Robert Howard
-
Posts
2,674 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Robert Howard
-
-
Brought back for the curiosity value.
Jim Root
I personally find these types of letters very interesting, whether it is because I am an outsider looking in or just curious, although I couldn't give you an example. I have seen letters before between "government officials" in which there appeared to be just as much that was unsaid as was said. Kind of like a "read between the lines" type of thing. McCloy IMO was one of the most important figures of the 20th century, again IMO, if the assassination was on a scale as large as I think it was, I would find it virtually impossible that he would not have eventually come to know all the details, if he didn't know before. I certainly think Walker knew all the details before 11/22/63.
I wish Gerry Patrick Hemming would "fill us in" on the particulars of the meeting in New Orleans, in mid-62 which was attended by Hemming, Guy Bannister, and Edwin Walker among others, the one where there was a suitcase full of money.
-
So far, I've only been able to come up wtih three published reports on any of the three conferences last weekend, all about DC - Walter Pincus in the Wasington Post, Andrew Bridges of AP and Lisa Pease for Consortium News - [ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/112205A.html ], the last of which is the best and most accurate, IMO.
Here's Bridges, quoting Nicola Longord of the TSBD muse, "To my knowledge, there have not been any new developments," sounds very similar to Bob Porter of the TSBD a few years ago, saying, "Nothing is happening and nothing is planned" for the anniversary, when outside his window there were thousands of people and a host of speakers marking the occassion that I tape recorded and transcribed, and have around here somewhere.
November 21, 2005
JFK Assassination Debate Lives On
By ANDREW BRIDGES
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the 42 years since the assassination of President Kennedy, here's what has been agreed on by those who still pursue one of the most sensational crimes in history: very little, if anything.
After the release of millions of pages of documents, and more than four decades of probes by professionals and amateurs, there is no consensus among those who toil in the conspiracy theory industry.
Some see the fingerprints of the Mafia, others the CIA. For some it was the Cubans, the Russians, Jimmy Hoffa or just about everyone who was anyone on or about Nov. 22, 1963.
No theory tying together disparate characters or events is too outlandish: Remember the Maine? Some even link the explosion that sank the U.S. battleship in Havana harbor in 1898 to the shooting of Kennedy 65 years later, the belief being that both marked trumped-up pretexts for American intervention in Cuba.
Interest comes to a head each year around the time of the assassination anniversary, which is Tuesday.
"To my knowledge, there have not been any new developments," said Nicola Longford, the executive director of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, where Kennedy was shot. "It's just part of the enduring myth and reality of this intoxicating story. It's just a continuing fascination with solving a mystery."
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and squeezed off just three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository overlooking the plaza. A 1979 report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded Oswald probably did not act alone - a contention supported by a majority of Americans polled in 2003, the 40th anniversary of the assassination.
A conference dedicated to "Cracking the JFK Case" recently drew roughly 100 people to a Bethesda, Md., hotel. Sessions covered everything from the CIA's monitoring of Oswald in the months prior to the assassination to what a Dallas police audio tape may - or may not - prove about the numbers of shots fired.
Former Sen. Gary Hart reminded participants that his own investigative foray into the case, as a member of the Church Committee that met in 1975 and 1976, revealed both the Mafia and the Cuban exile community had ample reasons to want Kennedy dead.
"It's an understatement to say there were some very, very unhappy people in both those camps," said Hart.
Jim Lesar, a Washington, D.C., attorney who helped organize the conference, said the three-day meeting was dedicated to the proposition that Kennedy's death remains an open investigation.
The move was in part a ploy to rekindle interest in JFK. Lesar cited last year's reopening of the investigation into the slaying of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy murdered in 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman in Mississippi, as an example of what he'd like to see done with the Kennedy assassination.
"The Department of Justice is showing no inhibitions in dealing with 40-year-old civil rights cases, but the JFK case is being left to languish," Lesar said.
On the private side of the equation, he added that the lack of documents that could prove or disprove many theories hampers ongoing investigative efforts. "There is still a load of information we need to accurately and completely understand what happened," Lesar said.
Meanwhile, the cadre of conspiracy theorists is growing older and grayer and sources are dying off, further slowing progress, conference participants said.
"The case seems frozen now, perhaps more than it's been for a number of years," said David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com, who is writing his own book on the case.
--
LISA'S REPORT
consortiumnews.com
The Enduring JFK Mystery
By Lisa Pease
November 22, 2005
Editor’s Note: The assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the darkest moments in modern American history. But one of its most pernicious legacies has been the notion that average Americans must be shielded from what really happens on matters of national security, even something as important as the murder of a president.
Since the Warren Commission probe of the JFK assassination, other investigations of serious government wrongdoing, one after another, have been truncated – CIA abuses, Iran-Contra, Contra drug trafficking, Iraq-gate, misuse of Iraq War intelligence, Abu Ghraib – supposedly because the full stories would undermine morale or otherwise not be “good for the country.”
Ultimately, of course, this loss of a true history is corrosive to the concept of a democratic republic, and it has been one of our goals as a publication to flesh out the facts of those failed investigations. In that light, we are publishing a report from JFK assassination expert Lisa Pease on a recent historical conference in Washington:
Forty-two years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas, Texas. In Bethesda, Maryland, this past weekend, a group of distinguished journalists, historians, scientists and others gathered to discuss and debate the evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.
While the research community has often slammed the mainstream media for not covering the facts of the case, the blame must go both ways. The conference organizers offered no handouts, no summaries of what is new in the case this year, or any hook upon which a journalist might hang a story.
As one of the reporters said in a panel discussion, this is a story without an ending, and how satisfying is that?
But that is a tragedy, in light of the Downing Street Memo and other evidence that the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq was built on a false platform. The common thread throughout the weekend was that secrecy and democracy cannot safely coexist, that the more we have of the former, the less we have of the latter.
The credentials of the speakers this year was more impressive than in previous conferences. Featured speakers included former presidential candidate Gary Hart, author James Bamford, journalists Jeff Morley and Salon founder David Talbot, and historians David Wrone and John Newman (who was a military intelligence analyst), and the former head of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, G. Robert Blakey.
Former Sen. Hart, a Colorado Democrat, recounted his experiences on the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, more popularly known as the “Church Committee” after its leader, Sen. Frank Church.
Hart began with a disclaimer saying he didn’t read the assassination books, hadn’t reviewed his Church Committee files, and warned that everything he said should be prefaced with, “as I recall.”
Little Interest
According to Hart, there was little interest among Committee members in seriously investigating the intelligence community. There had been little oversight of the CIA since its creation 28 years earlier. Reviewing the CIA’s operations seemed both a gargantuan and ultimately unnecessary task. The Vietnam War was in its last days, and there was the sense that poking around in Agency business might undermine morale.
The Committee members also realized that if there was even one leak, their work would be over. That’s one of the reasons there was so little oversight in the years up to that point. Simply put, the CIA did not trust Congress to keep its secrets. So they implemented strict security.
One day, CIA Director William Colby asked for even more security than ever before. He wanted the room swept for bugs before they began. Colby also insisted only members, not their staff, attended.
At that session, Colby presented Committee members with the 600-page Inspector General report on Agency abuses, a document popularly known as the “family jewels.” Included in that document were tales of drug experiments on both witting and unwitting subjects, the wholesale opening of mail, bugging operations, and plots to overthrow governments including -- “with almost demented insistence,” Hart said -- the attempts to kill Fidel Castro.
The Committee members were shocked. And significantly, Hart said that only a few items from that report have ever made it to the public, begging the question of what other abuses occurred. How can we measure the success of Congressional oversight if we don’t know if any of those other abuses were successfully handled?
Hart recounted an episode where he had the chance to meet one of the CIA’s top contract assassins, known only as QJ/WIN. After a long series of instructions, Hart arrived at the location, only to find QJ/WIN did not want to talk to him. Hart wrote about that episode in fictional form in the novel Double Man (co-written with William Cohen).
When Hart ran for president, he said he was frequently asked what he would do about the Kennedy assassination. He promised if elected, he would reopen the investigation. But then he was caught with Donna Rice on a boat in Florida. “If you’ve seen the movie ‘Bullworth,’ you know that now we can assassinate people with cameras,” he said.
Few Theories
Most of the speakers did not offer theories as to who killed Kennedy, but presented instead the context of the event within the framework of the Kennedy administration during the Cold War.
On that point, there was considerable agreement that John and his brother Robert Kennedy found themselves increasingly isolated within their own administration. They were at war with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA over Cuba and Vietnam.
Bamford discussed documents from Operation Northwoods, a plan that called for a wave of terrorism inside the United States that falsely would be blamed on Fidel Castro and become the justification for invading Cuba.
At one point, all the Joint Chiefs had signed off on these plans. Kennedy stood alone in opposing this, and one is left wondering if that was one of the prime motives for his murder.
Professor Blakey’s hands shook slightly as he spoke to the group gathered for dinner on Saturday night. He confessed that he had trusted the CIA too much.
CIA Director Stansfield Turner showed Blakey a letter in which Turner admonished CIA people not to lie to the committee members. Blakey believed that was enough. He finds now that was not the case.
Blakey denied that his long background dealing with organized crime was the reason he chose to focus on the Mob as the conspirators in the Kennedy assassination. He said when he looked for a group that could connect both Oswald and Ruby, the choice seemed clear that the Mob fit the bill. He said if proof surfaced that Oswald had been framed, that would indicate conspirators other than the Mob, which did not have that capability.
CIA Obstacles
Blakey spoke specifically about George Joannides, a CIA psychological warfare expert and the focus of several of Jeff Morley’s articles about the case. Joannides had been in charge of the anti-Castro Cuban student organization known as the DRE.
Carlos Bringuier of the DRE fought verbally with Oswald in the streets of Miami, which led to the arrest of Oswald just weeks before the assassination, and later put Oswald on the air in a DRE-sponsored program in which Oswald said he was a Marxist.
During the House investigation, Blakey assigned two of his young law school student assistants, Edward Lopez and Dan Hardway, to the CIA. They were set up in an office at CIA and given great freedom to request documents.
The Agency was forced to comply. But when Lopez and Hardway started pressing for more of the DRE documents, Joannides, who had been brought back from retirement to oversee the investigation, went to Blakey and complained that Lopez and Hardway were too aggressive, that they were pushing too hard.
Blakey said at the time, he believed the CIA. Now he wished he had backed up Lopez and Hardway.
In addition, Blakey had originally used the Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), a method for testing metal composition in bullets, as the basis for saying that – despite the acoustical evidence of conspiracy – Oswald had fired the fatal shots. Now, in light of the exposes about the inaccuracies of NAA, Blakey called that “junk science.”
Blakey’s mea culpa met with mixed reaction from the crowd, who asked him several questions, including why he had not continued with the effort in effect to file perjury charges against senior CIA official David Atlee Phillips after he was caught red-handed lying to the Committee. (Blakey claimed not to know anything about that effort, which was in essence shut down upon his arrival.)
The crowd did applaud him, however, for being the first public official to go on record saying there was a probable conspiracy in the assassination. He based that on the acoustical evidence.
The Dictabelt
In regards to the acoustical evidence, two presenters spoke back to back on Saturday about the Dictabelt tape – a tape a motorcycle cop made inadvertently during the shooting of Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
The House assassination committee hired two different companies to evaluate the evidence and both agreed the tape showed five distinct shots. Blakely only asked the Committee to evaluate the evidence for four of the shots, one of which purportedly came from the “grassy knoll.” (Blakey did not see the point in looking at five shots when four was enough to prove conspiracy and a knoll shot.)
Richard Garwin, whose program biography did not include his work for the CIA (which he acknowledged during the Q&A), presented an opaque argument that the sounds on the Dictabelt tape came a minute too late to have been any of the shots in Dealey Plaza. Presenting charts and graphs that confused most people in the audience, and fumbling over his sound files, Garwin was not well received.
Garwin was followed by Donald Thomas, who had written an article on the acoustical evidence for the well-respected British publication Science & Justice (2001 – see http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf).
Dr. Thomas presented a stark contrast to Garwin. Thomas began by asserting that the number on the tape Garwin tested was not the number of the tape the House assassination committee tested. He also pointed out that there is a difference in recording speed and playback speed, and that Garwin’s team had applied one which made the shot sounds no longer line up with the House committee analysis.
Thomas provided slides that made clear the points he was making. One could feel the change in the room. People now felt they could follow along as Thomas lined up each sound with the motorcycle’s probable position, and then showed us pictures from the Zapruder film and others that confirmed that the motorcycle cop, Officer H.B. McLain, was indeed in those positions at those times.
Lone Assassin?
Former military intelligence analyst John Newman was the only speaker willing to speculate about a potential conspirator, based on the documentary record.
Professor Newman reviewed how CIA reports of Oswald’s trips to the Cuban and Soviet embassies was a key factor in getting President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Warren Commission members to go with the Oswald as lone assassin line.
Newman described how the reports in essence created a “World War III” virus, such that after the assassination, no one wanted to look too closely at who Oswald served, lest it touch off a nuclear war with the Soviets or the Cubans.
Newman traced how false information that helped promote this WWIII virus got into Oswald’s file and concluded that the person who controlled the file at those points was Ann Egerter, one of the six or so hand-picked operatives working in James Jesus Angleton’s CI/SIG unit – the Special Investigations Group within the larger 200-man Counterintelligence group at CIA.
