Stuart Wexler

David:

It is not a matter of intelligence-- it is a matter of maturity. To the extent that the lack of college education reinforces that-- to the would-be employers (often themselves Ivy League elites)-- I think it is a factor. If I had a bunch of examples of 19 year old deep cover agents, I would sign on. I am more inclined to what Larry is describing, a situation where Oswald is "managed" by people from afar, possibly monitored and approached by outside agents. I anxiously await what you have in terms of solid evidence. Is it coming soon?

-Stu

David: Do you have rock-solid, new evidence for the assertion that Oswald was "definitely" CIA operative in October 1959. I have gone back and forth over this for 20 years. The problem I always come to is Oswald's age and education. I can't imagine they would send a deep cover operative into the USSR who is 19 w/o a college education. I teach some very bright high school seniors, and I wouldn't have faith they could pull it off for two years. I am much more inclined to believe they became aware of Oswald's desire to defect (for whatever reason) and monitored him to guage Soviet interest. I do think he was something akin to an operative in Mexico City 4 years later, but I, too, am skeptical of 1959.

I use to be privvy to arguments about this ad nauseum over at the alt. forums. We should credit the best arguments against our side, not the weakest ones or the ones that confirm our biases. So let me make the case for the lapel flip

(A) The jacket shows a low exit, but the shirt shows it to be higher-- the more likely bet is that the jacket rode up. That said, it is still not directly over the lapel, however...

( The argument is that there was as much as a jacket bulge as a lapel flip. I think anyone who looks at high quality versions of the relevant frames can see it is not the swift motion we see that caused the lapel flip from Rookstool. I don't particularly admire the following person's approach to the case, but he has the relevant clip isolated:

http://www.jfk-online.com/tempz.html

... in short, whatever lapel flip happened, it was a result of the jacket being forced forward. This has also been reproduced in shooting experiments.

© You also have what appears to be a flapping of the hat and a sudden movement of JBC's torso.

I am not completely sold on it, but I will say that the LN logic on it never made sense either. Even if JBC is hit at 224, it doesn't mean JFK was hit at the same time. JFK is showing a reaction to a wounding, but he is blocked by the sign-- he could have been reacting for several frames. In fact, I believe the most likely JFK hit is between 190-207. Part of why I am so interested in this is because I think James has brought forth one of the more credible cases I have seen that the trajectory has to involve a different frame.

The lapel is actually secondary to the point about the limo. Again, I am not doing an Arlen Specter "where did the bullet go" argument in terms of "why wasn't it found?" I am open to the inferences that evidence was deep-sixed in this case, especially given the work by John Hunt. The bigger problem is why there isn't more damage to the limo. A bullet that faces little or no resistance from direct contact with bone and that is not tumbling will retain a large share of its velocity. I can't imagine this not doing serious damage to the limo, in noticeable ways.

-Stu

Hi James,

I did read your work and just wanted clarification. This last post goes a long way. I guess there are a few things still confusing to me, that I think would shore up what you are saying.

My understanding is that Myers and co. simply play connect the dots between the initial entry and exit wounds. What I am trying to understand is how they could be wrong about where the bullet went if we assume (a) the location of entry and exit are correct and ( the position of the men in the limo is correct. I am not clear on that from reading the piece. If you are saying that their problem is the Z224 location, I think that makes some sense. But you probably have to do more to explain the lapel flip.

Secondly, I think the issue of where the bullet went and what it did is paramount to explain. It's one thing to infer that evidence was deleted or added to the record; John Hunt's work adds to your inference. But we have pretty good documentation on what damage there was to the interior of the limo. There is one interesting 6.5mm dent somewhere, and there is the matter of the windshield damage (I don't believe it is thru and thru) but neither seems consistent with what you are describing with the JBC damage. The angle doesn't work for the windshield, and the damage is too minimal for a bullet that would have been going nearly full throttle.

Keep in mind I am only trying to play devil's advocate to improve your work. Your analysis of the JBC damage seems convincing on its face. In fact, I would strongly encourage you to find independent medical experts, especially wound ballistics experts, trauma surgeons, and forensic pathologists, to verify what you have. You may want to start with conspiracy minded folks because if you cannot convince a Cyril Wecht, it is problematic. But then I would go cold turkey to experts; I found foreign experts are much more likely to offer opinions. I would be willing to help you on that. You may well have a deal breaker here-- IF you can explain the lapel flap and (more importantly) IF you can account for what happened after.

-Stu

(1) To go a step further, are you saying that Myers is wrong because he does not rotate JBC's torso enough?

(2) Side note, what sources are you using for your 3d recreation and what is your margin of error?

(3) A comment really... I think you are really going to have to account for what this bullet is supposed to have done when it exited JBC's torso. That is clearly going to be the area you are attacked on. If even a medium velocity round exited JBC without significant deceleration, and even with a dose of it, I imagine it would have done noticeable damage inside the limo.

-Stu

This is interesting stuff, James. Can I ask some points of clarfication.

(1) Are you saying that Dale Myers misplaced the actual, initial entry wound in JBC (and/or exit wound) or are you saying the only problem is the path he implies through the body?

