Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Let's hope it contains something new. Some of these docos are not what they're cracked up to be.
-
A heads up for Aussie forum members. On Friday, 20th of May at 9.30pm, the History Channel is running what is listed as a first run documentary on the life of Jack Ruby.
Have any of our international forum members seen this program?
James
James.
thanks for the heads up.
-
Again with the clear caveat that I do not think LBG did it, I recently read somewhere speculation--and it cannot be more than that--that Lady Bird financed the assassination.
Again let me reiterate that I do not assert that either LBJ or Lady Bird had anything to do with the assassination itself (We all know LBJ helped orchestrate the cover-up) but if LBJ did do it is hard to believe his wife did not know before the assassination or find out afterwards.
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!
-
Pat wrote: When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads.
Tim Wrote: I appreciate Greg's point and respect Jim Root's intelligence and integrity but the difficulty is that unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it. I think we need to run down all possible leads even if some may prove to be dead ends. And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.
I agree that ideally, in a case such as this, one would “examine the wall” every time. And ideally, in a case such as this, it would be wise to “run down all possible leads.” While I don’t mean to suggest that one should be selective in the walls they examine or the leads they run down based on how well they fit one’s pet theory, a person should be selective about what walls they examine and about what leads they run down based upon the source of the information.
As I stated above, in an ideal world, you’d run down the lead anyway, examine the source, and then assign a proper degree of weight to your findings based on your assessment of the source’s credibility. The problem with the Kennedy murder investigation is that it is not taking place in an ideal or even a typical environment. It is my contention that (and I believe that Pat may disagree with me on this) “they”, whoever you believe “they” are, have been and are currently engaged in a campaign, via print media (every year around 11/22, The Columbus Dispatch prints the same Warren Commission conclusion in their account of this event. As if it had been universally accepted long ago.) and the Internet. Clare Boothe Luce was merely one, obvious example. Most are probably not so obvious.
So, the “tightrope” to which I refer represents one’s decision on what leads to run down, or the amount of resources to commit to examining a given wall, based on one’s assessment of the source of the lead. This up front discrimination is made necessary by the misdirection campaign being employed by those who wish the truth to remain hidden. Tim helps to emphasize my point when he talks about not allowing pet theories to guide one’s decisions. True enough. But the other side to that coin is examining everything. If a researcher takes that approach, he will go to his grave with a vast amount of knowledge about this case. But time will run out on him, just as it did on the HSCA. He will have been buried under a mountain of “leads”. And he will have come no closer to the truth. So, that’s the difficulty here: one must keep an open mind and avoid the myopia of irrevocably lashing one’s self to a pet theory, while avoiding the certain futility and defeat that will result in the elastic tolerance of ideas that commits a researcher to chase down every rumor, and examine and define every wall.
Mr. Gratz, (and this is not a criticism of your political affiliations; a question really) I would suspect that you especially, being an arch conservative, strict-constructionist type, would be very well-schooled in the dangers and problems present in elastic tolerance of ideas. Correct me if I’m wrong here (and I know that you will if I am), but isn’t that an underlying fundamental difference between the labels “conservative” and “progressive”? Strict vs. loose construction; the inelasticity of ideas vs. the elasticity of them? Making the connection to our topic, using a conservative mindset, wouldn’t elastic tolerance of ideas (running down all leads, examining all walls, considering all possibilities) have the same problems that a conservative would claim plague progressive politics? I apologize for the tangent, but it seemed relevant given your position.
But credit where credit is due, Tim: “And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.” An absolutely true statement sir. Ipso facto, the tightrope.
Greg,
Sorry for the double post. Your post was a very insightful comment and should be read by all researchers, especially the newer ones.
-
Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but who was the head of the NSA in the Fall of 1963 and to whom did he report?
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.
-
The conspiring parties must have been confident because JFK had alienated so many powerful groups, that they all provided each other with camouflage
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!
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.
-
Mark,
I would think that the plan to assassinate JFK was already underway by July 1963, when Ben Gurion resigned. If the Mossad was involved in that plan, with the JFK problem for Israel to be solved in November, why would Ben Gurion resign? Why would the Mossad let him? Was it wise for the Israeli government to draw such dramatic attention to a motive for killing JFK, four months before killing him?
I'm not sure what to make of Rabin's presence in Dallas. (I'm sick of coincidences.) He was officially on a tour of U.S. military installations, Fort Bliss (conveniently?) being the last. It is tempting to say that Rabin was in Dallas for the assassination as an observer or invited guest. But if his wife's account is accurate of when they arrived back in Israel (in time to hear first reports of the assassination), Rabin had to have left Dallas the day before (I believe his wife was waiting in New York) or no later than early on the morning of 11/22. So why would he miss the show if that's what he was there for?