Newman also pointed out how many in the Agency feared Angleton, feared for their lives if they crossed him, and suggested Egerter would not have manipulated Oswald’s file on her own, but only under express instructions from Angleton himself.
The U.S. 'Empire'
Virginia lawyer Dan Alcorn spoke of the parallels between George Washington’s farewell address, in which he warned against the danger of maintaining a standing army, and Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the Military-Industrial complex.
“I think what’s at stake is the identity of our country and what kind of country we want to be,” Alcorn said. “The world ‘empire’ has been thrown around. I can’t believe people around Washington have seriously discussed describing themselves as an empire.
“But we were not founded to be an empire. A free republic cannot be an empire. I think people have lost touch with the ethic of the country and what the country should be. [We’ve converted ourselves into] a global domination state…
“If morality doesn’t concern us, practicality should. The reason we’re a free republic is that it’s a self-sustaining system on an ethical basis. Lessons of history are that empires do not succeed.”
Kennedy’s consistent refusal to allow America to become an empire, and his desire to avoid a “pax Americana” may have been key motives for his assassination.
The topic of the Iraq War and the lies that took the nation to war was a frequent sub-theme at the conference. To many of the 135 people gathered, history is one long through line. By not confronting the lies we were given about the assassination and demanding government accountability, we essentially agreed to look the other way, empowering government to lie to us about other events.
To study the assassination is to peer into the yawning chasm between what we are told happened, and our true history. Information empowers us to take corrective action. Disinformation – or a lack of information – keeps us out of the loop, unable to make appropriate choices for oversight. Nowhere has that point been brought home more strongly than in the buildup to war in Iraq.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified one of the speakers as Don Thompson, rather than Thomas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Pease began studying the Kennedy assassination in 1992 after observing how the raw evidence from the Warren Commission’s investigation was misrepresented in the mainstream media. Some of her writings can be found in the anthology, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. Her Web site is www.realhistoryarchives.com.
Very compelling information Bill! Especially in light of the fact that "Pax Americana" seems very apropos in describing our country these day's.
-
Hi Robert,
I have had a good look at the extant images with no luck. If De Torres was there, he might have been positioned inside a building.
FWIW.
James
Thanks, That is the quickest response to a post I've ever placed.
-
Don't bother asking a veteran grunt; they don't talk "outside of class" -- and operators -- If you ever find a real one, he/she won't be a conversant one.
I am sure this is usually true. However, there are times when you do reveal a great deal. For example:
De Torres set up a lot of hits, and the problem was that they mostly favored Fidel's people. He approached me to take out Torriente for $25K, but I said that domestic work on noncombatants wasn't my line - and moreover, I questioned exactly what was, and who had, the beef against this guy ??He did NOT call Sylvia ever, and Angelo never hinted at same. Mellen alleges that the call was made behind Murgado's back. Who is the source. Not one of the compartmented guys & gals on the Odio matter have ever talked to anybody, save their "cutouts" to RFK's teams. These folks refused to discuss these matters with anybody else but me [and on a limited basis]. They didn't even want to speak with others they knew or suspected to be amongst the compartmented elements. And they dogmatically and absolutely refused to talk to talk to any reporter, writer -- even if the party was from the CIA/I.G.s office, and especially not with any CIA elements !!
Isn't this an example of you talking outside of class?
How can you be so sure that De Torres did not call back Sylvia?
I am also interested in your comment "These folks refused to discuss these matters with anybody else but me". Who are these folks? Why would they only talk to you?
I wanted to ask any and all Forum members (James Richards?) if they have made any perusal of DP Photo archives to see if anyone has looked for a photographer who "even looks like he could be de Torres 'even wearing a disguise' ." I have, without any luck. But I am beginning to wonder if this another wild goose chase. Anybody?
-
A stretch....the young man standing at the pick-up, compared with Lucien Sarti, who would not have been the one pulling the trigger behind the fence at the GKS position, IMO.
FWIW, Jack Ruby wrote some very long somewhat rambling letters while he was incarcerated. Around the time that Oliver Stone was filming the Dallas "JFK Sequences" the Assassination Center had the letters in a glass display case. Reading them was problematic at best, I have difficulty reading other peoples writing and I really can't remember a whole lot about it, it seemed to me he was writing in a veiled manner you know, kind of like when the Warren Commission came to visit him. To cut to the chase, there were several mentions of "pogroms against the Jews," apparently he seemed to be saying if the truth about the assassination were to be revealed, it would trigger violence against Jews by irate Americans, a lot of the little that has been written about these letters, suggests that he was losing it mentally. I do not profess to know. Just thought I would mention that.....Bloomfield, Weissman, Ruby, Lansky......anybody else.....Rabbi Thomas Beckham.
P.S. I listed the names as Jewish individuals who crop in the JFK saga, some well known as being "involved" others alleged. I am not suggesting a new "cast of characters."
-
John.
I can't identify the guy, but this may give a clearer view.
Robin, he is somewhere behind the startled policeman next to Oswald and the group to the left of him (our left).
This is about as sharp as I get him. There weren't all that many officials there. Someone must have some idea of who it is.
I might be able to help if you can source the image, it looks like a frozen frame from the network feed to me, but it is my understanding that you cannot freeze frame television footage. But I could be wrong on that, anyway if you can tell me what the source of the image is (name of photgrapher etc, I will try to locate his identity).
-
Please, Tim. Garrison did investigate Marcello in connection to the assassination, as documented by the internal NODA memos. This is not an action Garrison would take if he was, as you insinuate but do not state, covering for Marcello. Marcello also didn't even live in New Orleans, something people seem to forget.
Your behavior in relation to this book is very strange. When you had the pre-review copy, I didn't sense that you had any misgivings with it whatsoever. Now that its officially released, you can't stop picking at real and percieved nits.
I couldn't agree more, and by the way Tim you are not the only one who has had posts ignored on this subject (Joan Mellen's book, not your "critique" of it,) which is OK because it hasn't even been out that long and many Forum members still haven't read it; my concern is that there is an agenda behind all of the negative comments, which is to trash it so much that nobody will give the book a chance, John Simkin has been very civil regarding his comments, and I am not saying that anybody hasn't been civil, because I don't consider judging people or their intentions to be central to JFK research. I have always had a great deal of respect for the Forum and the integrity of it, which I still do. But the reaction to this book has left me wondering what the hell is going on here. I think the issue of the identity of "Angel" as far as criticism of A Farewell to Justice is a valid one, in fact I think there is a very good chance that John Simkin is right. But that doesent make the book any less credible overall, has there ever been a single book about the JFK Assassination that everyone said didn't contain a single mistake in it? .
Considering that before this book came out she had written books considered cutting edge about
the feminist movement, Japanese cinema, The Battle of Algiers, and biography's about Lillian Hellman & Dashell Hammett, Bob Knight, Marilyn Monroe etc...etc....I can't help but see the same dynamics between reaction to her book and reaction to Jim Garrison. And I sure don't feel like being her apologist. Anybody that wants to spend time bashing Joan Mellen can go right ahead, because I sure as hell won't lose any sleep over it. One thing I've learned in my lifetime, is that if you worry about what people think about you, youre setting yourself up to have a very encumbered existence, I generally have positive feelings about almost everybody on the forum, and even those whom I don't I would not wish them ill. Having said that I don't care what anybody thinks, especially in relation to a book that dared to challenge the status quo in regards to items such as confirming the fact that Oswald was working as an intelligence operative, and that there was definitely conspiritorial designs on Kennedy emanting from the CIA's Dept. of Clandestine Services.
But practically nobody has mentioned that, except in a very generalized way.
The Mob Did it Issue - I hope if no-one pays any atttention to this post they at least read this, because you will LEARN SOMETHING UNDENIABLE. After 43 years of intense research by many, many people some good, some great, some not so great, some gosh-awful. There is a dynamic that has arisen, and that is with some eight different angles to "who killed Kennedy" (God, I can't believe this) LBJ, The Mafia, the Military Industrial Complex, The Cuban's, Right-Wing Extremists, Big-Oil and the FBI or the CIA. The research into the assassination has reached a stage where it has almost become (pardon the analogy) "The JFK Assassination by Numbers Game" take your favorite 'theory/agenda/propoganda' and fit the 'pieces/facts/circumstances' in the 'light/context' most to your liking and Voilla! You have completed your very own "JFK Assassination Snapshot," suitable for framing. I think a large, large percentage of the books research on this subject is sincere, well intentioned and quite good, BUT there are a few books that have been written with no other purpose than to confuse, obfuscate and decieve people, yea the Very thing that people are accusing Joan Mellen of. Give me a break.
The one thing that really irritates me is the "footnote issue." For Pete's sake, that whole subject has been approached by a lot of people who have commented on it as:
A deliberate effort on Joan Mellen's part, to cover up crappy research, or deliberate effort to obfuscate issues central to the assassination; One local Einstein mentioned "she had trouble finding a publisher," Gee if that's true maybe "somebody" decided to wreak havoc with her book at a critical juncture between "the publisher having the final product and the actual printing of the book," But God forbid anybody suggest such a punch in the gut "in that direction." Recently their has been so many comments about the "ludicrousness of the CIA's having been involved in the JFK assassination" and "Jim Garrison protecting Carlos Marcello" that it makes me want to puke. Anybody want to contact G. Robert Blakey and see if they can collaborate on the definitive "Mob Killed JFK Classic," maybe you can get Gerald Posner to write the introduction.
Draw your own conclusions.
-
Thomas,
My next trip to Dallas will consist of my taking many photos in the area of the Tippit killing [especially of the driveway and area behind the house and driveway there], and requesting access to the old Abundant Life Temple basement. Even if a bribe is required, I want to see the basement, where it seems very likely that Tippit's killer hid out until it was 'discovered' that the 'real' killer was in the theatre [The Abundant Life moved since then, but I believe the building remains].
One wonders about how much radio communication went on back then. There is the Mathers / Tippit / Collins connection. And Vaganov was also in Oak Cliff - with no alibi until 1:00pm. Maybe they were panicking when the DPD were swooping down on the Abundant Life Building, but the fact is, based upon the dictabelt transcripts, it does not appear that there would have been time to perform the search.
Austin was a Bircher. There was that letter to Garrison which alleged that Tippit was a homosexual. Olsen was in Oak Cliff and guarding an estate. Hicks was also off duty, as was Tilson - yet some 200 cops had to be obtained to provide additional support for the President's visit? I believe that I read that Tippit's partner was also requested by Tippit to call in sick [no reference]. Bizarre.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscalojt.htm
- lee
I will be in the area today — or, if not today, then next week — and I'll take a few photos for you.
The Abundant Life Temple (ALT) was at or near the corner of 10th and Crawford, one block west of the Tippit scene. While it could easily have been reached by the shooter — who was last seen going behind the Texaco station at the corner of Jefferson and Crawford, i.e., back in the direction of ALT — I think it more likely that he was picked up in a car somewhere along Crawford rather than having ducked inside.
Still, being inside is a possibility given the perfunctory "search" of the premises: one cop merely asking the women inside if they'd seen anyone come inside and, being told they had not, he simply went back outside, where he stood, leaning against a police cruiser, chatting with another officer. There was, then, apparently plenty of time to search the place, contrary to whatever leads you to believe that there might not have been.
I wish I could remember where I'd seen some fairly good low-level aerials of the area that showed where the ALT, the abandoned houses that were searched, and several other points of interest were located. As for the immediate area of the shooting, as you will see in the photos I'll be taking, it has changed considerably and is now undergoing some much-needed rehabilitation, with new garden homes being constructed, including one at the site of the rooming house in front of which Tippit was killed (the first two homes in from the corner — the Davis sisters-in-law's and the next one in — have been demolished and are now just vacant lots. There are no driveways to speak of for them, as I best recall at the moment). Scoggins' "gentlemen's [or dominoes] club" is now an auto repair garage. The alleyway still exists, however.
There are generally no basements in Texas, in homes or otherwise, but if possible, I'll check to see if this particular building (the ALT) has one.
Duke,
That would be greatly appreciated. I did some aerials myself using Google Earth. There was too much foliage, and the image deteriorated when I drilled down too far. I probably still have them - if you'd like I'll email them to you.
Thanks for the update on the area. A shame that it wasn't properly documented previously - or if it was, perhaps someone has a reference? The houses, the alleys, the Abundant Life Building?
Sounds like the cops thought it had a basement.Send squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check out this church basement.- lee
Although, I have never read the book, Dale Myers "With Malice" mentions that (I believe it was a Dallas Police Officer, although it may have been the kid they thought was the Tippit murderer) someone at the ABT identified himself as a Secret Service officer there, which I thought was very, very strange. But who knows since the recollections (I thought) were decades after the fact. Just a FYI.
A word of warning, Tenth and Patton is not very picturesque these day's looks awful and run down. The Top Ten Record Store? I don't know if its still there, probably a Hispanic record shop, is my guess. The Abundant Life Temple or at least the building itself, I am sure is still there, you should try to see 3126 Harlandale a few miles South of Illinois exit on HWY 67-S. Make sure you have a can of mace, it is a creepy area, and I grew up around there. It was a lot different in the 1960's
-
Stockholm:
Stephen, I was sleeping, just shy of 5 years old. I remember feeling a sense that Kennedy was a good man. At some time the following day, I remember seeing the news reports. Mostly I remember seeing people crying in Dealey Plaza and at the Hospital. Later, I remember the furneral.
