Mark Stapleton

Shanet, The more I read of the Executive Sanction Model, the more I like it. Does anyone think there could be some significance in the timing of Fubini's appointment?

Let's hope it contains something new. Some of these docos are not what they're cracked up to be.

James. thanks for the heads up.

Tim, This is the very point. While some may divide the assassination into parts ie. assassination and coverup, it's enough to know that he orchestrated the coverup to convict him of involvement. Forget about caveats--he's involved. The final green light had to come from LBJ, making him a conspirator at both the pre and post assassination levels. To think this intricate assassination would be planned without the knowledge and approval of the man slated to step into the breech and assume such awesome responsibilities (especially concerning the coverup) is fanciful. As you yourself suggested, give the man his due. I won't be revealing how much Fidel paid me to write this but I will say this--those hand rolled Havanas are great but they can give you a sore throat!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Greg, Sorry for the double post. Your post was a very insightful comment and should be read by all researchers, especially the newer ones.

Greg, According to the aforementioned book Eugene G Fubini took over in 1963. It doesn't say which month. A sub agency of Defense, it is "watched over" by the Deputy director of defence, research and engineering. The book was published in 1964 so things may have changed. Nor does the book cite who Fubini's predecessor was, only that the job of overseeing the NSA was previously held by military men.

Mark, this alone has been enough to make any serious investigation into the JFK assassination extremely difficult. I believe it was by design, so that the "lone nutters" could ridicule other investigators as being in conflict and disorganized...pretty much the modus operandi of folks like McAdams and Posner. And, so far, it appears to be working; 40+ years later, we still haven't come up with an exact solution. In fact, drawing in both the PRO-Castro and the ANTI-Castro elements appears to have been a stroke of genius, as far as the sowing of seeds of confusion goes. Wading thru the misinformation/disinformation is difficult enough; add in the conflicting FACTS, and it's a wonder we've accomplished anything at all! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mark, Thanks for your thoughts. The post assassination strategy has been almost as clever as the assassination. The conspiratorial group would have known the official edifice would soon crumble, hence the group would have considered the cooperation of the major news services as essential. You need only contrast editorial reaction to the official line in Europe with that of America to see evidence of this. Combine Operation Mockingbird with an effluvium of phony suspects, paid LNT writers and Government disinterest and you have established a protective barrier through which genuine lines of inquiry can't be sustained. Devilishly clever.

Ron, One very interesting point you mention in your reply, and one that I have considered often is when did the assassination plan crystallize. We know the meeting from which the Texas trip was announced occurred in June but I don't know if a plan to assassinate JFK had been finalised at this point. Larry Hancock observes on another thread that tracing LBJ's activities starts to become very difficult in October. I believe, like some others, that JFK's signing of the nuclear test ban treaty in August was the last straw for the MIC, which saw them joining in. This IMO, became the green light for all involved to make final preparations. This would point to September and/or October being the critical time in the planning stage. Incidentally, I believe the assassination could never have taken place without the involvement and/or approval of the top brass in the U.S. Military. They would never appreciate being treated like fools. My point is that David Ben Gurion's resignation occurred before assassination had become a realistic project. The assassination itself was such a work of art, making a cunningly laid ambush look to the world like the work of a lone sniper, with anti Castro Cubans and others there as an overlay, that it seems like the plan was handed over to assassination contractors, who would have to be the world's best. The conspiring parties must have been confident because JFK had alienated so many powerful groups, that they all provided each other with camouflage.

James, Thanks for that. (thanks to Tim and John also). I wonder what ladybird thinks about all the results of the research into LBJ's background. Not much probably.

