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.

Mark, you get my vote for forum member with whom I'd most like to share a drink.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Mark wrote:

Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information.

Gee, Mark, does it surprise me that you were not able to answer a single one of my questions?

What is most interesting is that you characterize the information as "irrelevant"

At least Mr. Charles-Dunne realizes why the information is so damning which is why he fights it so hard.  You find it "irrelevant" if agents of Castro's intelligence service were in Dealey Plaza?  That you would characterize that as irrelevant more than adequately demonstrates who the ostrich is.  At least Mr. Charles-Dunne recognizes how damning that information is, if true.

By your standard, if someone had caught Fidel holding a recently discharged rifle standing behind the picket fence that would be irrelevant.

Your apparent idea of "proof" is to suggest that one of Dillon's friends in the banking community asked him to kill his friend JFK and Dillon's response was: "Sure.  Why not?  I like you better then him anyway."  And then ask me how I know that did NOT happen.  That is just so preposterous it boggles the mind.  I might as well ask you how you know your uncle did not kill Kennedy.  I am sticking my head in the sand because I cannot acknowledge that a law-abiding citizen and patriotic American would not agree to participate in a plot to kill his friend the president.  This is so absurd it is pathetic.

And so is your attitude that it bothers you not to accuse people of murder most foul with no evidence whatsoever.  Frankly, Mark, it is attitudes like yours that discredit the assassination research committee and that is unfortunate because there are many people who unselfishly spend substantial time actually researching and attempting to solve the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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 ?

Mark, it bothers me not one wit that people who have not read the entire history of the period (e.g. you and some others) dispute the "Castro did it" theory.  In my opinion, it has NEVER been effectively rebutted.  Mr. Charles-Dunne has made a valiant effort but his effort boils down into arguing that every CIA document pointing to Cuban involvement is falsified or based on false reports.  If even one or two of those reports are accurate, then the evidence that Castro did it is strong.  It does not seem like much of a rebuttal to me to simply assume every CIA report is incorrect.  It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes.

Okay, Mark, now is the time, if you think the Castro did it theory is "garbage" then would you please answer the following questions: (If you refuse, I will

take it you cannot defend your position that my theory is "garbage").  Many of these questions can be answered "Yes" or "No".

(1)    Would you agree that if there were agents of Castro's intelligence

        organization in Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was assassinated, that is

        fairly persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement in the assassination?

        If your answer is "No", then please provide a non-sinister explanation

        for their presence.

(2)    The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported on the suspicious

        travels of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (former Key West resident) which it

        characterized as "troubling", as I recall.  Policarpo had moved from Key

        West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination. 

        Tampa was of course the home base of Santo Trafficante.

        So tell me, Mark, do you agree that Trafficante was a conspirator?

        If your answer is "No", tell me whether you dispute the report that Traf-

        ficante predicted in 1962 that Kennedy would be "hit" before the 1964

        election?

(3)    Do you admit that after Giancana was murdered, the FBI picked up on

        electronic surveillance Trafficante stating that "now only two of us know

        who killed Kennedy"?

(4)    Do you admit that Trafficante admitted his involvement in the assassination

        to his attorney?

(5)    Do you admit that there is good evidence that members of Trafficante's

        organization killed Rosselli?

(6)    Now if you will admit that Trafficante was most likely a conspirator is it then

        your contention that Policarpo's move from Key West to Tampa six months

        before the assassination was mere happenstance?

(7)    Do you admit that Policarpo met with V. T. Lee prior to the assassination?

(8)    Do you admit that there was a close relationship between Trafficante

        and Rolando Cubela, and that Cubela in fact helped Trafficante get out

        of Trescornia?  (By golly, I hope you know what Trescornia was.  If not,

        let me know.)

(9)    Do you admit that Trafficante perjured himself before the House Select

        Committee on Assassinations by denying a relationship with Cubela?

(10)  Can you offer a non-sinister reason why Trafficante would deny his

        relationship with Cubela?

(11)  Do you admit that Cubela had met with Valery Kostikov?

(12)  Do you admit that there was reliable information that Trafficante had a

        secret relationship with Castro and was even using rigged bolita games

        to pay Castro intelligence agents on the US?

(13)  Do you admit that it is probable that Castro had knowledge that a man

        who claimed to be a personal representative of Robert Kennedy was

        encouraging one of Castro's cabinet members to murder Castro less

        than a month before the assassination of JFK?

(14)    Do you admit that Castro caught a bunch of CIA trained saboteurs and

        potential assassins attempting to enter Cuba in late October of 1963?

(15)  Do you admit that Castro scheduled a meeting with the French journalist

        that was bearing a "peace" message from JFK for the very hour that JFK

        was killed?  I am not asking you to admit asignificance to the timing of

        the meeting, simply admit, if you will, that it was Castro who scheduled

        the meeting for that time.