When the WC report came out, my education in what some of the amazing things bullets can do was under way. I studied the diagrams and reacted with 'doesn't make sense' followed by 'well, if they say so...'. RFK, and MLK followed. I retained a diminishing hope until Chappaquiddic, when that hope went, and with it the interest. The sense that the US may have something to offer the world in spite of Vietnam and Civil Unrights faded quickly.
Some of that hope and interest was rekindled after buying a DVD of JFK and seeing some of that footage again, this time with an explanation that made some sense.
I realised that reason as well as Kennedy had been assassinated, but that truth and hope, in time, has a way of percolating to the surface. This forum and some of the participatory posting irrespective of where on the political spectrum the posters may be, goes a long way towards restoring that faith.
My recollection of the Kennedy assassination is a little unique in the sense that I am a lifelong Dallas resident, and like John Dolva I was 5 years old when Pres. Kennedy died, I don't remember the exact moment or even anything close. I sort of remember being at Kindergarten and being picked up early and thats about it, what is strange is that I remember all of my folks being together over that weekend, and watching the TV alot, and not being able to fathom exactly what was going on, except that this was some very serious type of event. Ironically, I remember being in the room when Ruby shot Oswald on national TV, I have always been extremely fascinated by the assassination from a very early age and have no doubt that "that weekend" was a profound influence conciously and even subconciously.
-
Castro has been ranting internationally for months about the Posada case (specifically about Posada being protected by the Bush regime, lest he be tortured somewhere, which as everyone knows the U.S. government does not allow).A federal law-enforcement source said it was a ''pure coincidence'' that Alvarez's arrest occurred the day after a Cuba-based group ran a full-page ad in The New York Times denouncing Posada. The official said the timing of Alvarez's arrest had nothing to do with Castro or any pressure he was trying to exert on the U.S. government.
Remarkable that at the same time the U.S. debates the legitimacy of torture, a new low in the country's history, protecting Luis Posada Carriles from his victims is such a priority. The dichotomy of being such bleeding hearts for this bloodthirsty terrorist while advocating the U.S.' own use of torture against terrorists, is the height of international relations hypocracy. Arresting Alvarez is hardly going to satisfy those who desire justice for Carriles - including me.
T.C.
Tell me about it, the Carriles item was the last straw as far as the Bush administration goes, in fact it wasn't until last fall that I fell "out of the mainstream, of people who were giving Dubya the benefit of the doubt. It's like he said awhile back "Fool me once shame on you, it fool me, wont get fooled again." I believe he has a personal eleventh commandment, Thou shalt not admit thy can make a mistake.
-
Bernice,
Thanks for the link to the Marrs passage.
I now find that the Kennedy Act is more generally referred to as the Revenue Act of 1962, a title by which info on the act is easily located. In fact, in searching I stumbled across a great search tool that I didn’t know about: Google Book Search. Using it, I quickly found this book page on the act in question:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=2IZ...9msloRURWAXOXSU
Google Book Search is at:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en
Ron
Certainly it is bad enough that the Jews have been blamed for the death of Jesus.
By implication this JFK Motreal site, with no evidence whatsoever, would have us believe that Bronfman killed JFK for economic gain.
Tsk, Tsk!!
For Goodness Sakes Tim,
Who taught you how to form sentences, Cagliostro?
Anonymous "Right-Wing Oilmen" in meetings with conspirators is as much a fixture in the JFK saga, as really crappy movies is as part of "Mystery Science Theatre." Who are you kidding?
To respond to Ron Ecker's logical inquiry and well submitted responsitory by the esteemed Bernice Moore, I would point out that there is another current post on the Forum ie Dorothy Kilgallen posted by the lovely and talented Lynnette (Call Me) "Squeaky" Fromme er, ah I mean Lynne Foster which I have carefully posted.
"Regardless, it is a fact that when Dorothy returned to New York, she told friends that she had discovered that Ruby and the slain Officer J.D. Tippit had been friends. They had been seen together in Ruby's Carousel Club at a meeting 2 weeks before the assassination in the company of Bernard Weissman, who had placed the "JFK-Wanted for Treason" newspaper ad in Dallas newspapers on November 22nd, 1963. Studying the Warren Commission Report, Killgallen deduced that the meeting had also been reported to Chief Justice Warren AND that the identity of "the fourth man",which she had been unable to ascertain, had been reported to Warren as "a rich Texas oil man", as Earl Warren described him in the official transcript."
-
The DEATH of DOROTHY KILGALLEN
A Key Chapter from "Justice For JFK"
by Robert D. Morningstar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the early victims of the JFK conspiracy of silence, better yet "silencing" in the
aftermath of JFK'S murder, was the noted reporter, columnist and television celebrity, Dorothy Kilgallen. I had watched her for years on "What's My Line?", not realizing that she had any involvement with the JFK story. Years later, I learned that she had broken the convention of silence in the press and written openly in her column about discrepancies in the official story. Suddenly she was dead.
On November 8, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, was found dead in her apartment shortly after returning from Dallas where she had interviewed Jack Ruby and had conducted her own investigation of the JFK murder during several trips to cover the Ruby trial.
She had revealed secret transcripts of Ruby's testimony in her column. Kilgallen had met with Ruby. She had learned of a meeting three weeks before the assassination at Ruby's "Carousel", the Dallas underworld's merry-go-round where the "Big D" mobsters wheeled around.
Present at the meeting were Ruby, Officer J.D. Tippit, Bernard Weismann and, she would later learn, a fourth party.
Lee Israel, author of "Kilgallen", reports that that Ruby, himself a TV fan of Dorothy Kilgallen, had taken a liking to her during the trial. According to Israel, he respected her more than any other reporter. She had gained his confidence and had several conversations with him in the courtroom. She was given a five minute session alone with Ruby. Some writers have stretched this to a half-hour, others deny it.
Regardless, it is a fact that when Dorothy returned to New York, she told friends that she had discovered that Ruby and the slain Officer J.D. Tippit had been friends. They had been seen together in Ruby's Carousel Club at a meeting 2 weeks before the assassination in the company of Bernard Weissman, who had placed the "JFK-Wanted for Treason" newspaper ad in Dallas newspapers on November 22nd, 1963. Studying the Warren Commission Report, Killgallen deduced that the meeting had also been reported to Chief Justice Warren AND that the identity of "the fourth man",which she had been unable to ascertain, had been reported to Warren as "a rich Texas oil man", as Earl Warren described him in the official transcript.
She told Israel that she had discovered something that was going to break the whole JFK assassination mystery wide open. She told the same story to her next door neighbor, her hairdresser, her agent, her publisher, and the producer and host of "Nightlife".
Kilgallen had told Israel about a very mysterious and sinister player in the JFK assassination to whom she gave the code name "ferret man". From the description of the individual, it is clear that "ferret man" was none other than David Ferrie, another known associate of Jack Ruby involved in gun running, the Marcello mob and other anti-Castro operations from Florida to Texas. At one time, Ruby and Ferrie were co-owners of an airplane.
Nightlife's producer, Nick Vanoff, pleaded with her not to broach the subject on the air. She had arrived at the studio with a folder full of pertinent and explosive notes documents. She kept the folder closed throughout the interview. Vanoff, asked her agent, Bob Bach, to send her "a dozen long-stemmed roses."
On Sunday November 8, Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead, sitting fully dressed, upright in bed, early in the morning. The New York City Police investigated and the coroner found that Dorothy Kilgallen had died from ingestion of a lethal combination of alchohol and barbituates. All her notes and the article on which she had been working to "blow the JFK assassination wide open" also disappeared.
It may or may not come as a shock to you, but a great deal of the members of this Forum, are in agreement that Dorothy Kilgallen was "onto something significant," the trouble is, as your post reveals, is that the notes that she had that were "going to break the case wide open" not so mysteriously (in light of events of the last four decades) disappeared. One is therefore left to examine what little info can be gleaned from the public record of her statements (which you have done) and her background and especially her death on Nov. 8th, 1965.
If there is a Rosetta Stone to the Dorothy Kilgallen case, in my opinion (since the notes were probably burnt or shredded immediately (just an educated guess, they sure as hell haven't appeared on the Internet or any books) it is the notes of the Ruby interview; I have seen one article mention the interview with Jack Ruby as being 8 mins. long courtesy of Judge Joe Brown, unfortunately it is said there were no other parties present.
John Simkin has written a very well researched piece on the Forum concerning Dorothy Kilgallen and the JFK Assassination
See
-
Now Gerry, did you not, by your own admission, travel to New Orleans and feed Garrison a crock?
Chairs to you sir.
Matt
And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be.I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh!
Tim Carroll
________________________________________________________________________________
_________
-----------------------------------------
"MY ! MY ! SO I BEAT OUT SOME LAW PROFESSOR ON "HABEAS CORPUS" !! MY ! MY !!
CHAIRS,
GPH
______________________________
OpEdNews.com
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_th...beas_corpus.htm
November 15, 2005
Losing Habeas Corpus - "A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government"
About a year ago, an op-ed article on Al Jazeerah's website by Fawaz Turki titled "For Bush, A Hot Line To Churchill" opened by noting that Tony Blair had given George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill, which sits in Bush's Oval Office. Turki then quotes Churchill:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.
And last week, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops."
But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example.
This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)
Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).
The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.
The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day.
Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws, as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.
Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:
"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts.
Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime.
King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."
This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats.
But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, [are] there to undergo and receive [only] as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679."
Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament.
The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island).
Now, Congress is moving to similarly detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island. Except these people are not Napoleon Bonapartes. As The The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place."
It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes.
The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84:
"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.
The observations of the judicious [british 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of
arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]
The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded.
Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process.
"I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough.
But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth."
The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.
"The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies.
A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?"
The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence.
"Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence.
Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer.
Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile.
"Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit."
The question for our day is who will speak up against Stalinist policies in America? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers? And why is our press doing such a pathetic job that in all probability 95 percent of Americans don't even know that the U.S. Senate voted last week to begin the process of suspending habeas corpus?
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8:
"The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free."
We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded.
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the
Air America Radio network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK" co-authored by Lamar Waldron.
---------------------------------------------
BACK TO THE BOOKS "KID ??"
__________________________________
---------------------------------
OH DARN !! I forgot that the "Village Idiot" has me running around "promoting myself" into the "JFK" Matter.
NOT that other assholes came out of the blue [or some anal orifice] to suck me into this mess -- and starting with "Queen" Hoover [tough xxxx if that offends you Faireys out there !!] and continued by "Big Jimbo/Gumbo" Garrison in his phony quest to protect his "Rabbi" [Marcello] by fingering the "No Name Key Bunch" and the Miami Cubans in general. But of course -- he left out the DGI spies inside JM/WAVE -- because he didn't know "squat" about the Miami CIA Base nor its cryptonym.
-------------------------------------
"....In one of Hunt's libel suits, one Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony that Lee Harvey
Oswald, American mercenaries Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and
Cuban exiles including Orlando Bosch, Pedro Diaz Lanz, and the brothers
Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, had met one November midnight in 1963 at
the Miami home of Orlando Bosch and had studied Dallas street maps. She also
swore that she and Sturgis were at that time in the employ of the CIA and
that they received payment from Howard Hunt under the name "Eduardo," an a
lias which Hunt is known to have used in his dealings with Cuban exiles.
After studying the maps, she and the men departed for Dallas in two cars,
taking a load of handguns, rifles, and scopes in the follow-up car. They
arrived in Dallas on 21 November 1963, and stayed at a motel, where the group
met Howard Hunt. Hunt stayed for about forty-five minutes and at one point
handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis. About an hour after Hunt left, Jack
Ruby came to the door. Lorenz says that this was the first time she had seen
Ruby. By this time, she said, it was early evening. In her testimony, Lorenz
identified herself and her fellow passengers as members of Operation Forty,
the CIA-directed assassination team formed in 1960 in preparation for the Bay
of Pigs invasion. She described her role as that of a "decoy." The group
blamed Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and conspired to kill him,
she said. Knowing that something more sinister than gun-running was involved,
she left the group about two hours after Ruby's visit and returned to Miami.
Sturgis, she said, later told her that she had missed out on the group's
killing of Kennedy (Lane 1991)...." !!
------------------------------------------
CHAIRS -- O' GULLIBLE ONES !!
GPH
____________________________
Being a "student of history" I found the article on "Habeas Corpus" and said "suspension/destruction" of same by our "Fearless Leader" to be a masterwork of profundity. I personally wish that whatever remmants of democratic aspirations left in this country would use whatever clout they have left to publish it on the front page of every major (and not so major) newspaper in the US of A; maybe it would slap the hell out of the thought processes of the Bush cheerleaders that are so inebriated with hero worship that they are too busy (or just too plain stupid) to see the steady erosion of constitutional law in our country. I find it fascinating that there are so many people on the right who are so enamored with quoting/using the founding fathers to seemingly rationalize their "God is on our side" agenda. But I digress.
(If you are not one of the "cheering throngs" immersed in the "War on Terror" you could even pursue the matter further and read the comments of "Rabbi (Eric Yoffie): 'Right's anti-gay policies akin to Hitler's' ".
(note: You don't have to be pro-sodomy or "anti-family values" to objectively research whether his comments are factual or a flight of fantasy, and being somewhat knowlegeable about history before Nov. 22, 1963) I can assure you he is not mistaken.