A possibility, if one assumes that Israel was involved, is that Rabin played some active role in the final planning, then left before the event, so as not to be around for appearance's sake. But there is no evidence at all of what that role might have been.
Ron
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.
-
Mark,
Lady Bird is still alive. She is 92.
In 2003 she was given the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor.
James
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.
-
Certainly Israel benefited, but it didn't have to participate. What role did it play? I suppose Israel could have helped finance it (using U.S. foreign aid money). In fact I believe Echeverria in Chicago mentioned getting Jewish money, but I think that's generally assumed to be a reference to Lansky gangsters.
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.
-
Well put, Pat. There are so many fundamental problems with that theory that it's difficult to know where to start.
President Kennedy had a memorable meeting with Nikita Kruschev in Vienna in 1961 where NK bullyed the young American politician. Kruschev considered Kennedy to be a "boy" and entered into the meeting with every intent to test his mettle. Afterward, an ashen-faced and shaken Kennedy told his advisors that he had never been talked to in such a way in his entire life.
Kennedy would not directly involve U.S. forces in the BOP in 1961.
In October of '62, when under great pressure by the hawks in his administration to invade Cuba, or at least bomb the missile sites, Kenndy chose a less aggressive stance (and wisely so) in a naval blockade.
Kennedy was also engaged in back channel communication with the Soviet leader to help ensure things did not get out of hand. He promised not to invade Cuba, removed Jupiter missiles from Turkey, he signed the nuclear test ban treaty, was initiating a withdrawal policy in Vietnam (NSM 263), and was in favor of detente and of moving toward peaceful co-existence with Castro's Cuba (the Jean Daniel meeting).
Do you honestly believe that this was a man that the Soviets feared so much that they felt it was worth risking a nuclear exchange to blow his head off in broad daylight on the streets of an American city? And as Pat so clearly pointed out, then used (or set-up) a man who had been sheep-dipped as a Communist to carry out said ludicrous plot?
As I stated earlier, there are several other serious problems with this theory, but this one is perhaps the most fundamental. I appreciate learning from those who educate me on other points-of-view, but at this point with this particular theory, logic simply precludes further travels down such a diversionary path.
Greg,
Agree. Well said.
-
I believe the Israeli GOVERNMENT was involved.
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
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 ?
-
Mark wrote:
now we see a pathetic attempt to rewrite history by gradually blackening JFK's name and legacy
Mark, no, I think the revelations are showing a side of JFK that conflicted with the Camelot image. It is not "rewriting history" to tell the entire story. And the entire story is necessary if there is to be an adequate investigation of the assassination.
But as I have posted on at least one other thread, unless the assassination research will solve the assassination I think it is regrettable for the sake of our history that JFK's flaws and pecadilloes have surfaced. How I regret knowing he was a serial adulterer. I would have liked to remember JFK as the man in the happy photographs with Jackie and his children, not a JFK commiting adultery with a woman he shared with John Rosselli and Sam Giancana! I grant there is no reliable evidence that JFK knew Campbell's relationship with the mobsters until Hoover confronted him in the famous March 22, 1962 luncheon meeting.
There was indeed a dark side to Camelot. Regretably, but necessarily, it surfaced because of the attempts to solve the assassination.
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.
-
Good Day.... The character assassination of President KENNEDY by most of the the media to, feebily, try and make us not care about his murder continues....
From a 5-10-05 “New York Times” article....
<QUOTE>
Two Authors Ask About Kennedy's 'Ask Not' Speech
Late President's Famous Inaugural Address Scrutinized
By EDWARD WYATT, The New York Times
In an age when even a walk across the White House lawn can feel scripted, it is hard to imagine making a fuss over whether a speechwriter helped a president-elect compose his inaugural address. But when the president in question is John F. Kennedy, such questions never cease.
Don,
Recently two scholars examined the evidence around the authorship of Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address - poring over documents, interviewing still-living advisers - and came to opposite conclusions.
In "Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America," Thurston Clarke wrote last year that "important and heretofore overlooked documentary evidence" proves that Kennedy was "the author of the most immortal and poetic passages of his inaugural address," including the famous line that gives the book its title, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
But in "Sounding the Trumpet: The Making of John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address" (Ivan R. Dee), to be published in July, Richard J. Tofel, a lawyer and a former assistant publisher of The Wall Street Journal, concludes that "if we must identify" one man as the author of the speech, "that man must surely be not John Kennedy but Theodore Sorensen."