(16)  State whether it would make any difference to you in your belief that

        the Castro did it scenario is "garbage"  if Fabian Escalante was in Dealey

        Plaza at the time of the assassination?

(17)  Do you admit that there was a Cuban named Miguel Casas who was in

        Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination?

(18)  Do you admit that Miguel was a member of Castro's intelligence organi-

        zation?

It seems to me there is fairly convincing evidence that Trafficante was a conspirator.  Castro's involvement is suggested by the belief held by many that Cubela was a double agent reporting to Castro.  The chilling nexus is that Trafficante had a relationship with Cubela, a relationship of such importance that he decided to perjure himself in denying it.

How can the Castro did it scenario be garbage when Castro himself warned of retaliation on September 7, 1963 if American efforts to kill him continued and within two months a CIA agent claiming to be a personal representative of Jack Kennedy's brother was encouraging a man who was probably a Castro double-agent to kill Castro for the US? And if Trafficante did it, for which there is strong evidence, then his ties to Cubela and possible relationship with Castro are ominous.  Hardly a theory with no evidence.

What I contend is "garbage", Mark, is when members of this forum accuse Americans who have no criminal record with conspiring to murder JFK with not a shred of evidence to support such a libel.  And Dillon of all people did not even have policy differences with JFK.  I think in fact it is far worse than "garbage"!

Your statements about Dillon are just amusing.  A close scrutiny of his associations might reveal he had friends he liked better than JFK?  That's a motive for murder?  You claim that I bury my head like an ostrich about any evidence that Dillon was a conspirator.  No, sir.  I do not.  Name one fact--not speculation--that supports that libel.  I'm all ears--well, all eyes, I guess I should say.  I don't want your speculation--I want your EVIDENCE!  If you have none, then I'd like to know how you can sleep at night blaspheming patriotic Americans.  Just too bad that Dillon is not alive to sue you.  At least Joe McCarthy made charges against people who could defend themselves.

I suspect neither you or Shanet can offer a name of anyone close to JFK who believes that Dillon did it.  Contrast that, of course, with Califano and Haig who worked on Cuban policy in the Kennedy Administration and both believe Castro did it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

       

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

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

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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 ?

Yes, it is predictable that I think it goes beyond civilized ethical behaviour to accuse one of John Kennedy's best friends of complicity in his assassination without an iota of evidence to back it up.

So what does Mark do?  Ask for the Kennedy biographies in which he can read of the relationship and friendship between Dillon and Kennedy?  No, that would be too much to ask.

Just sail on in your fantasy world, Mark.  A lot easier to post nonsense than it is to read a book cover-to-cover.  But that's why Pat's posts, and Ron's, always make more sense than yours.  Of course I do not agree with all of their theories either but I know that they have read and carefully digested the history.

Whether true or not, the standard definition of McCarthyism is to level baseless charges against someone.  Some of the theories posted here are McCarthyism run rampant.

Well there is one thing you have going for you.  Just bring along your postings and I can assure you you'll never have to serve jury duty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Whopee doo!! Great speculation, fellows, but with no evidence whatsoever. (Am I surprised?)

And if JFK is in any position to be reviewing this Forum, I'm sure he is shedding many, many tears.  You see, Douglas Dillon, despite being a Republican, was one of JFK's closest friends.  I'm sure none of you guys (I'm obviously excluding Ron and Pat) knew that because you feel free to post these wild imaginings without having read the basic biographies of JFK.

I seriously suggest you take a month or two leave of absence from the Forum, read the history books, and then come back when you have a better under- standing of what was going on in the Kennedy administration.  I'll be glad to provide you  with a bibliography upon your request.

For those interested below is a link to biographical information on C. Douglas Dillon.  His close friendship with JFK is described in more than one Kennedy biography.

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/CDouglasDillon.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

Robin , Mark and Bernice

Robin's NSA Document is a routine day officers sheet from 11/22/63.

Classification was low - although routinely marked TOP SECRET it is really only confidential. Notice the lack of UMBRA VERONA COMINT style classification level here. This thing was MEANT for later release. It is a staged sheet of routine business the day JFK was shot. A Duty Officer (name removed) and his boss's signatures are removed. In fine print in the lower right hand is the cross listing #s and these may lead to other files from that day.......

This thing is a historical text and it has a narrative.

The setting is the Signals intelligence Command Center of the US NAtional Security Agency (probably Ft. Meade) record of events from Eight A.M to Four P.M. down at the watch desk. It is a reoutine officer of the day mailroom type list.

Nine forty five a.m. recieved the APSO message, (code # USJ 790 or DTG2104297) and Holst picked up these routine dailies.

One Thirty ..... Routine distribution of BRASS documents by officer Newman.