I just thought I might throw this out there for whatever its worth, the "revelations" of Marita Lorenz (which can be read verbatim if one has an inkling to do so) were great "headline news" for the newspapers during the halycon days of the HSCA, but were outright dismissed in most circles when it came down to the fact that while Ms. Lorenz asserted in her testimony that Ozzie was in the caravan, the real "Lee Harvey Oswald" was in Dallas while this alleged "caravan" was driving from Miami to Dallas (At least that the official story). The passing of time has only served to further cement that perception even more, with maybe the exception of John Armstrong, and I don't say that sarcastically. The irony of it all is that if memory serves me correctly, there were "a couple" of Lee "Leon" Harvey Oswald impersonations taking place at various locales during said time frame, while I don't subscribe to the "Two Oswalds" theory to the degree that Armstrong does, I believe that he definitely has something to contribute to credible research, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about read some of his stuff on the Internet.
So, the point is if you throw out Lee Harvey Oswald and replace him in the caravan with, I don't know William Seymour? The idea doesent seem so "readibly dismissable" I mean it was alleged that Sturgis wasn't exactly cheerful when he heard about Marita's testimony or maybe I have a case of that "faulty memory" that seems so epidemic in Wash-ing-ton these days.
End note: I think JFK researchers fall into a trap with the "Oswald impersonations" issue thinking that the "imersonator has to be a "clone" of the impersonatee, while at the time in the circumstances demanded a "similar resemblance" would have "got the job done." Remember these guy's thought (rightfully it seems) that whatever "investigation" took place would be shallow and "for public consumption." What did Milteer tell Somersett before 11/22/63? "They will pick up somebody within hours afterward....just to throw the public off..." Before Ruby Shot Oswald on Nov. 24, after he had come back from Dallas, he told Somersett at breakfast the same day "They did not have to worry about Oswald he doesent know anything."
Milteer also predicted the MLK hit in advance.
BTW Funny thing about that "disappearing FBI teletype" that Somersett's tip off to the Miami Police (seems he was afraid and distrusted the Miami FBI (even though he had been informing for them for 13 years!) was read by all SAC's (and even William Walter in N.O.) rumor has it they found 96 copies of the airtel in Hoover's personal effects.
CIAO
-
To Mark:
Your last line simply made your post!!!
I find this thread to be rather peculiar inasmuch as it is rather out of the context of the subject matter JFK Assassination, but personally would like to examine your contention more closely, can you post a edited (just the exchange between Ronald and RFK) or even unedited transcript of the debate on this thread. Inquiring minds want to know). Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mia Maxima Culpa.
-
Thank you, Bill. Any idea why he knew what he did?
You know, I've been trying to think of where I first got that information.
Maybe Marrs' book.
I remember being mad that it didn't have an index, so that narrows it down a bit.
My books were packed away last year and I drove them in a truck to John Judge's archives in DC, so now I can only use them when I'm there, and only have a half-dozen books to work with where I'm at.
As for Mr. Z., I think he was an oil man, there was a mention of being from Chicago and hooked up with the mob. There's also that Cuban connection to Oklahoma, where a car load of Cubans stop for gas.
Cold case files must be routinely reviewed every few years, so it shouldn't be difficult to get the info from the relevant police department's homicide squad.
B. Kelly
Bill, I found this on the internet which may refresh your memory
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/dead_ke...s/jfknowit.html
Also, I have a copy of Crossfire and after a quick look through all I found about Zangretti was his name and a short blurb about Zangretti in the Mysterious Deaths section. The index of Crossfire didn't list his name.
"Jack Zangretti* Expressed foreknowledge of Gunshot victim Ruby shooting Oswald 2/64 page 574"
The above was all that I found.
Jack Zangretti doesen't seem to be mentioned much in Assassination lore, this was all she wrote on namebase.org.
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Zangretti%2C+Jack+
FYI Lou Staples who is also mentioned under mysterious deaths in Crossfire, also died in Oklahoma.
Zangretti died at Lake Altus-Lugert which is around the North fork of the Red River, which is around the county border between Greer and Kiowa Counties.
Staples body was found in or around Yukon, OK which is appx. 30-60? miles West of Oklahoma City, I believe. Could there possibly? be a connection to their deaths?
Also, at the risk of being mistaken wasn't there a Oklahoma connection to the John Liggett embalmer story on one of the later Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD's? I remember that he seemed to live in Dallas with Lois but I watched the episode last year around this time, and I thought there was some type of Oklahoma connection, I could be wrong. See Link
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers....php/t3486.html
I suppose the most compelling item to me is the foreknowlege aspect of Zangretti's info about Oswald/Ruby and Sinatra Jr.
Also
http://www.sinatraarchive.com/tis/cold1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sinatra
If you have some time somewhere on the Forum, is a thread about Marilyn Monroe's death and an allegation that Sinatra and a mob figure beat and raped her a week or two prior to her death. I don't know where it is off the top of my head. I found it late one night when I was searching the Net about Dorothy Kilgallen.
BTW Who were the kidnappers who were arrested and convicted? The Sinatra Jr. kidnapping is something I am afraid I am not very familiar with. Why do I doubt they are still alive?
-
In a different thread Owen responded to the questions I raised in Post #36 thusly:
While the confirmation of the trip to Dallas doesn't necessarily confirm the loan's existence, it is very supportive of it, since the loan story presupposes the Dallas trip. It isn't simply a matter of Clay Shaw co-signing the loan when he could have given Ferrie the money directly. Ferrie brought the loan to Herb Wagner, Wagner thought it a bit dubious and asked Ferrie to get someone to co-sign it. Ferrie brings in Clay Shaw, a highly respected citizen of New Orleans, to sign it. This could easily be a matter of pride on Ferrie's part.
As to why Shaw would implicate himself in this manner, I would chalk this up to arrogance. It was probably assumed that the lone assassin story would stick and no serious attention would be payed to this incident, which could, after all, be merely coincidental. Shaw twice implicated himself in two other documents, the VIP book and the booking card, neither of which are "phantom documents," as Lambert terms the loan.
I would also note that there is no real reason to fabricate a story (and document) like this. Wagner did not inform Garrison of this, so the intent was obviously not to frame Shaw. The man who relates Wagner's story and viewed the document, Roger Johnston, a deputy police marshall, is obviously a credible source and has no motive to make up a story like this, that I can see. Nor is the loan "essential" for Mellen to connect Ferrie and Shaw with. This would be quite well established in the book without the loan.
Owen, respectfully, your response makes as little sense as the supposed incident as related in the book.
Why would the master-mind, whomever that was, instruct Ferrie to rent a plane but fail to provide any funds for the rental fee?
You say Ferrie took a loan paper to Shaw to sign "out of pride". What does this mean? And why would Shaw link himself to Ferrie and to the plane to be used in an assassination-trip to Dallas out of "arrogance"? Whoever the plotters were, they were clever sons-of-bitches (sorry but the term does fit) who did not take stupid chances. Clearly, they framed a patsy. Arguably, they laid trails to false sponsors and planted disinformation. They did not take reckless chances.
There are many reasons why a witness may make up a story. The fact that one cannot identify such a reason does not make the story true or credible when it is incredible on its face. You state that Wagner did not inform Garrison of this incident so it was not done to frame Shaw. But the fact that Wagner did not come forward to Garrison with his story suggests rather strongly it is false. If true, why would Wagner not report it to the authorities?
You state that this loan story is not essential to Mellen's efforts to connect Shaw to Ferrie and Oswald. Of course I agree and that is precisely my point: that Professor Mellen lowered the credibility of her book by including numerous stories that are manifestly preposterous.
Tim, You bring up valid points that should and will be explored because of the obvious implications the book has for posterity and the fact that the "footnotes" issue is of vital interest to all of us who "want the truth." Having said that it behooves me to mention for the record to people with "inquiring minds" who are sorting through this mess, and will be reading material on this thread, that you as our guide in search of the truth is a little disconcerting, the respected moderator of this forum has implied if not stated many, many times, your own "ideological motivation" has been called into question more than once or twice if memory serves correctly (see Tim Gratz Right Wing Extremist, Young Americans for Freedom etc) Using Patricia Lambert to impugn Joan Mellen may seem normal to people without a clue, but not in the "real world" I have seen elements of this thread that are questionable, such as pointing out the "dubious character" of "central figures" to "said conspiracy," a modus operandi that Gerald Posner turned into an art form, if Joan Mellen screwed up bigtime, it will all come out in the wash anyway, and probably even if she didn't. In the meantime "Keep it Real."
-
I think the memo proves a great deal , are you aware of any Kennedy assassination books that discuss or contain this memo?
With regards to the "ad infinitum" "your'e either with me or the terrorists" comments by our new self-annointed Forum administrator, there is only one thing that comes to mind, "what do you expect from a pig except a grunt."
-
I stumbled across this website, while I was perusing a linked site called latinamericanstudies.org (which BTW has some interesting articles on Antonio Veciana and Lee Harvey Oswald, among others)
Note: Those who are easily offended by posts offering viewpoints which may not agree with their own are discouraged from reading.
See the Links
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba.htm
www.latinamericanstudies.org/ belligerence/veciana-oswald.htm
www.latinamericanstudies.org/veciana.htm
http://www.killcastro.com/blog/
Note: Posting the above links is not an endorsement of the views of material contained therein.
-
Pat I am certain you are correct about why Hoover objected to the Huston plan.
Good post.
Carter should build you a vacation home as well.
I stand corrected, Tim. Thanks for clarifying that.
-
He was not as helpful as he could have been.
Clearly the CIA wanted to hide its involvement in plots to kill Castro.
If indeed as many think LHO was a CIA agent, I doubt that Helms wanted the WC to discover that either.
Helms famous response to why he failed to reveal an obviously salient fact to the WC was that he was never specifically asked.
John, I assume you are aware that the Church Committee Report has a complete section on the degree of co-operation (or lack thereof) between the CIA and the WC.
I wanted to float a question, that pertains both to Watergate and the JFK Assassination. In the Watergate affair, I am under the impression (from what little I know) that at some point (1969) Nixon attempted to obtain a perusal of any and all documents the CIA had on the Bay of Pig's only to be rebuffed by the then-Director himself, Richard Helms; as far as I know, Nixon was not successful in his efforts.
I have a theory that the reason Nixon was desperate to view this material was to see if there was any information in it that he could use to obtain political leverage over the Agency and/or Helms, and to see what type of paper trail was left in the wake of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Helms, I understand (according to "The CIA - A Photographic History) was DCI from 6/30/66 to 2/3/73. Helms and Nixon were both already ostensibly involved in "illegal activities" since the implementation of the "Huston Plan" violated the CIA's prohibition of "domestic activity" and was "Nixon's baby," so to speak. After Watergate, political leverage over the CIA might have been the difference between continuing in office and resigning in disgrace, as of course he eventually would.
DCI Helms, helping Nixon use the CIA as a buffer to the Watergate Investigation, citing "national security concerns" as an excuse to withhold portions of the infamous tapes, etc.. The premise may seem far-fetched inlight of the fact that this would have been some 2 or 3 years before Watergate, but with Operation Huston, Nixon and Helms were already in deep waters, as far as political skullduggery is concerned.
My reason for bringing this up is in response to information in Joan Mellen's Farewell to Justice which asserts that Helms and Angleton were conspirators in the JFK Assassination. The theory, about Nixon's wanting to view BOP Doc's may seem inconsequential or even unoriginal, but if I am right, it would perhaps explain the Dallas-Watergate "connection" beyond the "Plumbers" and onto another level.
-
By all means, hold out hope that Gerry may actually reveal something of significance. But if an when that happens, dollars to donuts, it'll be unintentional.
This, in particular, is why I usually read these posts with interest(and suspicion). You never know what may inadvertantly come out.
Gerry posted this comment 8/27/05:
"The day of the JFK assassination, Jim Lewis was [as usual] playing Chess at "Little Joe's" apartment by the Miami River -- together with Eddy Collins, "Skinny", Dick Whatley, Bobby Willis, and Bill Dempsey. When Garman started dancing in the street soon after hearing the news from Dallas, Jim chastized him severely [along with Cuban pissed-off neighbors]; He reminded him that just four days before he had been a member of our security detail for JFK at MIA [Monday, 18th Nov.], and that he had been prepared to "take-a-bullet" for the President !!"
Anyone else think it odd that Garman would "dance in the street" after hearing of JFK's demise, yet was "prepared to take a bullet" for him 4 days earlier?
I wouldn't dismiss EVERYTHING GHP has to say.
RJS
--------------------------
Richard J:
Has "anybody" ever read a posting by "The Village Idiot" -- you know, one which might be construed as "Intentional" and "something of SIGNIFICANCE ??!!
Try as I might, I haven't found anything submitted by this nagging gadfly heckling xxxxx -- mayhaps one of the more "studious" members might discover same and re-post something ??
During the briefing for the MIA security detail [11/17/63] -- the day before JFK's scheduled arrival [Monday, 18th November 1963] the following individuals were in attendance:
Bernardo de Torres
"Nick" Navarro -- then with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (Chas. Siragusa unit] and later Sheriff of Broward County, Forida -- and a childhood friend of Felix Rodriguez, who, along with CIA agent Gustavo Villoldo, aided in training the Bolivian Rangers [w/ Green Beret Major "Pappy" Shelton, 8th SFGrp - Panama Canal Zone] and whom together, hunted down and murdered Cmdte. Ernest "Che" Guevara de la Serna, a true warrior who never told a lie in his life !!
