Robert Howard

December 9, 2005

Dawn, I refered you to my Post 36. Apparently you chose not to read it.
Again, I think your reaction proves my point: don't impugn other people's motives. (When I did it, in jest, you jumped all over me.)

Ironically, Lynne did it to you, but her claim was so ridiculous it was laughable.

Regarding your cousin, just let him read this Forum and he will quickly conclude that you have a lot of company in la-la land. But it does make Lynne's claim all that more hilarious, doesn't it?

Tim, your ability to articulate your views notwithstanding, your admonition not to 'impugn other people's motives' comes off as hypocritical at best. If there was a listing for 'thread-hijacker' in Webster's it would have a picture of you next to it. One recalls the maxim 'quality over quanity, having literally thousands of posts on this forum, and many of them articulate and well stated, it is beyond conjecture that you are less than objective in where your view on the assassination ultimately come back to the culprits as being Castro, (something the government has unsuccessfully been trying to do ever since Nov 22) and now the "Mob" albeit with enough of a dose of the CIA thrown in to keep it appealing) I will simply expound on this theme in saying "starting a thread entitled 'The Mob Did It' is such a poor exercise in intellectual thought that it borders on insulting to members of the Forum and is beneath your skills. You may wax eloquently in your posts etc., but your lack of sincerity in 'researching' the various elements of the JFK Assassination and other sordid events of the American Century are patently obvious, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Actually it is interesting, because in many way's the 'dance' that frequently takes place on the Forum is in my opinion a 'microcosm' of today's media.

The essence of today's 'intellectual debate' in America is soundbite politics ("Your either with us or with the terrorists,") mixed with a healthy dose of George Orwell while thinking people who care about fundamental concepts such as democracy are basically labeled as "not one of us."

In this case I will be proud to admit I am not one of the many American's 'whistling in the dark.'

In my opinion being labelled or called "anti-American" in the current political atmosphere, is a 'badge of honor.'

Virtue is its Own Reward

December 9, 2005

Daniel Sheehan became another Jim Garrison. During his investigation the CIA launched a massive smear campaign against him. Leading this campaign was a woman called Susan Huck. She put around stories that Sheehan and the Christic Institute were "instruments of Soviet disinformation". That Sheehan's lawsuit advanced "Soviet interests" and was an attempt to weaken the United States. Huck argued that the Soviets were out to get people like Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez, Richard Secord, etc. because of their "record of thwarting... Moscow and Havana for three decades". Huck went onto publish a book, Legal Terrorism, about Sheehan's attack on the CIA.
There were two parts to Sheehan's lawsuit. One involved the CIA assassination team that had been run by Shackley and company since the early 1960s and the other involved Reagan's use of Congress' decision to grant 27 million dollars in non-lethal aid for the Contras in Nicaragua. According to Sheehan the Reagan administration were using this money to provide weapons to the Contras and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

On 5th October, 1986, a Sandinista patrol in Nicaragua shot down a C-123K cargo plane that was supplying the Contras. Eugene Hasenfus, an Air America veteran, survived the crash and told his captors that he thought the CIA was behind the operation. He also provided information on two Cuban-Americans running the operation in El Savador. This resulted in journalists being able to identify Raphael Quintero and Felix Rodriguez as the two Cuban-Americans. It gradually emerged that Clines, Oliver North, Edwin Wilson and Richard Secord were also involved in this conspiracy to provide arms to the Contras.

Shirley Brill, a former CIA official, published a 24 page affidavit in 1988. Brill had lived with Tom Clines in 1977 and claimed that he was involved in illegal activities with Raphael Quintero and a drug dealer living in Miami. After retering from the CIA in 1978, Brill claims Clines joined forces with Ted Shackley, Richard Secord and Edwin Wilson in order to gain Pentagon contracts. Brill also argued that she heard Clines, Secord, Quintero and Shakley plotting to frame Wilson.

Brill's information added support to the stories provided to Sheehan by Gene Wheaton (Source 48) and Carl Jenkins (Source 49). However, on 23rd June, 1988, Judge James L. King ruled that Sheehan's allegations were "based on unsubstantiated rumor and speculation from unidentified sources with no firsthand knowledge". In February, 1989, Judge King ruled that Sheehan had brought a frivolous lawsuit and ordered his Christic Institute to pay the defendants $955,000. This was one of the highest sanction orders in history and represented four times the total assets of the Christic Institute.

Despite Sheehan's information being correct about what eventually became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, none of these men were ever convicted in a court of law for these offences. The only one to go to prison was Tom Clines as a result of under-reporting his income from his various business enterprises by at least $260,000 and with failing to disclose on his tax returns that he had an overseas bank account. Clines was found guilty and sentenced to sixteen months and a $40,000 fine.

Shackley was never charged with any offence although Oliver North's notebook that was declassified in 1990 showed that he had been involved in selling arms to the Contras since December 1984. Instead of being sent to prison, Shackley received a libel payout of $148,296 from Sheehan.

Oliver North's notebook also shows that Tom Clines, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez, Albert Hakim and Richard Secord were also involved in this conspiracy. They only one to suffer from this was Daniel Sheehan who was forced into bankrupcy.

It is of course possible that Sheehan was right both about the Iran-Contra story and the CIA assassination team that originally was set up to kill Fidel Castro but was later used against other figures who posed a threat to the agency. If Wheaton is to be believed, it was this team that killed JFK.

