do you subscribe to "Ripperologist"? The info re Levy is from the Dec 1999 issue. I think I'll have to post on the Casebook site for more info. I'll have to change my seminar as now I don't think MJD is on top (I was always going to have trouble explaining how he got to that cricket match at 10am on the morning of the double event anyway) (stats for his matches are available on the "Cricinfo" site, btw, it's amazing) I don't know the URL but you can google it in. Re Levy, from the info available, if it's accurate, I don't know how he isn't on top of everyone's list. Cop these juicy nuggets: 1. Born Aldgate 1856. He's the right age. 2. Butcher by trade. 3. Sent to an asylum, 1886. Released after one year. 4. Wife claimed he "heard voices" and "would wander the streets at all hours". She also states that he was ruining their once successful butchery business. I would love to be able to positively verify all those statements. 5. Institutionalised again in August 1890. Dies of syphillis July 1891. Police close the Ripper file also in 1891. Very curious. 6. From the available description of Levy (5'3", about 30-35, prosperous but slightly shabby appearance etc), he's the person Hutchinson saw with MK who "looked at him stern". Also matches the description of the person seen talking with Stride. 7. Lived in Middlesex street. Right in the centre of the murder scenes. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these facts. If he is the Ripper, then some of the post MK attacks, such as Alice Mackenzie, must be included. Importantly though, did any attacks occur after August 15, 1890? That's very important. There's almost enough material for a book here. Naturally, the title will be "Revealed at last; Jake the Ripper". Hello fat city.

Game, set and match to Ron. Tim, forget defending the reputations of LBJ and RMN--it's hopeless. They both stink.

Steve, I think Bury's a chance. I hadn't looked at him before. After browsing the site that James added to his post, I think I like someone else now, even more than I like MJD. One Jacob Levy, not to be confused with Joseph Levy, is very interesting indeed. His rundown is in the "suspects" section but strangely he is not included in the poll. If you read his "resume" you'll see why I think there's a lot to recommend him. Very, very interesting.

Steve, I don't know if I'm reading your post right but are you saying the key imbroglio is one of the reasons for suspecting Barnett i.e. didn't you point out that Barnett's guilt solves the "key mystery"? I'm skeptical but defer to your greater knowledge of the case and say I'm looking forward to your posts. Maybe you know something I don't.

James, You might be right about Barnett--we'll never know. Sometimes a fresh idea can crack the case, but I would always rank Barnett low, near the bottom of the list. 1. The extent of MK's wounds. That's a stranger not an ex-boyfriend. 2. The murders displayed an unmistakable escalation in ferocity. Whoever did that to MK had gone over the edge. No way he could have stopped. Death, incarceration, capture or continuation are the only four logical progressions, IMO. Ruling out the last two, that leaves only the first two. JB's not in either group, so he's out for me. Like others, I doubt if JTR's identity resides in any of the known suspects.

Ron, This is the much anticipated book. Hope he hasn't turned into a fiction writer in his old age.

Tim, No Tim, it's JFK. One of the many things I admired about JFK was that he had a well honed self-deprecating humor. As you astutely observed on another thread, it's a sure sign of high intelligence. One of my favorites, I'm sure many will have heard before, was the occasion when JFK, speaking at a public function during his battle to win the Democratic nomination, announced that he had just recieved a telegram from his father. It read, "Don't buy a single vote more than you need---I'll be damned if I'm paying for a landslide".

Mark, I think you might find this of interest. It's from Harrison Livingstone's THE RADICAL RIGHT AND THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, page 111: This was primarily a local, home-grown plot in Dallas that involved police, officials, businessmen, former or active high level military and intelligence agency officers, though it received impetus from Hoover, Lanksy (and other Mafia), and other allies from outside. Prof. Bill Pulte is a professor in Dallas at Southern Methodist University and has conducted a major investigation of the assassination for many years. One of Pulte's key informants, a former Dallas law enforcement officer -- whom we'll call Informant #1 -- is certain Lansky was actively involved in the planning of the assassination. The informant had a relationship with Sheriff Decker, Candy Barr, the famous stripper, (Mickey Cohen's girlfriend), and knew about Lansky's activities. Candy used to dance in Ruby's club. Since Sheriff Bill Decker had his own lines into organized crime, this may be saying a lot. Pulte puts forward the theory that Ruby was trying to leave a clue when he talked about Lewis McWillie, a close friend of Pat Kirkwood who guested Kennedy's Secret Service detail the night before and early morning of the assassination at The Cellar nightclub, and the others during his interview with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and future president Gerald Ford, after the assassination. Ruby stated that McWillie was on his mind when he shot Oswald. McWillie worked for Lansky and was tight with Santos Trafficante. He was another of those arrested by Fidel Castro and thrown out of Cuba, losing his investment and income there. McWillie was also thrown out. Ruby's mention of the "Fox Brothers" to Warren probably referred to the Lansky brothers and not the real Fox brothers in Havana, who were not important. Ruby calls them "the greatest that have been expelled from Cuba," and that would have to be Lanksy and his brother. He said that they came to Dallas to meet with him and the Wynne family attorneys. They came to "collect a debt owed the cotton gin company." The Jaffe family made their money first in cotton. This might have meant that Lansky was helping Jaffe. McWillie, Ruby might have been trying to tell us, was the one who conveyed the order to kill Oswald. On page 112 of the same book it continues: Professor Pulte feels that the Great Southwest Corporation is a major clue in the assassination. The business axis has the Great Southwest Corp. of the Wynnes and Murchinson, the Dallas defense industry, including LTV and General Dynamics. D. Harold Byrd (owner of the TSBD) links Great Southwest to LTV through his close ties to the Murchisons and to Jim Ling (LTV)...This was all war industry, along with the huge firm of Brown & Root, Johnson's long-time key supporter, which benefitted so greatly from Vietnam later on. That was the result -- the fruit of murdering Kennedy. And later, contracts in Iraq after our invasion and adventure there. There was a fortune in killing Kennedy beyond anyone's wildest dreams. The Rockefeller 20% interest in Great Southwest insured their involvement in the cover-up. They would not have wanted the truth to surface about the involvement of Great Southwest personnel. Situated in New York, they have been able to exert enormous influence on the media. Motive? Bedford Wynne was likely going to jail if JFK remained in office, due to involvement with Bobby Baker et al. More importantly, and even bigger than Vietnam, was the almost total loss of power looming ahead for the Texas oil and defense interests if Kennedy were to be re-elected. As Pulte's source (informant #1) said, 'they didn't want to lose their power.' If Kennedy were removed, they could retain their power and even strengthen it with LBJ as president. They could bring it to bear on Vietnam and in innumerable other areas. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stan, Thanks for this. Very interesting material. I've read elsewhere about the connections with the defense industry, Jim Ling, D.Harold Byrd (went on safari just before the assassination I think), Great Southwest etc. There's plenty of smoke there, IMO. As for Lansky, I've always believed he was involved. While the Sicilian mobsters shared Lansky's desire to see the back of Castro, Lansky's influence in the outside (non-mob) world of money and power was much more pervasive and far reaching than guys like Marcello and Trafficante. While influential in Teamsters Unions, the construction industry etc, the people of influence in America still regarded the Sicilian mafia as thugs and cutthroats, IMO.

Thanks, Larry.

I always had a funny feeling that I was just imagining the whole JFK imbroglio.