Special Agent Ernesto Aragon, U.S. Secret Service, and whose reports are to be found in the Warren Commission Documents.
Special Agent-in-Charge Gene Michaels, Head of the Miami Office of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who two months later [at the beginning of the WC] was framed by a drug sting, and sent to the Federal Medical Facilty, Springfield, MO.
Gerald P. "Gerry Patrick" Hemming, Jr. [interPen]
Howard K. "Davy" Davis [interPen]
Detective Sgt. Anthony "Tony" Fontana [City of Miami Police Dept.] and one of the cops who identified the corpse of Eladio "Gito" Del Valle[1967]. I was permitted to verify the I.D. of "Gito" only after insisting that the N.O. D.A., "Jim" Garrison had a severe interest in the deceased !! Upon retirement, Fontana served regularly as Chairman of the Florida Parole Commission through the 1980s.
Deputy Sheriff Lloyd Hough [Dade County Sheriff's Dept. -- under the then Sheriff & Brig. Gen. Tom Kelly] who during the mid-1970s attempted to thwart our investigation of the World Finance Corp.!! WFC was founded by Hernandez Cartaya -- while he was busy founding BCCI type banks in the United Arab Emirates -- and was subsequently charged with absconding with almost $100 million+.
Hough was later laterally transfer to the Dade Co. Fire Dept. while under a cloud of corruption linked to a Cuban County Commissioner. Hough, during the 1990s, and by then in charge of Fire Service Internal Affairs, blackballed my son Felipe from being hired by said Dept.!! And this, despite already serving some 14 years as a professional Firefighter/EMT. And this despite the fact that Felipe Vidal Santiago Hemming had risen to #9 on a list of 300+ accepted applicants. [Only #9 -- due to the fact that extra points were given to the top 8 for lateral transfer from other NON-fire fighting Dade jobs. Otherwise, and with military service points, he would have ranked #1 !!
And others present unknown to either of us, but recognized as JM/WAVE CIA Officers. That is: save for CIA Officer David Morales, who having had words with me after the BOP; spent his time glaring in my direction !!
Suspicious that we were NOT invited to a "face-time" roll-call the next morning -- where all uniformed and plain-clothes officers posted at MIA, would know our faces. And that, coupled with a failure to issue special S.S. "buttonaires" -- convinced us that we would instruct our team to go "unarmed" the next day at MIA.
However, Interpen Instructor, Justin Joseph "Steve" Wilson informed me -- as Air Force One taxied toward us on the tarmac; that "Little Joe" Cavendish Garman had disobeyed our orders. And that he was armed with his Colt .45 Automatic Pistol. I thereupon approached "Lil' Joe" -- informed him to casually glance to his right rear, at the "suit" wearing sunglasses. He casually did, and said: "So...who is that weirdo..??" I responded: ".. That is the guy who is going to blow the back of your head off if you draw your pistol in defense of ["Lancer"] POTUS..!!
Later that evening, Little Joe remarked at the curiousity that he, and many others had been invited to Dallas later that week to meet the "Money People" !! He refused the invitation.
The evening of November 22nd 1963, Joe C. Garman was rebuffed by James Arthur Lewis for "dancing-in-the-streets"!!
While talking to Joe during 1994 [by telephone], after not havingspoken to him since 1967 -- I commenced to remind him of some of the humorous incidents which had occurred during the 1960s. I very cautiously asked him whether he remembered having ever seen "JFK in person" ??
His reponse was: "..You getting senile Patrick ??...of course...it was at the Miami Airport a few days before he got hisself kilt..!! "...Don't you remember giving me a hard time for packing my Colt to the Airport..??
I reminded him of the "suit" having stood behind him. He responded that: "..Had I the intentions...He would have been taken down first...and the only reason I didn't shoot that son-of-a-bitch Kennedy...was because he was still my COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF" !!"
Later,
GPH
__________________________
So, who were the Money People?
-
I think this document explains why Marina Oswald told the FBI what they wanted to hear.
Telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (1.40 pm, 29th November, 1963)
Lyndon B. Johnson: How many shots were fired? Three?
J. Edgar Hoover: Three.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Any of them fired at me?
J. Edgar Hoover: No.
Lyndon B. Johnson: All three at the President?
J. Edgar Hoover: All three at the president and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun. The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor the third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Were they aiming at the President?
J. Edgar Hoover: They were aiming directly at the President. There is no question about that. This telescopic lens, which I've looked through-it brings a person as close to you as if they were sitting right beside you. And we also have tested the fact that you could fire those three shots... within three seconds. There had been some stories going around... that there must have been more than one man because no one man could fire those shots in the time that they were fired...
Lyndon B. Johnson: How did it happen they hit Connally?
J. Edgar Hoover: Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and I think in that turning, it was where he got hit.
Lyndon B. Johnson: If he hadn't turned, he probably wouldn't have got hit?
J. Edgar Hoover: I think that is very likely.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Would the President've got hit with the second one?
J. Edgar Hoover: No, the President wasn't hit with the second one.
Lyndon B. Johnson: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way?
J. Edgar Hoover: Oh, yes, yes, the President would no doubt have been hit.
Lyndon B. Johnson: He would have been hit three times.
J. Edgar Hoover: He would have been hit three times from the fifth floor of that building where we found the gun and the wrapping paper in which the gun was wrapped... and upon which we found the full fingerprints of this man Oswald. On that floor we found the three empty shells that had been fired and one shell that had not been fired... He then threw the gun aside and came down. At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by a police officer and some manager in the building told the police officer, "Well, he's all right. He works there. You needn't hold him." They let him go... And then he got on a bus... He went out to his home and got ahold of a jacket.... and he came back downtown... and the police officer who was killed stopped him, not knowing'who he was and not knowing whether he was the man, but just on suspicion. And he fired, of course, and killed the police officer. Then he walked.
Lyndon B. Johnson: You can prove that?
J. Edgar Hoover: Oh, yes, oh, yes, we can prove that. Then he walked about another two blocks and went to the theater and the woman at the theater window selling the tickets, she was so suspicious the way he was acting, she said he was carrying a gun... He went into the theater and she notified the police and the police and our man down there went in there and located this particular man. They had quite a struggle with him. He fought like a regular lion and he had to be subdued, of course, and was then brought out and... taken to the police headquarters....
Lyndon B. Johnson: Well your conclusion is: (1) he's the one that did it; (2) the man he was after was the President; (3) he would have hit him three times, except the Governor turned.
J. Edgar Hoover: I think that is correct.
Lyndon B. Johnson: (4) That there is no connection between he and Ruby that you can detect now. And (5) whether he was connected with the Cuban operation with money, you're trying to...
J. Edgar Hoover: That's what we're trying to nail down now, because he was strongly pro-Castro, he was strongly anti-American, and he had been in correspondence, which we have, with the Soviet embassy here in Washington and with the American Civil Liberties Union and with this Committee for Fair Play to Cuba... None of those letters, however, dealt with any indication of violence or contemplated assassination. They were dealing with the matter of a visa for his wife to go back to Russia. Now there is one angle to this thing that I'm hopeful to get some word on today. This woman, his wife, had been very hostile. She would not cooperate, speaks... Russian only. She did say to us yesterday down there that if we could give her assurance that she would be allowed to remain in this country, she might cooperate. I told our agents down there to give her that assurance... and I sent a Russian-speaking agent into Dallas last night to interview her.... Whether she knows anything or talks anything, I, of course, don't know and won't know till -
I know that the document is now over eight years old, but the questions posed may give an idea of where Marina herself, was looking in 1996 as to corroborate the fact that Oswald was not the Lone Nut the media has painted him out to be for the last 43 years, and where the research community perhaps should be looking as well.
Text of Letter to ARRB
April 19, 1996
Mr. John Tunheim, Chairman
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
600 E Street N.W., Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(Certified Mail No. P 271 942 632)
Dear Mr. Tunheim:
I am writing to you regarding the release of still
classified documents related to the assassination
of President Kennedy and to my former husband,
Lee Harvey Oswald.
Specifically, I am writing to ask about documents
I have learned of from a recent book and from a
story in the Washington Post by the authors of the
same book (as well as other documents they have
described to me). The book reviews Dallas police,
FBI, and CIA files released since 1992, and
places them in the context of previously known
information. I would like to know what the Review
Board is doing to obtain the following:
1. The Dallas field office and headquarters FBI
reports on the arrests of Donnell D. Whitter and
Lawrence R. Miller in Dallas on November 18, 1963
with a carload of stolen U.S. army weapons. I
believe that Lee Oswald was the FBI informant who
made these arrests possible. I would also like
to know what your board has done to obtain the
reports of the U.S. Marshal and the U.S. Army on
the same arrests, and the burglary these men were
suspected of.
2. The records of the FBI interrogations of John
Franklin Elrod, John Forrester Gedney and Harold
Doyle (the latter men were previously known as
two of the "three tramps") in the Dallas jail
November 22-24, 1963. All of these men have
stated that they were interrogated during that
time by the FBI.
3. The official explanation of why the arrest
records for Mr. Elrod, Mr. Gedney and Mr. Doyle,
as well as for Daniel Wayne Douglas and Gus
Abrams were placed "under federal seal" in the
Dallas Police Records Division for 26 years as
described by Dallas City Archives supervisor
Laura McGhee to the FBI in 1992.
4. The FULL records of the interrogation of Lee
Harvey Oswald, including his interrogation in
the presence of John Franklin Elrod as described
by Elrod in an FBI report dated August 11, 1964.
5. The reports of army intelligence agent Ed J.
Coyle on his investigation of Captain George
Nonte, John Thomas Masen, Donnell D. Whitter,
Lawrence R. Miller, and/or Jack Ruby. I am also
requesting that you obtain agent Coyle's reports
as army liason for presidential protection on
November 22, 1963 (as described by Coyle's
commanding officer Col. Robert Jones in sworn
testimony to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations). If the army does not
immediately produce these documents, they
should be required to produce agent Coyle to
explain what happened to his reports.
6. Secret Service reports and tapes of that
agency's investigation of Father Walter
Machann and Silvia Odio in 1963-64.
7. Reports of the FBI investigation of Cuban
exiles in Dallas, to include known but still
classified documents on Fermin de Goicochea
Sanchez, Father Walter Machann and the Dallas
Diocese Catholic Cuban Relocation Committee.
These would include informant files for Father
Machann and/or reports of interviews of Father
Machann by Dallas FBI agent W. Heitman.
8. The full particulars and original of the
teletype received by Mr. William Walter in the
New Orleans FBI office on the morning of
November 17, 1963, warning of a possible
assassination attempt on President Kennedy in
Dallas. I now believe that my former husband
met with the Dallas FBI on November 16, 1963,
and provided informant information on which
this teletype was based.
9. A full report of Lee Harvey Oswald's visit
to the Dallas FBI office on November 16, 1963.
10. A full account of FBI agent James P.
Hosty's claim (in his recent book, ASSIGNMENT:
OSWALD) that Lee Harvey Oswald knew of a planned
"paramilitary invasion of Cuba" by "a group of
right wing Cuban exiles in outlying areas of New
Orleans." We now know that such an invasion
was indeed planned by a Cuban group operating on
CIA payroll in Miami, New Orleans, and Dallas--
the same group infiltrated by Lee Oswald. We
know this information ONLY from documents
released since 1992, as described in the book I
have mentioned. On what basis did agent Hosty
believe Lee "had learned" of these plans, unless
Lee himself told him this? I am therefore
specifically requesting the release of the
informant report that Lee Oswald provided to
agent Hosty and/or other FBI personnel on this
intelligence information.
The time for the Review Board to obtain and
release the most important documents related to
the assassination of President Kennedy is running
out. At the time of the assassination of this
great president whom I loved, I was misled by
the "evidence" presented to me by government
authorities and I assisted in the conviction of
Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. From the new
information now available, I am now convinced
that he was an FBI informant and believe that he
did not kill President Kennedy. It is time for
Americans to know their full history. On this
day when I and all Americans are grieving for the
victims of Oklahoma City, I am also thinking of my
children and grandchildren, and of all American
children, when I insist that your board give the
highest priority to the release of the documents
I have listed. This is the duty you were charged
with by law. Anything else is unacceptable --
not just to me, but to all patriotic Americans.
Please be advised that this is an open letter,
and I intend to make it available to anyone who
wishes to see it. The time for secrecy in
government is over. I ask that you respond to
me in writing within two weeks, and will take
no further action until then.
Thank you for your attention to my requests.
Sincerely,
Marina Porter (signed)
cc: Rep. John Conyers Jr.
Rep. Newt Gingrich
Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez
Rep. Lee H. Hamilton
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy
Sen. William S. Cohen
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
Sen. Bob Kerrey
Sen. John Kerry
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Sen. Arlen Specter
-
As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."
Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.
Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.