According to Sheehan, his two main sources were Wheaton and Jenkins (although he later denied this). Why did they do this? One theory is that Wheaton and Jenkins had both been part of the original deal (both men had established a cargo airline called National Air in 1985). It is believed that this airline was to be used to transport arms to the Contras in Nicaragua and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. For some reason Clines decided to cut Wheaton and Jenkins out of the deal. As a result, both men decided to get even by informing against those involved in these two CIA conspiracies.

How would one go about locating a copy of the Sheehan affadavit?

December 8, 2005

Does this mean that Richard Cain used all three aliases?
- lee

AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER : 104-10059-10348

RECORDS SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : BARTEAUX, ROBERT A., CIA

TO : GREGG, DONALD P./PCS/LOC

TITLE : HSCA REQUEST FOR FILES ON RICHARD CAIN AKA ROBERT

SCALZETTI, JORGE ALONSO PUJOL, I. IRVING DAVIDSON.

DATE : 06/29/1978

PAGES : 1

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : HSCA REQUEST; PUJOL, JORGE A.; DAVIDSON, I. I.; CAIN,

RICHARD S

CLASSIFICATION : SECRET

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/10/1993

COMMENTS : JFK8:F49 1993.07.10.08:57:58:650340: ATTACHMENT IS

MISSING.

FWIW, I have a copy of "Man Against the Mob" By William E. Roemer, Jr., which I purchased recently while doing research into the JFK/Mob angle. It is hard to get a gauge on it, as far as his credibility on the JFK assassination, to tell you the truth it seemed pretty interesting to me until he "gives his take' on what went down on 11/22/63.

As someone once said "You Be the Jury."

"I don't subscribe to the post-assassination theories....If there had been any connection to the Chicago families. I am quite sure we would have known about it. I firmly believe just what the Warren Commission found after exhaustive investigation using the FBI, CIA and all the other investigative bodies at its command. I believe it was the work of a lone, demented gunman, Oswald and that Ruby's motivation in killing Oswald was just what he claimed- his anguish over the killing of the charismatic leader of our country."

After I reached that passage, I quit reading the book as it would be impossible for me to accept anything written in it as being very believable. Period.

December 8, 2005

As an aside; last night while posting on the forum (with the T.V. on, which I was not watching, but) there was a commerical for some new medication.
I didn't catch the name of it, but at the end of the spot, you know the 'disclaimer part,' I heard the words,

"may be harmful to unborn children."

Is it just me or are we entering a 'brave new world' where any medication that has a remotely useful purpose can be approved by the F.D.A. as long as the disclaimer 'doesent say.'

'Side effects may include instantaneous death?'

Just wondering.

Actually the US is one of the toughest countries to get medication approved

Robert - That warning was directed at women who are or might be pregnant. Obviously any medication taken by a pregnant woman will reach the fetus. Such warnings are common. Doctors normally ask women of childbearing age if they are [or might be] prenant before perscribing medication.

I accept your premise, but what I am getting at is that the disclaimers in general (to me, and other people I have spoken with about this, (who by the way are generally not that interested in conspiracy theories, in general,) have a consensus that "who would want to take this stuff, when the 'potential?' side effects seem practically as bad as what they are ostensibly supposed to treat?"

It presents the concept that maybe the main premise to it all is more about making a buck, as opposed to doing what was formerly known as the 'common good'

What is your view?

December 8, 2005

John Lennon, in my estimation, was an incredibly talented singer, songwriter and musician...and one who just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right bandmates to gain fame and fortune. Nothing mystical there...just another man who used his talents, and was rewarded by the public.
While SOME of the "Beatlemania" generation might have followed him anywhere, many of us had moved on in our lives. What that means is, that in 1980, it was entirely possible that his 1980 "Double Fantasy" album just might have crashed and burned like his '72 effort...so there was no guarantee of a "Pied Piper" effect, and therefore Nixon et al had little reason--aside from Nixon's terminal paranoia--to "snuff" Lennon.

While I think it's worthwhile to recognize Lennon's life and death, I see no more need to idolize him in 2005 than I did in 1980...or 1976, or at any other time in his career.

You wanna idolize someone based on record sales? Try Garth Brooks. You wanna idolize someone based upon song lyrics? Try the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, for "Peace Train." Personally, while I concede that Lennon and the others deserve recognition, they are, after all, only mortals doing what they do. And I don't think there's a pedestal reserved for any of them...at least not in MY home. But following the hype of society, it would be terribly easy to make John Lennon more in death than he actually was in life.

Speaking of Cat Steven's n/k/a Yousef Islam. Peace Train is a great song, and while I admit I did not follow the story closely, I did find the fact that he was 'denied access to the United States awhile back' a little disconcerting to say the least. The man as far as I know, is not affiliated with "Al-Qaeda" (if anyone has CREDIBLE information to the contrary, please let me know) and not allowed to come to the "land of the brave, and home of the free."

What is one to make of this 'move' by the Bush administration?

A sincere desire to protect our country from 'terrorists?' or something entirely different.

As an aside; last night while posting on the forum (with the T.V. on, which I was not watching, but could hear) there was a commerical for some new medication.

I didn't catch the name of it, but at the end of the spot, you know the 'disclaimer part,' I heard the words,

"may be harmful to unborn children."