The question of whose hand held sway over the Kennedy inaugural address was an issue even before it was delivered, at least for Kennedy. Stung by accusations that a ghost writer was the real author of "Profiles in Courage," which won Kennedy the Pulitzer Prize in 1957, the president-elect went to great lengths to showcase his own involvement in the speech that has since become his most remembered.
The speech, which can be listened to at www.jfklibrary.org, is thought by many scholars to be among the finest inaugural addresses in the nation's history. With its declaration that "the torch has passed to a new generation of Americans," the speech also holds particular relevance for baby boomers, whose adulthoods were forged in the crucible of the 1960's.
For years, Mr. Sorensen, one of the men closest to Kennedy - he was a policy adviser, legal counsel and chief speechwriter - has steadfastly maintained that Kennedy was the driving force behind the speech.
"I'm of the very old school," Mr. Sorensen said in a telephone interview. "I've just simply refused to take credit when I didn't deserve the credit. That is not a philosophy that speechwriters of the last generation have necessarily followed."
Mr. Clarke, whose book was published by Henry Holt & Company, bases much of his conclusion around a key event in the preparation of the speech. On Jan. 10, 1961, during a flight from Washington to Palm Beach, Fla., Kennedy dictated portions of the speech to his secretary, Evelyn Lincoln. Both Mr. Clarke and Mr. Tofel note that in doing so, Kennedy consulted a draft of the address previously prepared by Mr. Sorensen.
Mr. Clarke states that "the Sorensen material that Kennedy incorporated into his speech turns out to be largely a compilation of ideas and themes that Kennedy had been voicing throughout his adult life." In Mr. Clarke's account, that makes Kennedy not only the architect of the speech, but "its stonecutter and mason, too."
Mr. Tofel's research - which, like Mr. Clarke's, painstakingly details the evolution of nearly every word in the address - causes him to conclude differently. "It is simply not correct to say, as a recent book did, that with the Kennedy dictation, the speech became 'in every important respect' Kennedy's own handiwork," he writes. While Kennedy certainly had ample input into the speech, he said, others, particularly Mr. Sorensen, had more.
"Of the 51 sentences in the inaugural address, John Kennedy might be said to have been the principal original author of no more than 14," Mr. Tofel writes. "And this number credits Kennedy with every sentence the origin of which is unclear.
"On direct evidence," he adds, including impromptu changes made during the delivery of the speech and a transcription of dictation taken by Kennedy's secretary on Jan. 10, "only nine sentences were principally originally Kennedy's. This compares with eight sentences from Adlai Stevenson."
The two authors do not disagree on everything, however. Both take note of the contributions of Mr. Stevenson (who they say had angled to be appointed secretary of state but who wound up as Kennedy's ambassador to the United Nations), as well as those of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith.
And neither disputes evidence unearthed by other Kennedy scholars long ago: that the provenance of the speech's most famous words, the "ask not" portion, has a less inspiring history.
The words hark back at least to Kennedy's years at Choate, the Connecticut prep school, where the headmaster regularly reminded his charges that what mattered most was "not what Choate does for you, but what you can do for Choate."
<END QUOTE>
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more."
---- President JOHN F. KENNEDY, 20JAN61 Presidential inaugural address
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".
-
Dawn, see my reply to Steve above re why Kennedy's indiscretions may, and I emphasize may, relate to who killed him.
His sharing a girlfriend with the Mafia and accepting election help from the mob would give the Mafia motive to kill him when he did not keep the Faustian bargain his father made with the Mob. Of course, it cannot be demonstrated that he or RFK knew of the father's arrangement and I give him credit for NOT keeping that bargain.
The potential problems with national security issues would add support to Shanet's theory of extra-legal removal from office by the power structure.
Understand of course that the issues raised here arguably have no relevance to the scenario that I suspect.
The "dark secrets of Camelot", as Hersh called them, do certainly suggest why Robert would want a cover-up since any full-fledged investigation surely would have revealed them. Which is another reason this topic is relevant.
But please do not judge my motives. Even though I have discovered matters about Kennedy, e.g. his relationship with Rometsch and his sharing national security matters with Monroe do not diminish one iota my interest in solving the assassination and bringing the conspirators to justice, whomever they may be and whatever their political allegiances. For whatever Kennedy's faults may have been, and it appears they were legion, nothing supports his murder and tears well up in my eyes whenever I see Frame 313. Moreover, as I have said before, I wish that the "dark secrets of Camelot" had not been exposed and they probably would not have been but for the assassination inquiries. So unless the conspirators killers can be brought to justice, all these inquiries have accomplished, in my opinion, is to blacken the reputation not only of Kennedy but of others who may not have had anything to do with the assassination.