I really feel sorry for you, most of, if not all of the Forum members are dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination. You, whether by design, or out of ignorance choose to post your insane ramblings, at the same time that the most definitive book on the JFK assassination ever written is about to come out. Your dilemma is that your argument has been pre-emptively destroyed, actually nuked would be a better description, before you have even gotten started. Your "arguments" are a rehash of the CIA backed/media witch-hunt of Jim Garrison that has been minutely and in extreme detail written about by Joan Mellen. Your arrival here on the Forum with your rants about the evil Jim Garrison is somewhat akin to "a squadron of Japanese soldiers landing on the West Coast to declare war on America, the day after the atomic bomb fell on Nagasaki;" I have decided to just read your dribble as a source of amusement, as the only thing you accomplish is making yourself look more idiotic each and every time you post. What's the matter with you girl? Are you devoid of both self-esteem and common sense. And remember, if you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.
-
I have been sent details by a journalist of another example of Google censorship.
Googling for images of Ukrainian opposition leader (and president designate) Victor Yushchenko brings up ONLY pictures of him before he was poisoned with dioxin and suffered disfiguring chloracne. Like so:
Googling <yushchenko, poison> (and obvious variations) or <yushchenko, dioxin> returns zero results.
Yet there have probably been more pictures reproduced of him with his poisoned face than without. Some of them actually turn up on pages in the normal google web search function.
What's going on here? I've wracked my brains and can't think of any answer. A simple failure to spider the appropriate images doesn't seem possible -- but I can't think of a human motive for deselecting these images either.
I do recall, however, several recent allegations of CIA censorship of the google engine, which I can gladly tell you about -- I assumed at the time that these were just mad claims, but now I'm not so sure.
A Record from Mary Ferrell's Database
Record: TORRES ALVAREZ, BERNARDO GONZALEZ
Sources: CIA 84, p. 2; CIA 1227-512, p. 3; CIA 1228-513, p. 6; Plot or Politics, James, p. 165; Counterplot, Epstein, p. 40; HSCA Reel 6, Box 4, Folder B (AMKW 5)
Mary's
Comments: A Cuban exile living in Miami. Once helped to guard JFK during a speaking appearance in Miami. Torres worked with Jim Garrison on his investigation of the Kennedy assassination and said Garrison's investigation would make the Warren Commission investigation look pale. Worked for Military Armament Corp., one of Mitch WerBell's companies (according to Gaeton Fonzi). (Also see De Torres)
Reverse Speech and the JFK Assassination of John F. Kennedy
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Robert Howard
I decided, after much deliberation, to post this article which comes from "Probable Cause Australia" it is rather old, but after some initial skepticism, (and believe me, the jury is still out on this, as far as I am concerned) still not wholly resolved. I decided on this Thanksgiving Day to post this article. I personally find it fascinating. If anyone takes a contrary position, I will more than understand.
(P.S. Even if this is "technology" becomes discredited, I think items like this are stimulating to the intellect, which is never a bad thing. Happy Thanksgiving Everybody!
(Note: This article has been edited due to length, the segment that explains Reverse Speech is contained in the original article at:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/pcissu6.htm)
Yo! HCEEPS ESREVRE (Reverse Speech) and the Kennedy Assassination by Ralph D. Thomas.
Are You Ready?? Reverse Speech and the Kennedy Assassination. "New Evidence With A New Technology"
After becoming certified in the use of Reverse Speech as an investigative technique, I began to explore the assassination with my knew found knowledge. Naturally, I needed tape recordings made by the key players in the assassination. My first attention turned to Lee Oswald.
OSWALD: Very little comments made by Oswald have been captured on tape. Although he was interviewed by the Dallas Police Department after his arrest, the official story is that no tape recording was made during the twelve hours of interrogation by Dallas Homicide Detective Will Fritz. The reason given by Captain Fritz for not tape recording the interview is that he did not have access to a tape recorder and that he had requested the purchase of a tape recorder for quite some time. I find this hard to swallow. One of the largest and one of the best police departments in the country in the early 1960s certainly had to have a tape recorder and I am certain that it's use would have been considered with an interrogation with the suspect of the crime of the century. It is a well documented fact that Captain Will Fritz was ordered to stop his investigation by the federal government by President Johnson. Sources reveal that Johnson called Captain Fritz and stated that he had his man and in the interest of national security, "stop your investigation." Based on my research which would be too lengthy to go into, I believe that Will Fritz likely had made tape recordings but they have either been suppressed or destroyed. I know for a fact through confidential sources that he took notes. I think that it is also important to point out that Will Fritz was known among police circles as one of the best police detectives in the country and whatever took place, Captain Fritz was following orders from his government.
There are some comments made by Oswald after his arrest and before his murder that have been captured on tape. He was permitted a very brief news conference and was recorded by newsmen as he made his way to and from the police interrogation room and his jail cell before he himself was shot down.
The following is the transcript with speech reversals of the news conference.
(OSWALD) Ah I really don't know what this situation is about nobody has told me anything.
( No Reversal found, poor quality track. Too many news reporters talking in the background)
I've been accused of ah, of ah murdering a policeman.
[i know nothing more than that.]
(REVERSAL) I'm the lonely camelot. (VALIDITY 5)
I do request that someone [to come forward]
® I mustn't , I mustn't. (VALIDITY 6)
To give me [ah legal assistance.]
® We need more help. (VALIDITY 5)
(NEWS REPORTER) Did you kill the President?
(OSWALD) [No I have not been charged with that in fact nobody] has said that to me yet.
® got one problem that's nasty unknown. (VALIDITY 4)
The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall ah [asked me that] question.
® I didn't scratch (VALIDITY 4)
That was the end of the news conference. It is apparent from the video of this news conference that the Dallas police cut it off. Oswald appeared frustrated at this point. It's my feeling based on additional research that the news conference was cut off by the Dallas police because they had not intended for a question and answer session to take place at all. The news conference was held in the police line-up room. Oswald was first displayed to the news media on the other side of the glass but reporters were complaining. The Dallas officers then escorted Oswald out onto the main floor of the line-up room and the reporters were able to ask the few questions. One reporter asked him as he was escorted away something about the cut above his eye and Oswald responded that a policeman hit him but the soundtrack was of very poor quality at that point with too many reporters talking in the background.
I was able to locate a few recordings from old news reels as Oswald was moved through the hallways of the police station. Here is one of those comments along with the reversals.
(News Reporter) Did you fire that rifle?
(OSWALD) I don't know the facts that you people have been given but I [emphatically deny these] charges.
® See now I'm the give-up. (VALIDITY 4)
Still another comment was recorded in the hallway when reporters asked Oswald's involvement.
(Oswald) These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.
® That killer was gifted (VALIDITY 3)
(Reporter) Did you shoot the President?
(Oswald) I didn't shoot anybody.
® Are they all going to dish it out? (VALIDITY 4)
I have located eight speech reversals that Oswald made after his arrest and before he was shot down. In summary they are:
® I'm the lonely camelot.
® I mustn't , I mustn't.
® We need more help.
® Got one problem that nasty unknown.
(R ) I didn't scratch
® Help! See now I'm the give-up.
® That killer was gifted.
® Are they all going to dish it out?
Perhaps the most significant reversal is where Oswald says in reverse when a reporter asked him if he shot the President, "I didn't scratch." (NOTE: There is a faint word on the end of this reversal that could be "him" which would make the reversal, "I didn't scratch him." However, the final word was not audible enough for analysis.) Since speech reversal is the voice of the unconscious mind, they cannot be consciously controlled and they do not lie. What we have here is conclusive evidence using speech reversal as a kind of lie detector that Oswald did not kill the President.
The reversal that Oswald uses where he says forward, I request someone to come forward to provide legal assistance that says, "We need more help," is also significant in that he is using the word we. This certainly indicates that Oswald was referring to some other party or parties other than himself. It certainly is evidence that points to more than one gunman.
The reversal that Oswald uses when he said forward, "These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything," (R: That killer was gifted), certainly indicated that Oswald's subconscious mind thought whoever the killer was did a very good job and it certainly implies that it was not Oswald.
The speech reversal where Oswald says, I mustn't, I mustn't, might have something to do with his subconscious wanting to tell something. Perhaps Oswald knew more than he would tell. The reversal that says, You've got one problem, that nasty unknown, is in direct relationship to Oswald not being the assassin.
The reversal that says, Help! I'm the give-up, certainly goes alone with Oswald telling the Dallas Police that he didn't kill the President and that he was just a patsy.
The reversal that says, I'm the lonely Camelot, is harder to reach an opinion on. The word Camelot comes up again and again in reverse speech as an Archetype which has meaning that has to do with very deep unconscious thought patterns and is believed to be one of the archetype words in the reverse speech vocabulary that is passed down from one generation to the other. It is important however to remember that Camelot is the name of a song that Kennedy listened to over and over again and that news reporters have since coined the Kennedy Presidency as Camelot. This makes it impossible to determine what type of reversal we have here.
CONCLUSION OF OSWALD TAPES: Based on the Reverse Speech tests I conclude then that Oswald may have had some knowledge of the assassination but he didn't fire any shots.
CORROBORATION OF THE REVERSE SPEECH CONCLUSION ON OSWALD
1) PSE TESTING: PSE testing conducted by George O'Tool, Mike Kradz and Doctor Gordon Barland published in O'Toole's book, The Assassination Tapes, drew to the same conclusion I did. Their conclusion stated that Oswald likely did not fire the rifle but likely had some knowledge of the assassination. Although I had been researching for O'Toole's study several months, I was not able to locate it and review it until nine months after I completed the Reverse Speech analysis and I had no idea of what their conclusions were. As a former PSE examiner, I reviewed the tests conducted by O'Toole, Kradz and Doctor Gordon and reached the same conclusions that they did. I believe that it is important to point out that test results indicating deception are subject to examiner opinion and it is much more difficult and complicated to make a conclusion of deception being present than it is to conclude no deception is present. Stress levels that would indicate deception can sometimes be tricky as the stress can sometimes be caused by external irrelevant factors. However, the exact opposite is the case when no stress is present and the subject is not engaged in deception. It is cut and dry. Oswald was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody.
2) WITNESS ACCOUNTS: You will recall that only one witness gave testimony that would tend to show that Oswald was the person pulling the trigger in the sixth floor window. This lone witness, Howard Brennan, could not identify Oswald in a police line up, kept changing his mind concerning a positive identification and failed PSE testing conducted by O'Toole and verified by myself. Aside from Brennan's own inconsistency, his account is inconsistent with at least four other witnesses. Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson and John Powell all describe two men in the sixth floor window neither of which match the description of Oswald in any way.
3) PARAFFIN TEST: You will recall that the paraffin test revealed that Oswald could not have fired a rifle. If Oswald didn't fire a rifle on November 22nd, 1963, he didn't shoot Kennedy. A positive result was found on his hands but a negative result was found on his face. If Oswald would have fired a rifle, he would have tested positive on both hands and his face. The Dallas Police and the District Attorney would only state that Oswald fired a gun (not a rifle) stating that the test results revealed positive results on both hands. But if Oswald had discharged a small firearm, this action is usually executed with one hand which would have resulted in a positive on one hand and a negative on the other hand. The positive test from both hands likely came from external chemicals in the form of lead based paint he had come into close contact with on November 22nd, 1963. It's been established that the floors of the School Book Depository Building were being painted on the day of the assassination and the close contact with the chemicals of such a paint would have likely caused a positive result. The paraffin test then tends to show that Oswald didn't fire either a rifle or a side arm on the day of the assassination and tends to corroborate my Reverse Speech analysis tests.
OTHER REVERSE SPEECH TESTS
Several additional news conferences and on the spot interviews were recorded with other officials involved in the investigation of the assassination. Henry Wade was the district attorney in charge of the Oswald case. Jessie Curry was the Dallas Police Chief at the time of the assassination. Most of these can be located on various videos in the form of short news clips. Here are transcriptions of the ones I have located and analyzed:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WADE:
(REPORTER) Has he told anybody he killed the President?
(WADE) He hasn't admitted killing the President to anyone. I don't know what he said,..he says he didn't do it.
[We're still working on the evidence. This has] been a joint effort by the Secret Service, The Federal Bureau Of Investigation, The Dallas Police Department, The Sheriffs Office, my office, and Detective Will Fritz has been in charge of it.
® This is the way .... you won't believe this. (VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: I believe that it is important to point out that my research shows that Henry Wade had been asked by the federal government to cut off any comments concerning conspiracy theories. My research reveals that Wade had been contacted by high ranking federal government officials (most likely Lyndon Johnson or J. Edgar Hoover) and briefed about this. The reversal, "this is the way...you won't believe this," strongly implies that Wade was attempting to follow the guidelines and instructions he had been given by the federal government. "This is the way," certainly implies that he wanted the news reporters to believe that Oswald was the assassin. "You won't believe this," implies that there is more to the story. During the later part of my research, I developed the fact that the first official document indicting Oswald for the murder of Kennedy quoted Oswald as being part of an international conspiracy. The White House contacted Wade and had the references of a conspiracy removed from the indictment
(REPORTER) How would you describe his mood during the questioning?
(WADE) [Very arrogant.]
® Very ignorant. (Validly 6)
[Has been all along.]
® More Water Sir? (Validity 5)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: It is hard to tell what Wade was referring to in his reversal, "Very Ignorant." Was he saying that he felt Oswald was an ignorant person or was he saying Oswald was ignorant when it came to the assassination? My research reveals that Oswald was not an ignorant person and, in fact, he was a well read individual. Based on this research, my opinion is that Wade was referring to Oswald being ignorant of the assassination. It is also my opinion that the reversal, "more water sir," is unconscious thoughts coming out of someone asking Oswald if he wanted more water during the interrogation.