Is it just me or are we entering a 'brave new world' where any medication that has a remotely useful purpose can be approved by the F.D.A. as long as the disclaimer 'doesent say.'

'Side effects may include instantaneous death?'

Just wondering.

December 8, 2005

Gerry - Great article thanks for posting that. I gotta be honest, when I saw in my mailbox that you had responded to this thread I expected a ranting diatribe.
My only complaint about the article is Jimmy Iovine shamelessly taking advantage of the anniversary of Lennon's tragic death to plug his record labels. The writer missed it but the White Stripes latest record is put out by Iovine too. Are we to expect it's just a coincidence that 4 out of the 4 singers he compares to Lennon are in his roster? Worst of all was comparing Eminem to Lennon. Eminem is crap, he put out some OK records recently but that all seems to be Dr. Dre's doing.

Len

Today is the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's death, as previously mentioned. I have already posted on this topic so I don't want to be redundant; but, I have a niche for researching and accumulating every bit of information I can about topics 'close to my heart.'

The JFK Assassination, the Beatles (together and solo) and the geopolitical world of the last 100 years are at the top of the list.

If one would like to peruse some of the most informative Lennon material ever to hit the print media, I would suggest (not necessarily in this order)

The book "Lennon Remembers" Jann Wenner 1970 interview.

The 1980 Playboy interview with John and Yoko (either Nov. or Dec. issue)

Musically speaking "The Compleat Beatles - Updated Version) This book is a compendum of every song that the Beatles ever played listing the instruments and musicians used on each song, plus an assortment of equally compelling stuff.

Lennon book's (Hard to Find)

"In His Own Write" and "A Spaniard in the Works"

AND the non-Beatles Movie he appeared in Directed by Dick Lester "How I Won the War." I believe that this movie, is a incredible flick to watch, it is a combination comedy/drama circa WW2. Lennon made this movie around 1967 before the recording sesions for Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane and also around the time that their manager Brain Epstein died." John's character name is "Musketeer Gripweed."

imdb.com link for same

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061789/

There is a surreal scene at the end that makes IMO watching the whole movie worthwhile

Final thought: Out of all the quotes John left us with, I think the best ones are lyrics from his first solo album entitled 'Plastic Ono Band' - 1970

Which is his "Highway 61 Revisited?"

It is also very stark and intense.

"Genius is Pain" - Some people criticize John for his knack or disposition towards making off-the cuff remarks, see 'The Beatles are more popular than Jesus,.' 'The freaks on the phone, won't leave me alone so don't give me that brother, brother' brother (although the latter is actually a line from "I Found Out" Which also includes "I seen through junkies, I been through it all

I seen religion from Jesus to Popel

Don't let them fool you with dope and cocaine

No one can harm you, feel your own pain"

My reaction is that there is something about death that is almost a canonization process in American (and elsewhere?) culture. Look at Marilyn, JFK, MLK Jr., RFK, Malcolm-X from the 1960's alone.

Sociologists and media types might (rightfully?) ask would the legacy of these individuals be as valued if they hadn't died in the manner/way they did?

JFK and MLK, Jr. are still controversial topics to make such comments even 43 and 37 years later. But that's just my opinion.

Absolutely Final Comment - I would rather have been remembered for advocating love and peace, than dropping an atomic bomb or inventing it. Robert

December 8, 2005

The title demonstrates your pre-emptive assault on anybody who does not agree with your bullxxxx.
It's vintage Dawn.

Can you say "the pot calling the kettle black"?

December 8, 2005

[quote name='Tim Carroll' date='Dec 7 2005, 10:43 PM' post='47790']
I find threads that contain a conclusion in the title to be skewed from the start. In this case, the title containing an assertion about someone who's "defending alleged terrorists" (as if they don't deserve a defense) is by someone who's "curious what the members here think of Ramsey Clark." We find that after some guy who wrote about MLK and JFK "in Light of the Fourth Gospel" (whatever the hell that means) is unable to get anything out of Ramsey Clark about the Kennedy assassination, another author's article is presented, again with a skewed subtitle: "Stalinist Dupe or Ruling-Class Spook?" Well howdy! That's quite a range of choice; Posner couldn't have framed it better.[

OK, so I admit it was not a very good title. I just found the article curious. I wanted to remind people that Clark is still covering up for the WC, and so I referred to the interview that he did with a FRIEND OF HIS. Douglas has done a lot of fantastic work for the casue of peace. He's someone who actually walks the walk, not just talks the talk. I guess just the word "gospel" gets your nickers twisted, but it is a beautiful essay. I wish it were online.

I did not choose the article title, just find it curious. Of course all defendants deserve a good defense. I would not have been a defense attorney if I did not seriously believe this, so I am not casting aspersions on Clark for whom he chooses to defend. Only that he still backs the fraudulant WC. I guess if you take up enough good causes some here will give you a pass re the WC. I don't. As much as I admire the work Clark has gone on to do, that he will not even discuss the WC with a good friend of his detracts from his causes. Same goes for Bill Moyers. I like what he's done over the years on public tv, but he's still a cover-up artist when it comes to this most sordid event in our history.

Dawn

My initial reaction to Ramsey Clark's activities these day's is.

Q. What happens to a member of the 'Old Guard" who aids and abets the biggest coverup of the last 43 years, and then has an 'extremely delayed attack of conscience'?