Ron, The answer to your question is that I don't know what role they played but they were major beneficiaries and there is some circumstantial evidence, IMO, pointing to Jerusalem. Don't you think it's a strange coincidence that Ben Gurion resigns in July '63, telling friends he's exasperated with JFK's hardline approach to Dimona and that he's a threat to Israel's security and four months later JFK's dead? Mossad is the most efficient and savvy of intelligence agencies, whose involvement may not be noticed by those unfamiliar with the way they operate. Didn't Gerry Hemmings once state that he found out in the late '60's that Mossad knew about the assassination in advance? As you say, Rabin was reportedly in Dallas (I think it was his wife who mentions this) and the connection with Ruby's Jewish background is a point to remember. He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race. Ruby, IMO, was definitely involved in the plot to kill JFK, as well as his role in silencing Oswald. Until your post, I was unaware of Echevarria's comments concerning Jewish money. That is interesting. He is one individual who has always interested me because of that incident, described elsewhere on the forum, when a Chicago CIA officer was ordered by HQ in Washington to return all documents relating to Echevarria immediately and not discuss him with anyone. The problem with this aspect of JFK research is that it is a very sensitive issue and genuine research efforts can be mistaken for a witchunt directed against a race which has had its fair share of suffering throughout history. This may be why it doesn't recieve the focus that other, less productive lines of inquiry receive. Research on the Israeli Government's possible role should just be regarded as an attempt to solve the JFK riddle, similar to research efforts by others into the role of the Governments of Cuba, the Soviet Union, South Korea and the United States.

Greg, Agree. Well said.

Mark, Do you base that on the presence of Rabin in Texas, on Vanunu's recent claim, on the evidence in the book Final Judgment, or on all of the above? In any case, I just found out today that the Chinese did it. But Tim will be gratified to know that Castro was also involved. It's in Volume 26, pp. 407-409 (CE 2946). This confirms the suspicion I've always had about E. Howard Hunt's alibi that he went to a Chinese restaurant in DC on 11/22/63. Now what made him think of a Chinese restaurant? It all falls into place! The clincher would be if that cheap shipping casket that the body arrived in at Bethesda was found to be Made in China. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol26_0222a.htm Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, I base my conclusion on a number of things, some of which you mention. I've never read Michael Collins Piper's book but I would like to some day. IMO, the best way to approach this maddening conundrum is to ask "Who benefitted?" as Donald Sutherland's character did in the film. When you think about it, it's only the benefactors who are going to go to all the trouble of killing the President, with all the baggage and maintenance involved in a plan of this magnitude. It's so much work. Now, I believe there were four major benefactor groups, namely; 1. LBJ. The person with the most to gain--survival. He's the lynchpin. Without LBJ, there's no hit because you can't risk having a genuine investigation--hell, there's a lot of smart lawyers out there. 2. MIC. They gained a war in Asia. A result sufficiently lucrative to warrant going to a bit of trouble to secure. 3. Texas oil. Gained an indefinite reprieve on the ODA and they've got their man in the White House (Jackpot!) 4. Israeli Government. Gained a large increase in military aid and ended JFK's insistence on inspections at Dimona. As above, two birds with one stone (or about five bullets). As with LBJ, one could argue that their survival hinged on JFK's speedy departure. You've probably read that David Ben Gurion once stated that JFK's stubborness on the Dimona issue threatened Israel's survival. Also, they gain a great friend in LBJ. During the Suez crisis, he argued strongly against the U.S. imposing sanctions against Israel, which were being planned. LBJ's coverup of Israel's 1967 attack on a U.S. intelligence gathering ship, USS Liberty, which killed 34 U.S. servicemen is one of the most bizarre historical events I have ever researched. You have to go to the internet to research this one because there is not much about it on the public record. Why is that? These four groups, or an amorphous amalgum thereof, planned the crime. Also, all four have form. I believe LBJ was involved in the murder of Henry Marshall and others and the other three have all assassinated before. There's much more to say, of course, but that's basically it. Do you agree with that scenario?

Ron, I'll even raise the stakes by suggesting his boss was not the only person Mr. Vice President dispatched to the morgue. Good post, by the way. Tim, Two things about the post; 1. Is ladybird still alive ? 2. Has she ever stated publicly what she thought about LBJ's affairs ?