(REPORTER) How do you sum him up. Ah as a man based on your experience with criminal types?
(WADE) I think he's a man that ah [planned this] murder [weeks or months ago and]
® No boy just had the skill (VALIDITY 4 )
® some help. (VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: This reversal certainly indicates Wade's thoughts that one person could not have had the skill to pull off the assassination of the President Of The United States and his thoughts that Oswald had some help.
as and laid his plans carefully and carried them and out [as planned at that time what he was going to tell] the police that are questioning him at present.
® Influence make Leo mad that's going to help you. (VALIDITY 3)
I would say that without any doubt he's the killer, the law says [beyond a reasonable doubt] until a moral certainty which I'm, there's no questions that he was the killer of President Kennedy.
® There's a problem here. (VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: The reversal, "there's a problem here," certainly implies that Wade thought that the evidence that was collected up until this time had at least one major problem proving Oswald's guilt.
(REPORTER) Will you ask death in the electric chair for Lee Oswald?
(WADE) [Yes Sir]
® I think so. (VALIDITY 2)
[we'll ask the death penalty.]
® I'd pay to sell him. (VALIDITY 5)
(REPORTER) How many cases of this type have you been involved in where the death penalty has been involved.
(WADE) Since I've been district attorney, we asked, I've asked the death penalty in 24 cases.
(REPORTER) How many times have you obtained it?
(WADE) 23
ANOTHER SHORT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH WADE'S REMARKS:
(WADE) Yes I haven't gone into that. The paraffin tests show that he had ah, recently fired a gun, it was on both hands.
(REPORTER) Both?
(WADE) Both hands.
(Cannot hear question)
(WADE) [A gun]
® A rifle. (VALIDITY 5)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: A paraffin test measures chemical elements on a subject's hands and face that would be strong evidence concerning the firing of a weapon. Paint is one thing that will produce a positive result with a paraffin test and fresh paint was being used on plywood floors at the Texas School Book Depository Building the day of the assassination. Oswald's test results were positive for both his hands and negative on his face. A negative result on the face would indicate that a rifle was not fired by the suspect. If Oswald didn't fire a rifle, he could not have assassinated the President. Wade commented that the results revealed Oswald fired a gun in forward speech. He said, "a rifle" in reverse. There is a big difference.
DALLAS POLICE CHIEF CURRY
(REPORTER) What was his comments?
(CHIEF CURRY) He doesn't give any motive except he denies them both.
(REPORTER) We understand that no one actually saw this man pull the trigger of the rifle that apparently killed the President. Is that correct?
(CHIEF CURRY) That is correct up till this time in our investigation.
(REPORTER) What about the ballistics tests chief?
(CHIEF CURRY) On the [ballistics test] we haven't had a final [report but] it is, I understand will be favorable.
® The throat (VALIDITY 4)
® take me to him. (VALIDITY 5)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: Curry's reversal about the throat is interesting. I assume that Curry is referring to Kennedy's throat wound and the reversal indicates he would like to see it. Kennedy's body had already been removed from Dallas to Washington D.C. which was actually an unlawful act of itself according to Texas law. The Parkland Hospital doctors who had treated Kennedy had stated in a news conference that the throat wound was an entrance wound. If the throat wound was an entrance wound, then the shot was fired from the front. If it was fired from the front, Oswald could not have fired it as his position at the time of the shooting was behind the President.
(REPORTER) Do you think the smudged fingerprints found on the rifle which killed the President will be able to establish the identity of the killer.
(CURRY) We hope so but I couldn't say positive at this time that they will be.
(REPORTER) Will it be enough to convict him?
(CURRY) I don't know if it will be enough to convict him or not. If we can put his prints on the rifle ah it would certainly connect him with the rifle. We want to say this that this investigation has been carried on jointly by the FBI the Secret Service, the rangers and the Dallas Police Department Captain Fritz has been in charge.
ANOTHER NEWS CONFERENCE WITH CURRY
(REPORTER) Was their any surveillance ah, was the police aware of his presence in Dallas?
(CHIEF CURRY) We and the police department here did not know he was in Dallas. [i understand the] FBI did know he was in Dallas.
® Pay ransom off. (VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: This is the first time the word ransom comes up from members of the Dallas Police. This word comes up again which is documented towards the end of this study. The specific meaning of this is not clear but it is apparent that the police chiefs thought patterns were centered on the payment of a ransom.
(REPORTER) The FBI informed the police?
(CHIEF CURRY) [Yes]
® Save me! (VALIDITY 6)
We did not have knowledge.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: The reversal, "Save me," certainly implies that Curry was concerned about his comment. The FBI did, in fact, know of Oswald, knew that he was in Dallas and had interviewed him several times in the months before the assassination. It is also apparent that the FBI had an ongoing investigative file on Oswald in the Dallas field office.
(REPORTER) You were uninformed.
(CHIEF CURRY) We had not been informed of this man.
(REPORTER) Chief do you have any concern for the safety of your prisoner in view of the high feeling among the people of Dallas over the assassination of the President?
(CHIEF CURRY) No because his, [ah necessary] [causes will be] taken of course.
® His sentence.
® That's because he's hostage.(VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: The two reversals, "His sentence," and "That's because he's hostage," are interesting. It is my opinion that Curry was referring to Oswald's court sentence which would be death in the electric chair for the assassination. If he was referring to his sentence which was carried out by Jack Ruby, the same result of Oswald's death and silence becomes the issue. The reversal concerning Oswald being a hostage is also interesting. Hostage is defined in the Funk & Wagnalls International Dictionary as: A person held as a pledge for the performance of some stipulation.
(REPORTER) Chief we understand you have the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether or not Oswald fired a weapon.
(CURRY) I understand it was, I understand it was positive.
(REPORTER) But what does that mean?
(CURRY) It only means that he fired a gun.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: Although I didn't find any reversals in Curry's response, his forward speech implies that Oswald didn't fire a rifle only a gun. Again, if Oswald didn't fire a rifle, he didn't kill the President. I also believe that it is significant to point out that neither Curry or Wade ever directly pointed out that the test was negative on the face which indicates Oswald did not fire a rifle. They just left that part of the test out.
COMMENTS MADE AFTER RUBY SHOT OSWALD
DALLAS POLICE CHIEF CURRY
(CURRY)[The suspect's name is Jack]
® That's the man that does it. (VALIDITY 4)
Rubinstein I believe. [He goes by the name of Jack] Ruby
® That's the man and a druggy. (VALIDITY 4)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: My research indicates that Ruby was an underworld figure and a major contact for drug traffic. "That's the man that does it," implies that Ruby kills people and "That's the man and a druggy," indicates that the police chief knew Ruby was involved in drugs.
Dozens of witnesses who were employed by or knew Jack Ruby and dozens of Dallas police officers have stated that a large number of police officers in Dallas knew Jack Ruby but both the police department and the federal government attempted to cover this point up.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WADE
(REPORTER) Did you know Ruby before this?
(WADE) [No Sir. Saw him in this very same] room Friday night
® Yes Sir. Send me Dallas night clubs. (VALIDITY 4)
when we had the defendant up here.
If some of you [will recall he asked a question] from out here
® Help me! Said he knew Oswald. (VALIDITY 2)
Na it was an answer to a question, he was standing right back here and I didn't know who he was. I thought he was a member of the press and he told me as I walked out of here that he was a night club operator.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: The first speech reversal indicates that Wade did know Ruby. My research of Ruby's employees at his nightclub indicates that Wade had been a guest at Ruby's club in the past and that Ruby did know him. The second reversal above, "Help me! Said he knew Oswald," indicates that Ruby had a relationship with Oswald. My research and documentation of several witnesses clearly support the fact that Oswald and Ruby did know each other before the assassination. Wade already knew this fact and it appears that he withheld it.
(REPORTER) What question did he ask you?
(WADE) What?
® No
(REPORTER) What question did he ask?
I don't remember but he [he, ah maybe it was an answer but] I.
® That's him forget about it. (VALIDITY 3)
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: In my opinion, this reversal indicates that Wade wanted to get off this question.
DETECTIVE JAMES R. LEAVELLE INTERVIEW
Detective James R. Leavelle was the police officer who was handcuffed to Oswald when Oswald was shot by Ruby.
(REPORTER) Can you tell us what happened, ah where handcuffed to him?
(LEAVELLE) I was handcuffed to him and also had ahold of waistband of his trousers. I saw this man come from the crowd and at the time he emerged from this crowd of these people he was not more than six [or seven feet from us] from me.
(R ) Mafia restaurant. (VALIDITY 5)
(REPORTER) Did you see the gun in his hand as he came?
(LEAVELLE) I saw the gun in his hand as he emerged from the crowd but [being such a short distance from me]
® He's a mobster this bullxxxx let's hit him. (VALIDITY 4)
ah I had time to say anything.
(REPORTER) Ah when Oswald fell to the ground was he unconscious at that point?
(LEAVELLE) [i would say if he was not he was near ah nearly so.]
® What's he doing ah, Ransom, ransom he paid us off. (VALIDITY 5)
Ah just as soon the ah my partner on the other side Mr. Graves grabbed ah Jack's hand with the gun in such a manner that he wouldn't fire it anymore.
(REPORTER) Did you recognize him when he came through?
(LEAVELLE) Yes I have known Jack Ruby for a number of years and I recognized him just as soon as he emerged from the crowd.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS:
The three reversals I found are:
® Mafia restaurant.
® He's a mobster this bullxxxx let's hit him.
® What's he doing ah, Ransom, ransom he paid us off.
The first two reversals clearly indicate that Ruby was a member of organized crime and my research into Ruby's background certainly points in this direction. For the second time in my findings, I find the word ransom again by a member of the Dallas Police. When considering the forward dialog, it implies that Leavelle is referring to the fact that Ruby paid someone off.
RUBY AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
The following is a televised statement issued by Police Chief Curry concerning the number of Dallas Police officers Jack Ruby had known. Within minutes after Ruby shot Oswald, rumours circulated that Ruby was well known to the Dallas Police. Dozens of employees such as Nancy Hamilton and a piano player by the name of Johnson have stated that Ruby not only knew at least half of the 1200 members Dallas police department, he gave them free drinks and free food at his clubs.
POLICE CHIEF CURRY STATEMENT:
We have 1200 men in our department and we ah, had each man to submit a report regarding his knowledge or acquainted with Jack Ruby. Less than 50 men even knew Jack Ruby. And less than a dozen had ever been in his place of business. Most of these that had been in his place of business had been in there because they were sent on investigations or answered a call for ah police service. Ah I believe there was four men in our department that we were able to determine had been there socially. That is off duty, in the presence, ah ah [and were present in his night] club.
® Johnson is there for me.
It is my opinion that the reversal, Johnson is there for me, is referring to President Johnson who had talked with Police Chief Curry by telephone after Ruby shot Oswald. This implies that this is a story that was developed to squash the flying rumors that over half the members of the Dallas Police Department knew Jack Ruby. My research reveals that Ruby did in fact know a large number of Dallas police officers, permitted them to come into his night clubs to drink and eat free of charge.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT AFTER KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
After the assassination November 22nd 1963, Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office aboard Air Force One in Dallas and then flew directly to Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington D.C. Upon his arrival and departure from Air Force One, he gave his first public statement as President. The following is a transcript of his dialog along with reversal analysis:
This is a [sad time for all people.]
® People are mad.
[We have suffered a loss] [that cannot be weighed.]
®Sorry depress by you.
®Yeah we saw an extra.
For me it is a deep [personal tragedy.] [i know that the world shares] [the sorrow] [that Mrs. Kennedy] and [her family bare.]
®Get yourself gone sir.
®Fresh dope, we have to go now.
®Her loss
®He done it, she didn't do.
®That's a mouth full
[ I will do my best.] That is all [i can do.] I ask [for your help] and God's.
®That damn hood. Poor Ralph.
®You'd make out.
®I Hurry up.
THE REVERSALS LOCATED ARE:
People are mad.
Sorry depress by you.
Yeah we saw an extra.
Get yourself gone sir.
Fresh dope, we have to go now.
Her loss
He done it, she didn't do.
That's a mouth full
That damn hood. Poor Ralph.
You'd make out.
I Hurry up.
The first reversal, People are mad, is most likely Johnson's subconscious thoughts about the events that had taken place concerning the assassination of Kennedy. The second reversal, Sorry depress by you, is an interesting reversal but it's exact meaning remains a mystery to me. Did Johnson mean that he was depressed by Kennedy or was he referring to being depressed by the assassination?
Yeah we saw an extra, is a reversal that could mean that the authorities knew that there were more trigger men. It is important to point out that this news conference occurred Friday night after landing in Washington. Oswald was already under arrest.
I believe that the reversal, get yourself gone sir, is internal dialog. Johnson is telling himself to get going and get the news conference over. It goes along with the last reversal, I hurry up. The reversal, fresh dope, we have to go now, also implies that Johnson is in a hurry. I believe that the words, fresh dope, is referring to information. Certainly as the new president, Johnson had a great deal on his mind. Does fresh dope refer to new information on the assassination?
The reversal, he done it she didn't do, is another interesting reversal. Johnson is talking about Mrs. Kennedy in the forward dialog. Does he mean she didn't do it in reverse? I believe that is the case. Although the presidential family was often shown as a happy family, there is evidence that the Kennedys only stayed married for political and image reasons. Who is he? That is not exactly clear.