A. He 'joins the opposition, and becomes marginalized' by being "out of the mainstream of American culture," but not necessarily in that order.

Which goes to prove what a wise man once said - "Virtue, is it's own reward."

December 8, 2005

Robert, Mayhap the answer is to invite said Member to lay out, in a looong post, all the evidence she has against Garrison, Hoover, Nixon etc etc, in ONE thread,with no use of links, URL's or whatever. This will have two possitive effects.1, It would allow members to debate this evidence in one place, rather than in a piecemeal fasion. 2, It would allow others who quite frankly can't be bothered, to carry on with their useful research, and informative posts without juvinile name calling and the like. FWIW Steve.
PS was the Lancer xxxxx Dave Von Pien?

Correctomundo, on both counts.

December 8, 2005

Actually I trace the downfall of American culture to the time that the New York Times started to permit color in its photographs and advertisements.

I have and still do, have a tremendous respect for the members of this Forum and the Forum itself, but I do believe there has been a deterioration in the 'level of debate' lately. It is so epidemic in our culture these day's that 'personal accountability' in many, many cases these day's in regards to allegations founded in fact are reposnded both in the field of politics and culture in general, are not met with responses to the same but with a counter-charge.

Before I joined the Forum, I was, and still am, a member of the JFK Lancer Forum, there was a period when there was a certain individual who wreaked havoc there although his MO was being an apologist for the WC to the point that he made Gerald Posner look slovenly in comparison. (If one has any curiousity about this go to the reviews for the Warren Commission 26 volumeson Amazon.com and look for the most extreme positive review and you will find out what mean. He eventually was banned from the JFK Debate because he was such an agitator, and so forth).

I am old fashioned in the sense that "I may disagree with what your'e saying but I defend your right to say it." Diversity in viewpoints, is an essential hallmark of civilized debate, it is only when the debate becomes un-civilized when I have a problem with it. John Simkin, I believe has bent over backwards, to be democratic about a similar situation that has unfolded here, the only point I would like to make is that there has only been one person on the Forum the last 2 months, that has been 'over the top' in the sense that if you don't agree with said viewpoints you and your motives are treated with disdain 'which would be an understatement, to say the least.

Final word: If it walks like a duck, quack's like a duck, and has feathers, it is a duck.

I would ask other members of the Forum, if the level of debate the last 2 months has been what it was previously, and at the very least maybe the threads on the JFK Debate have taken a tilt towards 'Alice in Wonderland' in some cases?

December 8, 2005

I am sure that Humberto's various articles (hosted on newsmax, no less) and books accurately represent the feelings of the reactionary extreme right-wing sector of the exile community.

Phillips aside (I haven't read his book), JFK "canceling" the air strike has been the standard CIA line. Deadly Secrets has a good discussion on JFK's refusal to authorize the CIA's promised air strike.

Good points Owen.

Whatever our perceptions are, and what we have managed to understand concerning the events that unfolded, I think at a minimum there was a large host of folks that placed the blame squarely on Kennedy. Phillips included. I would imagine them extending beyond extreme right-wing sectors of the exile community.

APR 16, 1961: The Airborne battalion moves from base camp in Guatemala to Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, during the night of April 15/16. At about midday, the President formally approves the landing plan and the word is passed to all commanders in the operation. Assault shipping moves on separate courses toward the objective area. The ships make their rendezvous at about 1730 hours approximately 40 miles off the coast. They proceed in column and make rendezvous with U.S. Navy LSD (San Marcos) about 5,000 yards from Blue Beach. LCU and LCVP aboard the San Marcos are transferred to Cuban crews between 2300 and 2400 hours. Radio Swan repeatedly broadcasts a message which Phillips and Hunt compose to give the appearance that the station is activating resistance groups in Cuba: “Alert! Alert! Look well at the rainbow. The fish will rise very soon. Chico is in the house. Visit him. The sky is blue. Place notice in the tree. The tree is green and brown. The letters arrived well. The letters are white. The fish will not take much time to rise. The fish is red.” Hunt later writes that these were nonsense messages: “We couched it in terms that could, conceivably, confuse and misdirect Castro's G?2 ... I remember thinking at the time of BBCs wartime broadcasts which used plain texts to communicate with resistance teams in Europe.” (Johnson, p.100; Hunt, p.201)

I read somewhere, (I hate beginning a post like this) it may have been in Pierre Salinger's memoirs, that JFK did not cancel the airstrikes in support of BOP, but his last act (with regards to same) was authorizing the airstrikes, and that afterwards McGeorge Bundy rescinded Kennedy's authorization, which resulted in the famous account of Charles Cabell calling the White House in the pre-dawn hours on X-day urgently trying to get Kennedy to immediately re-authorize the air strikes, I believe the story is that Dean Rusk took Cabell's call (s)? and refused to wake JFK up. I certainly think there are more than one 'version' on the record as to how this event actually went down. I have always felt that the 'official version' was slightly suspect, which, in turn is due to the fact that in the future you have E. Howard Hunt attemping to 'forge Kennedy's signature' on documents authorizing the assassination of Diem, and also the CIA's Regis Blahut attempting to steal material from a safe which contained material being scrutinized by the HSCA. Damn, how the hell anybody would take the CIA's word about anything having to do with JFK is beyond me.