Tim, You're missing my point. JFK's flaws and pecadilloes were legion. He was an adulterer (although LBJ's infamous "nooky room" in the White House doesn't attract a lot of media attention) and he was guilty of an overeliance on pain killing drugs, largely due to his longstanding health problems. These facts are not disputed and can be ventilated publicly ad nauseam for all I care. The problem I have is when it is suggested that these pecadilloes had a detrimental effect on the discharge of his Presidential duties. While reckless in his private life, he was never reckless or careless in matters of State, IMO. In fact, during the Cuban missile crisis it was a classic example of JFK keeping his head, while all those around him were losing theirs. He was too mindful of how he would be viewed by history to have been careless. The doco I referred to crossed the line, implying that the missile crisis was just a game to Kennedy and a reckless, dangerous one at that. This is pure bullxxxx and cannot go unchallenged. In his dealings with the Soviets, he exercised great circumspection, always mindful of the consequences in Europe and the world. Some said he was obsessed with Berlin. This apparent "Eurocentricity" was strongly resented by some in America. These same people saw JFK's historic nuclear test ban treaty as a capitulation rather than a triumph. I disagree. So expose his sexual affairs as much as you like, there's a lot of material to work with. However, to diminish his achievements in public policy, more than innuendo and "tell all" gossip will be required.

Don, Interesting article. I agree with you on your main reason for posting it too, Don. Over the last few years, I've noticed this subtle but persisitent vein of criticism in the mainstream media directed towards JFK and his legacy. Was he too close to the mob, was he a crazed drug addict and did this affect his judgement, was he a sexual monster, was he wilfully reckless in affairs of state and now, should he even get the credit for his own speeches? The American media did the country a great disservice by the way it happily and unquestioningly accepted the WC findings (while in Europe the WC was greeted with widespread skepticism) and now we see a pathetic attempt to rewrite history by gradually blackening JFK's name and legacy. I recently watched a doco (I think it was made by the History channel but I'm not certain) about the Cuban missile crisis where they concluded by posing the question, "was the Cuban missile crisis a reckless game of brinkmanship played out by Kennedy?" I'm eagerly awaiting the sequal. It will probably be called, "Did Kennedy secretly plant the missiles in Cuba himself". They could round out the trilogy with a final doco entitled, "Maybe JFK's assassination was for the best, after all".

Tim, If we're going to play a game of retrospective impeachments for all those Presidents who "got into bed" with mob connected figures, we'd better not stop with JFK. The 1932 Democratic Convention was considered to be in New York Mayor Al Smith's keeping until FDR managed to gain the support of New York State's Tammany Hall--controlled lock, stock and barrel by Lucky Luciano. How did he do this? A deal, brokered by Luciano associate Frank Costello, by which in return for the mob's support, FDR promised to call off the Seabury investigation into the underworld, which was making life hell for the mob in NYC. While Al Smith was mob connected, the mob reasoned that if FDR got the nomination he would be a certainty to win the Presidency and thus be able to deliver on his side of the bargain. While Hoover was unpopular because of the depression, the mob felt that Smith was probably not the lay down misere that FDR was--so they went with the strength. When Smith was told of the mob's switch of allegiance he cried--literally bawled--and told Luciano that it was his biggest mistake and that FDR would doublecross them. Sure enough, once he had the nomination in the bag and won the Presidency FDR did exactly that. Seabury was given increased powers and, spurred on by public indignation about the mob's activities, new Mayor Fiorello Le Guardia had a field day--dumping scores of slot machines in the East River. In the resulting tsunami of anti-mob sentiment, Luciano was convicted of profiting from prostitution by New York D.A.Thomas Dewey in 1936 and got a long stretch. He was exiled in 1946. Impeachable ?