The reversal, That damn Hood, Poor Ralph, is the most significant reversal found. That dam hood implies a member of organized crime. The top crime boss of Dallas was Ralph. Did Johnson know that organized crime was involved in the assassination? What ever is the answer to that question, I conclude from Johnson's reversals that, although he might have known more about the assassination than he lead the public to believe, he had nothing to do with it. I do believe that it is relevant to repeat something that was covered earlier about Johnson. That is, after his retirement from the White House and before his death, he indicated that he did not believe that Oswald acted alone.
JACK RUBY'S LAST PRESS CONFERENCE
The following dialog is the last press conference of Jack Ruby. The press conference was very short and recorded on the spot by a local television station. The quality was not good. This interview took place directly following Ruby's sentence. I have placed in brackets in the forward dialog where the reversals I found occur.
[Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface.]
® You dust him forever. Christ wasn't finished. You killed him.
[The world will never know the true facts] of what occurred, my motives, ah in other words, [i'm the only person] in the background [that knows the truth] pertaining to everything relating to my sentence.
® Wish I wouldn't have.
® Certainly not.
® I pushed on my roll.
REPORTER: Do you think it will ever come out?
[No because, unfortunately,] thank God, they they [have so much to gain and have such an ulterior motive to put me in the position I'm in, we'll never know the true facts.]
® He is the first, let's get one.
® I'm pushed to the limit. They asked me to name'am.
REPORTER: Are they people in high places.
[Yes]
® Hate them
The forward dialog certainly shows that the true facts concerning the assassination of Kennedy and the killing of Oswald is not now known and will never come to the surface. It is interesting to note that Ruby uses the word "everything" in his forward statement. He didn't use the words some facts but implies that the whole story given to the American people is not true. Ruby is saying forward that he never revealed his true motive for his murder of Oswald. He also indicates that he was forced to kill Oswald. Ruby also indicates forward that those who were involved would never permit the truth to come out.
I located seven reversals from the Ruby press conference. They are:
You dust him forever. Christ wasn't finished. You killed him.
Wish I wouldn't have.
Certainly not.
I pushed on my roll.
He is the first. Let's get one.
I'm pushed to the limit. They asked me to name'am.
Hate them
The first reversal is a three sentence reversal "You dust him forever. Christ wasn't finished. You killed him." The forward dialog where this occurs is, "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface." This is an expansive external reversal in which Ruby says that he murdered Oswald. The word "dust" is a kind of slang in the underworld. The second sentence, "Christ wasn't finished," certainly implies a mission that Ruby carried out and goes along with what he says forward when he later implies that he was forced into the mission to kill Oswald. This whole thing certainly implies that Ruby killed Oswald in order to silence him. My research and investigation set out in this investigation shows that the Dallas police and Captain Will Fritz thought they had Oswald at a point where he was about ready to break before he was taken down into the basement to be transferred to the county jail. It was at this time that Oswald was murdered by Ruby.
It is my opinion that Ruby's reversal, "Wish I wouldn't have," shows remorse for his killing of Oswald. This is another expansive external reversal were Ruby says forward, "The world will never know the true facts." He is referring to his murder of Oswald which I conclude was a mission given him by unknown parties. This reversal is congruent with his forward statement that implies that he was forced into the mission which he never wanted to perform. His reversal, "I'm pushed to the limit. They asked me to name'am," certainly goes along with this. In this reversal, I assume that Ruby is referring to law enforcement and government officials who interrogated him. They asked Ruby to name the other conspirators and Ruby implies in his reversal that he didn't name any names. From these reversals, my conclusion is that people within the government knew the assassination was a conspiracy but didn't know who the conspirators were.
The next reversal, "certainly not," is a contradictory external reversal which contradicts Ruby's forward statement that he's the only one who knows the true facts. Ruby knew, therefore, that there were other people who knew the real story.
Ruby's reversal, "I pushed on my roll," is a first level reversal that picks up slang again from the underworld. "Push my roll," is slang that has to do with paying someone off. Roll refers to a roll of money. My research shows that Ruby always had a large roll of cash in his pocket Push refers to pushing someone by giving them cash in return for a favor. It's a payoff. This reversal is corroborated with the ransom reversals found in the reversal analysis of police officials previously published.
Jack Ruby's reversal, "He is the first. Let's get one." is another first level reversal which is very expansive as to his thoughts. It's my opinion that the first sentence, "He is the first," is referring to Oswald. Ruby is saying Oswald was the first person known to be involved in the assassination. His second sentence, "Let's get one." implies that other persons were involved in the assassination and that Ruby would like to see at least one of them caught. Since he says let's get one, there had to be at least two more persons involved.
Ruby's final reversal in which he says, "Hate them," is another expansive reversal. The reporter asked Ruby if the people involved were in high places. Ruby replies forward that they are. In reverse he says that he hates them. It's relevant to note that Ruby was found guilty and given the death penalty. His attorneys had appealed the sentence. It is not clear who the reporter or Ruby were referring to when the reporter asked the question about high officials.
Ruby later got sick and was transferred to a hospital. He has stated while in jail that a medical person was giving him injections he thought would kill him. Ruby died of cancer while in the hospital.
THE JANET CONFORTO INTERVIEW
Janet Conforto was the feature act at Jack Ruby's club and went by the stage name of JADA at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Conforto had only worked at Ruby's club for a few months. Prior to her employment at Ruby's club, she worked in New Orleans as a stripper at a place called the Sho-Bar. The Sho-Bar was owned by New Orleans crime boss, Carlos Marcello. Using the stage name "Jada", Conforto was considered the hottest act in town. A few months before the assassination, Ruby had travelled to New Orleans to watch Conforto's strip act in the Sho-Bar and apparently developed a contract with her to become the feature attraction at his night club in Dallas. In the months following the Kennedy Assassination and the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby, Conforto mysteriously disappeared. Although several independent investigators attempted to locate her, she could not be found. Finally, she became the victim of a homicide statistic in a motorcycle accident in the state of Louisiana. The day after Ruby murdered Oswald, Conforto was interviewed by newsmen. On Monday, November 24th, 1963 she appeared on WFAA television in Dallas. I obtained video coverage of this interview and performed reverse speech analysis on the interview.
Here is the dialog:
REPORTER: How long did you know Jack Ruby?
CONFORTO: [i knew Jack Ruby] for approximately [four, five], six months.
® You can't do that.
® You asshole.
REPORTER: In what relationship?
CONFORTO: I was employed as the ah feature at the Carousel Club [and I had known Jack before] I went to work there and ah I had a [slight hassle with Jack] and I had left and ah that was the end of my association with Jack.
® I wonder about that.
® You'll find out.
REPORTER: What kind of a man was he?
CONFORTO: Jack Ruby was [ah a fanatic, he was very ah nervous] man, a very [violent man] he would ah cause hassles and harassments and ah always running around very energetic aahm.
® You better not, he knew what drove me. You better shut up.
® And Knew Oswald
REPORTER: Would you say he had a violent streak in him?
CONFORTO: Oh yea, very much so. [Yes he would get carried] away by something and lose all lines of rational thinking. He would just go off zoom [and just ah]...he has to ah prove something. He had to be somebody.
® They greased him.
® That ass done it.
REPORTER: I've heard some stories about him being a generous type. They tell a story that when a customer at one of his clubs would call for a taxi, Jack would put fifty cents aside in the event the customer left and then the cab driver would come up and have to go away empty handed he'd give him the fifty cents. Does this square with his character as you knew it?
CONFORTO: Oh yes, Jack ah was almost a dual nature. He would be ah very nice and very helpful to me. He ah would change completely then in the next few minutes he'd be your worst enemy an he'd be against you and he'd want everybody to support him against you and very irrational and very ah emotional.
(No reversals found)
REPORTER: Did he ever carry a gun?
CONFORTO: I don't know. I don't know him that well but I had seen him with a gun and ah [i presume he carried] it every night. It seemed to be a habit of his.
® You going to get shot.
REPORTER: What about politics. Did he seem interested in politics particularly regarding the Kennedys.
CONFORTO: [i've heard Jack talk about] the Kennedys and I've been trying to think and it's so [confusing] today. But I believe he [disliked Bobby] Kennedy.
® The horrible cost, I've heard that.
® He did it.
® If I tell you.
REPORTER: Got no recollection about what he said about the President?
CONFORTO: Ah [yea he followed that statement up about] Bobby with something about [Jack Kennedy but I can't] for the moment [form it in my mind.]
® Horrible thought, he did it, you lousy thing.
® Jack, yea he did it.
® Now you're minimal
REPORTER: Do you think that ah Jack Ruby was the type of man that was capable of killing the assassin of President Kennedy out of love for Kennedy, out of political motives.
CONFORTO: Ah [i don't think he loved Kennedy] that much. Ah [i don't know why] he would do it. I would say he would be perfectly capable of an act like that ah very much so.
® He did it, love, he didn't care for them.
® I don't know that.
SEVENTEEN REVERSALS FOUND IN ORDER OF OCCURRENCE:
You can't do that.
You asshole.
I wonder about that.
You'll find out.
You better not, he knew what drove me. You better shut up.
And Knew Oswald.
They greased him.
That ass done it.
You going to get shot.
The horrible cost, I've heard that.
He did it.
If I tell you.
Horrible thought, he did it, you lousy thing.
Jack, yea he did it.
Now you're minimal
He did it, love, he didn't care for them.
I don't know that.
Within the reversals, I believe that we have four that point to the fact that Conforto thought that Jack Ruby has something to do with the assassination. They are:
That ass done it.
He did it.
Horrible thought, he did it, you lousy thing.
He did it, love, he didn't care for them.
I do not believe that these reversals are referring to RUBY murdering OSWALD but refer to RUBY having something to do with the assassination of Kennedy. The last three reversals are specifically referring to the Kennedys and not to Oswald. Since there is and never was a question as to wheather or not RUBY shot OSWALD in anyone's mind, I do not believe that the fist two reversals are referring to Ruby shooting Oswald at all. They are all revealing that RUBY had something to do with the assassination. These reversals are corroborated by witnesses who place RUBY at the assassination site just before and right after the assassination and the witnesses and photographic evidence that place RUBY at Parkland Hospital were he most likely planted the magic bullet.
We have one reversal that points to the fact that Ruby had a relationship with Oswald prior to the assassination. That reversal is:
And Knew Oswald.
According to J. Gary Shaw of the JFK Assassination Information Center, Conforto stated privately that she had observed Oswald talking with Jack Ruby at the night club and that she was introduced to Oswald by Ruby as, "my friend from the CIA." This account is corroborated by Beverly Oliver (still alive) as Ruby had introduced Oswald as a CIA agent to both Conforto and Oliver. Conforto's private statement about Ruby introducing her to Lee Oswald as a CIA agent comes from Bud Shrake who was a local sportscaster in Dallas and was dating Conforto. Shrake is alive and well today and is an escort for Texas Governor Ann Richards. So the reversal, And knew Oswald, can be confirmed through not only private statements Conforto had made, but through the account of Beverly Oliver who also recalls the incident.
I believe that we have several reversals that point to the fact that Conforto knew more than she was telling. The reversals that point to this are:
You can't do that.
You'll find out.
You better not, he knew what drove me. You better shut up.
You going to get shot.
I believe that the first and second reversal are directly related to her reversal about Ruby knowing Oswald. The first reversal, you can't do that, is internal dialog in which Conforto is telling herself not to expose that fact about the Oswald and Ruby relationship before the assassination. The next reversal, You'll find out, indicates that she believes that the media is going to find out anyway. The next reversal, you better not, he knew what drove me. You better shut up, also reveals that Conforto knew something she better not tell and that something was the fact that Oswald had been in Ruby's club and that Conforto knew that Ruby and Oswald had been communicating.
The reversal, you going to get shot, is internal dialog which gives the reason why Conforto would not tell everything she knew. Since she later mysteriously disappeared and then died under suspicious circumstances, I believe that the reversal, You going to be shot, is highly relevant and corroborative with the known events that took place after the interview. Since we have a reversal that came out that exposes the fact that Conforto knew that RUBY and OSWALD were in communication before the assassination and that OSWALD was introduced to CONFORTO by RUBY as a CIA agent, I conclude that this is what CONFORTO knew but did not want to expose in her forward speech.
One reversal indicates that someone was paying Ruby off. That reversal is:
They greased him.
This is, again, underworld slang that tends to indicate a payoff. The word "greased" refers to being paid off. It's my opinion that this reversal goes along with the "ransom" and "payoff" reversals we located and would tend to indicate that RUBY was given funds to make a payoff and a percentage of it was his to keep.
The conclusions drawn from the Conlotto analysis is:
1) Ruby had a relationship with Oswald prior to the assassination.
2) Ruby had something to do with the assassination conspiracy.
3) Ruby was being paid off by someone.
Final Comments:
As with other articles and books written about the assassination, there is information that the author uses which is either inaccurate or has since been disproven. As I am not completely aware of all information that fall's under that category, I will at least mention that the authors assertion that "Jada later died mysteriously disappeared and then died under suspicious circumstances" is incorrect. There are possibly (a few) other assertions that the author accepts as fact that may not be accurate, or, has since been disproved. Robert Howard