And I also endorse the assertions of some members of the Forum that the BOP was a 'setup' to make Kennedy look like a fool in the same vein (and by the same people?) as Eisenhower's Peace Summit with Khrushchev that imploded because of the 'downing' of Power's U-2. Which by the way, there are also assertions (IMO correct) that the U-2 was not 'shot down by the Sov's,' but was sabotaged by placing explosives on it before it had ever taken off from base.

December 7, 2005

John,

Judge King certainly did put the Christic Institute out of business. They were a true threat to the covert action boys, and Dan Sheehan was certainly targeted for retribution for his efforts.

Bill: Dan Sheehan has long been one of my MAJOR heros in life and I have wondered for years now what became of him. He just disappeared. Do you happen to know to where?

Also, the "former Catholic priest" who co-founded COPA would not be the (wonderful) James Douglas would it?

Dawn

Hello Dawn,

Sorry about being so tardy in response, but yes, as John has pointed out, it was Bill Davies. At those first early COPA organizational meetings, I sat between Bill Davies and Peter Dale Scott at tables arranged in a square so we all faced each other - about 30 people, also including Jim Lesar, Dan Alcorn, John Judge, John Newman, and others. I drove down from Atlantic City with Robert C., a Cherry Hill N.J. police Lt. The meetings were held over two days, and during breaks for lunch or afterwards we all walked around the corner to the Hawk & Dove bar. I talked with Davies, who was then from California, more than any of the others, a very mellow guy, though I don't know what happened to him.

The American reporter injured in the bomb explosion in Central America was Tony Avirgan, and the target of the bomb was Sandinesta Commander Zero, a non-communist who fought the Contras.

Although the Christic Institute failed, I think their legal tactics worked and that they should be reapplied to the political assassinations in the United States.

BK

Does anyone have more than a passing interest of the prospect of inviting Peter Dale Scott to visit the Forum to answer questions about his new book "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina"

I believe this book will be the definitive work on the 'dynamics' of what has been gradually taking place in this country over the last five years i.e. foreign policy especially or, rather the fact that our countries neo-con foreign policy seems synonymous with the conceptualization of a 'third millenium version of the crusades';

I would, like to hear what ideas he has (as well as anybody else, for that matter) on making the ideas expressed in this thread part of the 'intellectual debate' in this country regarding 'our future,' when the extreme right or whatever you wan't to call the "neo-con cabal" which is at the wheel of American foreign policy more or less successfully passes itself off as 'mainstream' to the "Great Unwashed."

The current intellectual debate, at least in the print media between left and right, between those opposed to the neo-conservative agenda and those who advocate it, remind me of a political version of the "Phony-War" or drôle de guerre, as the French put it.

December 7, 2005

To Robert:
Often trial transcripts are not prepared unless there is an appeal of the case to an appellate court.

Most interesting post, however.

I may be mistaken, but I believe Anthony Summers recent epic Sinatra "The Life" makes reference to a Sinatra Jr trial transcript, but I wouldn't swear to it.

December 6, 2005

"Turning ad turning on the widening gyre,

The falcon cannont hear the falconer;

Things fall apat; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The cremony of innocense is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity...." (The Second Coming)

And the poem's concluding question:

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

JFK, Jack Zangretti and the Sinatra Jr. Kidnapping (A Second Look)

By Gerhard Poszner

After 43 years, recent releases of two JFK-assassination related books have brought November 22, 1963 back into the public arena, for the first time since Gerald Posner’s widely hailed Case Closed was released over a decade ago. Joan Mellen’s A Farewell To Justice’s debut cratered or so it seems, after a “footnote controversy” proved to be for JFK researchers what Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” was for last years Super-Bowl audience. Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK seems to have gained a great deal of interest with its revelation of a Kennedy brothers plans for a 2nd Cuban invasion, (The ill-fated Bay of Pig’s invasion being the first) which was to have taken place on December 1, 1963. It is the contention of the authors Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman that the Mafia was privy to this information, as well as revelations of another assassination attempt, which was to have taken place in Miami Florida only day’s before Dallas. Both books seem to provide enough material to keep those fascinated by the story that won’t go away, to keep the debate flowing.

There have been, to those familiar with the assassination, allegations of perhaps as many as over a hundred “mysterious deaths” somehow related in some way to November 22, 1963, either individuals who knew Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby or were associated with the various investigations we have all come to be familiar with; the much-maligned 1964 Warren Commission, subsequent deaths in the 1960’s, with special emphasis on New Orleans around the time of the even more maligned Clay Shaw trial headed by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison, up to the late 1970’s House Select Committee’s JFK investigation, when individuals such as mobster John Roselli, Oswald’s “friend” George DeMohrenschildt and even the FBI’s William Sullivan met sudden deaths. It has to some degree been conceded that DeMohrenschildt’s death was an “apparent suicide” after initial suspicions of foul play, although his widow Jeanne has stated in the past that she does not believe her husband “committed suicide.”

Now many researchers of JFK’s assassination have been able to separate the myth from the reality. Some, by no means all, prefer to point out that there is a “short list” of ten or so individuals whose death’s even after all these years have not been resolved, (including the ‘big one’ in Dallas) and most importantly, circumstances demand the assertion that their “untimely demise” took place not only under very suspicious circumstances, but had a “short circuiting effect” in resolving conclusively the case that is known as the “Crime of the Century.”