Ray, Glad we got that sorted out. I was beginning to think I was getting mad cow disease---damn those juicy steaks. Regarding the DPD, it's a shame that the honest cops might be judged by the actions of their superiors. In fact, if anyone deserves a medal it should be someone like Roger Craig--an honest cop caught in a vortex of mendacity. How dare he stick to his original story when all have been issued with new scripts. I also have some sympathy for Patrolman Joe Smith, running to the knoll and being fobbed off by a phony SS man probably made him look a bit foolish to the public, but how was he to know? The WC never asked him about the gunpowder he smelt on the knoll either (surprise, surprise).

Ray, I just checked and you are 100% correct--it was Tom Howard, Ruby's lawyer. All that substance abuse much be catching up with me. It appears I've done Mr. Wade a disservice. Thanks for the correction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mark: After what Henry Wade did to Oswald's rights over the weekend of the assassination, I don't think you did him any disservice. It was Wade who made the presumptious remark that Oswald is the killer of the President beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Oswald was dead at the time Wade uttered these words, and there was going to be no trial. So what was the problem Wade thought? His words only infuriated and built a bias by the American people and the world against the alleged assassin; a man who said he was a "patsy." I don't believe you owe DA Wade any apologies, Mark. Bill Cheslock <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, Yes, I agree that Wade behaved very badly in respect of his reckless comments. You'll notice I stopped short of an apology. The whole machinery of Texas justice in the aftermath of the JFK/JDT/LHO murders was reminiscent of Judge Roy Bean and the "law west of Pecos".

Tim, If you had properly read my very brief post, I didn't say the Jews did it - I said I believe the Israeli GOVERNMENT was involved. That's the GOVERNMENT not the general population. Please don't misrepresent my post.

Nathaniel told me it was because he considered the Republicans were being led by corrupt politicians. Although I disagreed with him about most political issues, I got on with him because he was basically an honest man. It was clear that he was unwilling to tell me everything he knew about the JFK assassination. However, I don’t think he ever lied to me (although he probably did not forget as much as he said he did). Remember, he had been a socialist in his youth. His politics was based on idealism (like his father). Understandably, his experiences in the Communist Party made him disillusioned with the state capitalism of the Soviet Union. However, he remained a liberal at heart (although his views on the superiority of the Jewish race bordered on racism). Unfortunately we have lost another possible witness to what went on in Dallas in 1963. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, Nathaniel's views on Jewish superiority make it very unlikely that he would have divulged all he knew about the assassination, especially if there was, as I suspect, Israeli Government involvement in the assassination.

Nicely spotted, Ron. It appears that he has simply omitted the word "suspicious" from that sentence. Ironically, this is the very word which best describes Mr. Greer's performance.

There you go. Find out who got that changed and you have one of the conspirators. (Or a willing accessory)

Steve, Sorry, it's been a while. Some questions, 1. Didn't one of the Ripper letters allude to the killer not having time to snip the ears off Stride? 2. Is your theory that the killers collaborated? 3. Are you saying that the two murderers were the two men seen by Israel Schwartz? or that a third person (ie. JTR) coincidentally murdered Eddowes a few minutes after someone else murdered Stride?

Steve, Can't we just post anyway?

John and Steve, Marriot's theory is interesting. The ship's timetable and the murders in Managua are curious but I agree with Steve's observations about the killer needing familiarity with the crime scene localities. Also, I can't recall witness sightings of a colored man (assuming he be of Carribean background), although one witness did describe a man who was seen talking with one of the victims as looking like a sailor. IMO the killer was well dressed and must have had access to discreet lodgings in order to "clean up" as you point out, Steve. This doesn't rule out a family man, however. It only indicates he was a man of some means. Couple of things, 1. Dishevelled, babbling hoboes rummaging through trash cans (Aaron Kosminski) are no chance and 2. The royals or any of their extended family are as much chance as LHO pulling off the JFK, MLK and RFK trifecta.