But I swear that if a conspirator can be found and convicted to death under Texas law, I would pay money to be able to be the person to administer the fatal injection. I would do that for Jack Kennedy and for my country, since the assassination was as much a crime against America as it was a crime directed toward JFK himself.
In summary, although it may be hard to understand, despite my political differences with JFK, I am confident I feel as strongly about solving the assassination as anyone who idolizes JFK. I am sure the same can be said for Ron Ecker who agreed above that JFK rightly should have been removed from office if he knew he was sharing a mistress with one of the nation's worst, most evil mobsters.
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 ?
-
Mark Stapleton wrote: "Ray, I just checked and you are 100% correct--it was Tom Howard, Ruby's lawyer. All that substance abuse must be catching up with me. It appears I've done Mr. Wade a disservice. Thanks for the correction."
Mark, It ain't the pot you smoked in college. According to Daniel Schacter's Seven Sins of Memory, you committed the "surprisingly common" sin of Misattribution, which is at the root of mistaken eyewitness identifications. Schacter suggests it may also cause the sensation known as deja vu.
At a JFK conference in Fredonia some years ago I was pontificating to a group of researchers over a few beers about a brilliant theory I had come come up with. One of my drinking companions was "Monte Evans" (a nom de plume). In the middle of my dissertation Monte interrupted to point out that this very theory had been outlined in detail in his book The Rather Narrative, and we both knew that I had bought the book from Monte himself at a previous conference. Here I was trying to sell him his own horse, so everyone had a good laugh at my expense. Ever since then I have a keen sympathy for anyone accused of plagiarism or any other form of misattribution.
Ray,
"Do not block the way of inquiry" C.S. Peirce
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).
-
Mark Stapleton wrote: "My favorite was D.A. Henry Wade stating on November 24 that Jack Ruby should be awarded a medal for shooting LHO. This should have resulted in his immediate dismissal from office. "
Mark, I had not heard this before, so I googled it and discovered that this statement is attributed to Tom Howard, who became one of Ruby's lawyers. Incidentally Howard is described as a friend of Wade's.
Ray
"Do not block the way of inquiry" C.S. Peirce
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.
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
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".
-
That's right, the Jews did it!
Come on, now!!
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.
-
It amazes me to read that Mr. Weyl voted for Clinton and Kerry. From his postings it seemed his mind retained the lucidity of his youth . . .
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.
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.
-
I checked Greer's WC testimony to see what he might have said about the difficultyof the turn. He says nothing about it being difficult, but it's interesting what he does say:
Mr. GREER. . . . When I made the turn into Elm Street, I was watching the overpass expressway--the overpass, or what was ahead of me. I always look at any--where I go underneath anything, I always watch above, so if there is anyone up there that I can move so that I won't go over the top of anyone, if they are unidentified to me, unless it is a policeman or something like that. We try to avoid going under them. . . .
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.
I'm tempted to say Greer is lying, since of course there were about a dozen people standing over Elm on the overpass. But I suppose it's possible, given the curve in Elm, that Greer couldn't see the Elm segment of the overpass from the corner of Houston. Maybe someone else knows.
But what kind of statement is this: "I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there." It sounds almost like he's saying, "I was making sure that any shooter there could not be seen."
Ron
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.
-
What happen to the plan to just drive straight down Main??
There you go. Find out who got that changed and you have one of the conspirators. (Or a willing accessory)
-
Before I post on the suspects, Mark asks as to the Stride killing, wasnt the
killer disturbed? This is a widely held belife, that I feel has little basis in
fact. Lets examine the witnesess. 1, Maurice Eagle, Walks his girlfriend home
passed the club gates at 12-40am, He see's nothing strange. 2,Israel Schwartz,
see's two men, one of whom assaults a woman outside the gates at 12-45am.
3,Louis Diemschultz, Enters the club gates at 1-00am and discovers Strides
prone body.
Now, unless the woman Schwartz see's is not Stride( & his discription sounds
like Stride) or there were two seperate attacks on two different woman,
outside a club packed with people, within 15 mins of each other a highly
unlikely scenario, then the man seen by Schwartz is Strides killer.Ergo he
had 15 mins Schwartz~Diemschultz, to have inflicted further mutilations
and have no psycological need to place himself in further danger of capture,
by seeking out Eddowes.
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?
-
I will need at least eight other members to post on this, so if you have some
knowledge on this subject please add your name to the seminar list.
Thank you, Steve.
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.
NSA and the assassination of JFK
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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?