Indeed, it would be incumbent upon anyone who has studied, or at least kept up with the now 43 year old saga, to realize that several deaths, including the above-cited examples, have conclusively extended debate on the elusive “conspiracy angle, at least in the eyes of those who believe there was a conspiracy, giving added credence to the dissenter's, and not to the benefit of those who side with the Warren Commission and Gerald Posner.

On Saturday November 23, 1963, Jack Zangretti, the manager of a $150,000 modular motel complex near Lake Lugert, Oklahoma, remarked to some friends that “Three other men, not Oswald, killed the President.” He also stated that “A man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow and in a few days a member of the Frank Sinatra family will be kidnapped just to take some of the attention away from the assassination.” Two weeks later, Jack Zangretti was found floating in Lake Lugert with bullet holes in his chest, and he had been dead for about two weeks.

Is the death of Jack Zangretti, one of those cases?

The kidnapping of Frank Sinatra Jr. took place on a Sunday December 8, 1963, little over two-weeks after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two men, Barry Worthington Keenan, and Joseph Clyde Amsler who were both twenty-three, knocked on the door at Frank Junior’s Harrah’s Lodge in Reno Nevada. Frank was having dinner with Joe Foss a member of the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. The two men were posing as hotel room service attendants, armed with a sawed-off shotgun, and a .45-caliber pistol. After entering his suite, they bound and gagged Joe Foss and then carried Frank Sinatra Jr. at gunpoint, to a waiting car, a 1963 White Impala, but not before robbing Sinatra Jr. of $11 and Foss of one dollar. Sinatra was scheduled to perform at 10:00 PM that evening. Driving through a blizzard, they eventually holed up in a rented house in Los Angeles, after barely escaping detection at a police roadblock. The son of the music icon Frank Sinatra had been kidnapped and was being held for ransom. Eventually Joe managed to struggle free and called Harrah’s press agent, who then called the Reno police. Frank’s manager Tino Barzie, called the elder Sinatra at his Palm Spring’s home. The legendary singer chartered a plane and immediately flew to Reno, where he was met by the District Attorney of Washoe County at the time, Bill Raggio. From there, the two were joined by four FBI agents based in Nevada as well as Mickey Rudin and Jim Mahoney, Sinatra’s attorney and publicist respectively.

Frank Sinatra, through an intermediary Peter Lawford contacted Attorney General Robert Kennedy pleading for help in getting his son back, and RFK promised to do everything he could to get his son back to him safely. The blizzard had made Lake Tahoe inaccessible by car or plane, so Frank set up headquarters at the Mapes Hotel in Reno. Others who came to the Sinatra camp there included Jack Entratter and Jilly Rizzo. Sinatra called his ex-wife Nancy then his parents in New Jersey; then waited sixteen long hours before he heard from his sons captors. The first call came at 4:47 P.M. on Monday Dec.9th it would be followed by six more until the nightmarish saga ended. Another member of the group, who had kidnapped Frank Jr., called to tell Frank Sr. his son was safe his name was John Irwin, forty-two years old; he said that there would be another phone call soon.

When the ransom call came, Frank said to them “You can have anything, a million dollars….anything!”

Inexplicably, the kidnappers asked for only a paltry sum in comparison, $240,000 in used bills.

“Fine, fine, anything, okay,” Sinatra responded.

“We’ll make another phone contact about the exchange, discretion will be the demeanor.” Irwin said before hanging up.

Frank called Al Hart, to setup the payoff to the kidnappers. Hart was President of City Nat’l Bank of Beverly Hills. Sinatra then flew to L.A., and stayed with his ex-wife in Bel-Air. Reporters were outside to cover the biggest kidnapping since the Lindbergh baby in 1932.

After Hart put the money together at the Bank, Sinatra and a lone FBI Agent delivered it in a brown paper bag per the kidnapper’s complex instructions. Fifty-four hours later, on December 10, Frank Sinatra, Jr. was released, two miles from his mother’s home in Bel-Air. A police patrolman who recognized him placed him in the trunk of his car, in order to avoid reporters. A grateful father Frank Sr. gave the policeman a thousand dollars.

The three kidnappers were captured the next day, with most of the ransom money, as well. The kidnapping had been predicted before it happened, an unusual occurrence to say the least. Complete with a sinister link to the mysterious Jack Zangretti, who, in turn was ostensibly a link in the events of November 22, 1963, the whole affair seemed right out of the Twilight Zone, the trial was in many ways simply a continuation of the bizarre chain of events. Barry Keenan constructed a strange defense, alleging that the whole affair was simply a hoax perpetrated by the leader of the Rat Pack’s son, in an effort to boost his singing career.

The jury did not treat Keenan’s defense as being believable in any manner, as all three men were sentenced to life in prison. However, Keenan’s defense while not helping during the trial, created a pseudo-folk tale type of legacy, which dogged the younger Sinatra for years afterwards. When Britain’s Independent Television News took the allegations and broadcast them as gospel, the elder Sinatra sued them for libel and collected, according to Frank Sinatra, Jr.

Years later, Keenan himself admitted his defense was simply a ploy, and as it turned out had went to school with Nancy Sinatra, the Chairman of the Board’s ex-wife.