Two Fourteen P.M. Sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President shot

Two Thirty Six PM sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President dead

Two Forty Six    INDIC message from DIA received and farmed out

A routine day, on a document meant for historical release...........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

This recent post in the "who had the Football" thread is by far the most important single posting I have read in this forum in a long time.

It starts with a quote from Ron Ecker, but the key material is by member Bernice Moore. I would like all members to read it and comment with additional facts and opinions........

This was not happenstance that the President, the Vice President and six members of the Cabinet were away from the centre of power on Nov.22/63.

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.

Haldeman and Nixon discuss Felt's leaking info to the Post on the tapes.

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.

quote]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

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.

Lets lay out my top three suspects..

1, William Henry Bury. 2, Frederick Baily Deeming. 3, George Chapman, AKA

Severin Klosowski.

Why? All three were in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. All three were

convicted killers of woman, a crime for which they all rode the rope.

1, W H Bury. Bury fits the profile of JTR completely, he is the rippers psychological

photograph. He fits the general physical descriptions, short, respectably dressed

moustachioed, and between 25-35, years old. Bury was short 5ft 5ins, dressed

well, wore a moustache, and was 29 at the time of the murders.

The ripper was a thief, who ransacked his victims bodies, Bury was a thief, and

obsessed with money, Bury resided in the east end though out the murders,they

did not begin until he came to London,and they ended when he left.Bury fled

london in early 1889, he lied about where, and why, he was going

Ellen Bury, and Eddowes were ripped up in exactly the same manner. Ellen Bury

Annie Chapman, and Eddowes sexual organs were identically mutilated, almost

all serial killers have a "Trade mark" Jack the ripper ceased to exist after Bury's

death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

James.

All serial killers are Psychopaths, not all Psychopaths are serial killers, thank God..

many are politicians Mass murderers on the other hand tend towards

Psychosis- Brain damage or brain stem tumours.

Mark, the issue of the missing key is easily resolved,its contained in Barnett's

testimony to the Police. He talks of a catch lock, the fore-runner of the Yale,which

could be opened by reaching though the window, and dropping the catch.So whilst

it would be locked on the outside, it could be easily opened from within. Thus no

need for a key.The reason the Police waited for more than three hours to break in,

is that they had sent for Barnaby, and Bourgo, the Bloodhounds, and did not want

to spoil the scent trail. Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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,

Very interesting. However, I can't have Barnett. He wouldn't have done that to his ex girlfriend. Also, he lived on in Whitechapel for years. With this kind of serial killer, they just don't get bored with it and move on to something else. IMO, he continues until he dies, gets caught or incarcerated for some other reason. (Mark Stapleton)

You may well be right, Mark.

From my limited understanding, I have (possibly incorrectly) put Jack the Ripper in the catagory of being a psychopath, in which subtle differences exist to that of a serial killer. A serial killer operates to fulfill some despicable fantasy in which normal society won't afford him. This person knows the difference between right and wrong and attempts to cover his tracks.

A psychopath is a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by the impulse to commit antisocial and violent acts and a failure to feel guilt. It is a diminished capacity where actually remembering details of their ghastly deeds can elude them.

Maybe Barnett was operating out of a personal hatred for Mary Kelly and her profession, which finally escalated into eliminating the original cause of his twisted mind-set, the violent destruction of Mary Kelly.

Once that was done, there was no real need to kill anymore. Maybe in his warped mind, the memories of the murders eventually escaped him.

All speculation of course.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Mark wrote:

"Forgive your enemies but never forget their names".

I like it!  Sounds like it could be a Bobby quote (or a Nixon quote, for that matter).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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".

Larry,

On an earlier post, you mentioned that Ruby recieved an injection of cash days before the assassination and he had visitors from LA. I was unaware of this. Can you tell me where I can find more info concerning these matters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Possibly the single most important chapter Peter Dale Scott has written is the one showing that personnel associated with Great Southwest and/or the Wynne law firm virtually took Marina Oswald over for months after tha assassination.  There were so many people involved that it defies reason to claim coincidence.  The individuals involved went to great lengths to achieve their control over Marina, and put themselves at risk at times in doing so.  Great Southwest involvement may not have been limited to the cover-up, but may have also been present in the planning, as Scott strongly implies.

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.

Mark,  Seth Kantor's The Ruby Cover-Up is the place to start; its really required reading to get into Ruby during the assassination period.  Ruby's bank manager saw him with a large amount of cash,  a fairly substantial amount (especially in 1963 dollars) was found in his car as well.  Ruby had also had a safe installed in his office not long before - pretty unusual for a guy who normally kept what he had in his trunk and who could not scrape up enough to even pay off a negotiatiated amount on his back taxes.

-- Larry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Larry.

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