It would be interesting to know whether one of the kidnappers John Irwin, was related to Philip Irwin a private investigator who had been involved in the investigation regarding Joe DiMaggio and Frank Sinatra’s alleged mistaken break-in of the apartment of Florence Kotz, (an apparent victim of mistaken identity). This took place the evening of November 5, 1954, when DiMaggio believed that Marilyn Monroe was having a lesbian affair. Sinatra was eventually subpoenaed and forced to testify to a State Senate Committee about the incident, the botched break-in which came to be known as the “wrong-door raid, apparently took place in an attempt to obtain evidence of marital infidelity by Marilyn to use against her in their upcoming divorce trial. Philip Irwin had went on record as saying that much of Sinatra’s testimony was false, and was subsequently “severely beaten” and as a result tried to meet with Sinatra to tell him that he had not leaked the story which had made the “headlines,” and which strongly aroused the curiosity of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury. Afterwards during a subsequent State Senate Committee hearing investigating activities of private investigators March 1957 see FBI Files FOIA 55 pages. Ironically, according to Sinatra’s testimony, Philip Irwin was one of the two investigators DiMaggio had hired to locate Marilyn’s alleged lover in the first place, (the other investigator was Barney Ruditsky.) Although Sinatra had his own attorneys he did nothing to improve his reputation for being tied to the Mafia, when he called and obtained help in the case from renowned mob attorney Sidney Korshak, a man who was reputed to be able to settle “problems” with just a couple of phone calls. Sinatra was represented by the law firm of Martin Gang and Mickey Rudin of Gang, Kopp & Tyre.

And so the story goes, but what about Jack Zangretti? Of him, very little is known, the original allegation concerning Zangretti’s foreknowledge of Ruby’s shooting of Oswald and the indeed, day’s later kidnapping of Frank Sinatra Jr. appears to have been the result of information obtained by Penn Jones Jr. a famous figure to those well-versed in conspiracy theories, but who had been known to pull a few rabbits out of the hat, so to speak. A search of the internet revealed nothing more than the fact that Jack Zangretti was, according to the United Kingdom’s Lobster magazine “a minor mob figure.”

But after digging, I hit the motherlode, the story had apparently was from a publication which was printed by one of the first, maybe even the first JFK researcher, a man who lived in Midlothian, Texas (near Dallas) named Penn Jones’s the publication was called “Forgive My Grief” Issue Volume 4. The sub-heading read

New Information on Strange Death No. 72 (although the number 72 seemed odd, I surmised maybe there had never been an original entry for Zangretti or this “update” was an addendum to an original story, if there indeed was an original story, I was unable to find it after perusing the previous three issues, anyway.)

May 31, 1973; and had what appeared to be an entire article which included the paragraph from above I had found on the internet. It read:

“In late 1962 a group opened a $300,000 restaurant and nightclub with all gambling facilities called THE RED LOBSTER, built in a cotton patch near Lake Lugert between Altus and Hobart, Oklahoma. The facility was equal to many Las Vegas Clubs.

A $ 150,000 modular motel complex was added and almost complete by November 22, 1963. Some of the rooms were occupied on weekends by persons arriving in chauffeured limousines. These people were stylishly dressed, and the men were accompanied by beautiful women. We are told the license plates were from the surrounding states, plus Arizona, Colorado and Kansas.

On Saturday November 23, 1963, Jack Zangretti, the manager of a $150,000 modular motel complex near Lake Lugert, Oklahoma, remarked to some friends that “Three other men, not Oswald, killed the President.” He also stated that “A man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow and in a few days a member of the Frank Sinatra family will be kidnapped just to take some of the attention away from the assassination.” Two weeks later, Jack Zangretti was found floating in Lake Lugert with bullet holes in his chest, and he had been dead for about two weeks.

Early in 1964 foreclosure procedures began, and the motel was moved in 1966 to Frederick Oklahoma. The nightclub and restaurant were torn down, now only the foundation remains at the site.”

As an aside to the Zangretti story, below it there was the following.

Recently on Public Television, Earl Warren stated:

“There has been no evidence of any kind developed to contradict what was in our reports…..We have never been able to find one witness to add to what we found at that time…..” If Justice Warren will convene a Grand Jury, we can produce witnesses to contradict his report. [italics mine]

In light of what the American people have learned about the Warren Report, despite the best efforts of the “Warrenati” what I dubbed the so-called “journalists” who have made a career out of being apologists for every event of political intrigue that has bobbed to the surface of the media eye over the last 43 years; the words were like an dagger to the heart. Earl Warren’s “comment” reminded me of the plethora of lies, half truths and cover-ups that have hovered like unseen figures over the Ghosts of November, JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Dallas newspaper reporters who had gathered in Jack Ruby’s apartment, and…..well you get the idea.

Wow! If there was ever an article that seemed to include not so veiled references to organized crime, this would appear to fit the heading. So the question remained, why was this seemingly “very important” lead

relegated to the dustbin of history?

I continued my search.

Barry Keenan, who on the surface appears as the ringleader of the kidnappers resurfaced in 1998. It seems that his sentence which was officially “life in prison plus 75 years” was worse than it sounded. His sentence was “eventually reduced,” and he left prison and appears to have done pretty good for himself. In 1998 he was pitching a proposal to develop a casino resort at Deer Island, (near Gulfport) Mississippi, when his involvement in the Sinatra kidnapping became known to the local populace. A subsequent article stated that “an addiction to painkillers (after an automobile accident) in addition to financial problems” was one of the reasons that he had decided to participate if he was not actually the “main man” in the 1963 kidnapping. That same article stated that before declaring bankruptcy in Texas in 1986 over the oil bust there, his net worth was a cool 17 million dollars, and it appears to have only gotten better. By 1997 he was a “consultant” to the ongoing attempt to build the casino complex on Deer Island, and eventually nailed down the casino deal there with help from his partner Now in 2005, Barry Keenan at age 65, has ostensibly made it to the “top of the heap.” Apparently, the last ten years Barry has made quantum leaps into the casino business, in a March 2005 interview with The Midland Telegram Reporter, Keenan stated he has helped develop five casinos in Biloxi, Mississippi and for native-American tribes in Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Commerce and San Diego California, and was only in the spring of 2005 an “advocate” for a bill that was then pending in the Texas Legislature which would legalize gambling in the Lone Star State. After some haranguing, the bill was shelved, but it will no doubt not be the last word as far as gambling coming to the Lone Star State

In the interview Keenan, in response to arguments that gambling foments organized crime and prostitution and has destructive social effects says those are “myths” opponents use to fight it. It’s reassuring that America can put that issue behind us, now that we know conclusively that gambling has no harmful effects on society.

In conclusion, on December 5th 2005 I contacted via e-mail Craig Roberts who years earlier had written “JFK: The Dead Witnesses” this book contained a near identical passage to Penn Jones May 1973 article on Jack Zangretti, he wrote to tell me that he had confirmed the story of the Red Lobster near Lake Lugert and the subsequent death and discovery of Zangretti’s body from Lake Altus-Lugert in 1994, unfortunately, the police officers and officials who had been with the local police there, at the time of the case, had long since died or retired. The famous “quotation” expressing foreknowledge of those dark events from “a man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow, to a member of the Sinatra family being kidnapped just to take some of the attention away from the assassination,” seems to be an elusive phantom. I thought how even visiting good old Lake Altus-Lugert would probably be fruitless, as far as obtaining verification of the infamous? quote.

Has the potential for verification of the quote went down the same rabbit hole, where other hopeful leads went, Gaeton Fonzi’s interview with George DeMohrenschildt that never took place, or the footlocker filled with evidence of Richard Case Nagell’s contacts with Oswald?

Does anybody know how to get a hold of those Sinatra Jr. trial transcripts?

To see information regarding how Barry Keenan successfully challenged the “Son of Sam Bill” see

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_229.pdf.

December 6, 2005

My Top Five Books (for today) are:
1. Not In Your Lifetime by Anthony Summers. Gets extra points for constantly updating his work... He really draws a compelling picture of Oswald and the usual cast of anti-Castro Cubans, etc..

2. Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson. The first book to really explore the evidence from a fresh perspective. My own research is in many ways built upon a foundation laid by Thompson.

3. Post-Mortem by Harold Weisberg. Weisberg really deserves a cumulative nomination for all his books. He was the most-in-your-face of the early researchers. He refused to jump at conspiracy theories, choosing instead to focus on the governments obfuscations and misrepresentations. His writing style is admittedly an acquired taste, but he dug up more documents and was a bigger thorn in the side of the government than all the other researchers combined.

4. Someone Would Have Talked by Larry Hancock. A connect the dots approach to the conspiracy pays off, showing how a conspiracy involving the mafia, the CIA, and the anti-Castro Cubans need not be as big a conspiracy as most would have you believe. Gets extra points for the thousand pages of documents on the accompanying cd-rom.

5. The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi. Gives you an inside look at the HSCA investigation. Needs to be made into a movie.

Of course, there are many others. If Robert Blakey were to write a tell-all book about what went on behind the scenes in the HSCA investigation, I would move that to number one.

From my perspective, anyone who seriously intends to research this matter needs, at the very least, a good understanding of the Warren commission. It is impossible,or imprudent to attempt a rebuttal of work that you have not bothered to familiarise yourself with.I also think any serious researcher needs to read Posner, if only to see how its done. Steve.

Steve, you would require that of someone? I would liken that to being a prisoner at Abu Ghraib. LOL.

No, your point is well taken.

December 6, 2005

Thanks guys for your responses.
Fermin would be 64 today. He does appear to have dropped off the map.

The link George posted doesn't give an age so it may well be his son. The 40 year old Fermin from Austin Roy cited sounds like the son as well.

Cheers,

James

Texas seems to have a real penchant for being the dwelling of 'unsavory characters.' - Mark Twain (Not)

December 6, 2005

The Junior kidnapping occured on December 8, 1963, forty-two years ago Thursday.
An interesting vignette I found in an on line article about the case:

The next night, a stricken Sinatra and Mickey Rudin met with four FBI agents, including Dean Elson, the FBI's special agent in charge of Nevada. Robert Kennedy called, promising help. Sam Giancana also called. ("Please," Sinatra told Momo, according to J. Randy Taraborrelli's Sinatra: A Complete Life, "let the FBI handle this.")

The article is worth reading in full. It has an incredible exchange of correspondence between Sinatra and "Dame" Hoover (as one of our members refers to the late J. Edgar) (I don't think it is a "term of endearment").

The link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...9/sinatra7e.htm