(2) If we *did* go to 223-224 for a JBC hit... where does that trace back given your analysis? The Dal Tex still?

(3) I always thought the report of a 2.5cm entry wound in JBC was a reflection of surgery that Shaw performed, not the actual original size. Am I wrong on that?

(4) Relatedly, isn't a 2.5cm wound awfully long relative to just about any bullet? What accounts for that?

(5) You mentioned at one point that internal damage seemed to be larger than the exit wound... doesn't that imply tumbling?

(6) How does one account for what some say is too little damage to JBC's wrist if a bullet and not, say, a fragment from the head shot, caused the wrist wound?

(7) Finally, what do you think happened to the bullet after it transited JBC? Wouldn't it have caused extensive damage within the limo?

Just trying to clarify and help you refine.

Regards,

Stu

Efforts to release files on the King case will be met with a host of political and legal obstacles that are too complicated to explain-- I have been down that path for years now and it may well be a dead end. But adding MLK, Jr's murder to the Justice Department's already-existing Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative should not be controversial. Indeed, the inventory of evidence in the King murder includes dozen of suspect fingerprints never matched to James Earl Ray or anyone else, fingerprints that could be "run" through the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) for possible identification. This was done in 2000 with the King prints, at a time when IAFIS was far less robust, and it was only linked to Tennessee's independent AFIS, rather than to the databases of all 50 states. More recent, integrated efforts have solved cases as old as 1957. Please sign this petition to get the Obama Administration to force the Justice Department to add King's murder to the queue of cases...

http://wh.gov/mFpn

There is a simple way to find almost all the "Postponed in Full" documents on the NARA database... search for "referred" in restrictions.

Beyond that it is important to note that this database is out-of-date. My experience, even a few years ago at NARA, was that many of these files have been released in part or in full. I would suggest to many here to simply ask for the docs they are posting. Many are indeed intriguing.

-Stu

There are a host of problems with all sorts of forensic techniques, not the least of which is confirmation bias, which potentially undermines all of them. That is to say, if an analyst is given any clue as to a desired outcome, it can often, even subconsciously, skew their conclusions. Even forensic sciences with firmer grounding than CABL, such as fingerprints, can suffer from the implications of confirmation bias.

http://www.psmag.com/legal-affairs/bias-and-the-big-fingerprint-dust-up-3629/

I would argue that Ken Rahn is an example of confirmation bias writ large, or perhaps becoming the mother of one's own theory. Before it was over, he was a self-parody of the very tenets of empirical reasoning he taught to students. In so doing he also exposed a basic problem with his generalizations about the conspiracy community vs. the lone nut community. Rahn would always claim that the lone nuts were data-driven and the conspiracists were faith-based, ideologues. Yet it was the lone nut community that gave Rahn safe haven, circling the wagons and giving him a pass even as the entire analytical field was falling underneath his feet. In contrast, we are more than happy to go after a Judyth ad nauseum. As it stood, Ken didn't face critical reception (from WC believers) even as he dug further and further into a losing cause. I used to spend a lot of time on the alt.assassination forum and still have respect for people there, including lone nuts. But I lost a lot of confidence in that endeavour (trying to learn from others and have them sway you in return) when virtually no one called Ken on his crap.

The problem here is that Bill Miller, in my mind, has come awfully close to debunking the "bullet in the windshield" argument with actual photos. Perhaps he will chime in here if he is around. Much of the argument was on Lancer's forum.

Let me add to some of this here.

In terms of the Canadian connections, the HSCA were keenly interested in NSRP members in Canada. One of them was clealry disconnected from NSRP activities at the time, but the other was not. The unfortunate thing is: we don't know *why* the HSCA was turned onto to these individuals. That is probably in the HSCA files, that need to be released by the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

In terms of Tarrants, his picture was shown on the first day the FBI visited the Aeromarine Supply store-- it was the only file from FBI files, and the only non-local, as Larry mentioned. When we told this to one of the Jackson FBI guys (Birmingham was the one who showed the pic) he was stunned-- because no one knew who Tarrants was, or at least his significance at that point (Apr 6) as a klan terrorist. Tarrants admits buying a rifle from white supremacist minister Wesley Swift, even now-- but he claims that, unlike his quoted (but uncited) testimony in Jack Nelson's book, he did not buy the rifle to kill King, but to make some kind of statement of loyalty to Swift.

As to what is going on here, unfortunately we are left to speculate. My bet, as we put in the book, was the white supremacists attempted a pre-assassination frame-up of Tarrants, which is why his name was so readily available at the first gun-store showing.In other words, they planted information, probably pre-assassination, that Tarrants got a rifle from Swift to kill King. But nothing went according to plan in Memphis. At the point that Ray is arrested, any pre-assassination frame-up would be very bad news for the group that failed to set Tarrants up, as they would be the only people who would even understand his significance circa Apr and May, 1968-- again, Tarrants was a nobody until the Summer. So if the FBI pursued Tarrants's possible MLK connection after his arrest, it could have led to the pre-assassination frameup and the only group that would have had an interest in framing or knowledge of Tarrants, the White Knights of the KKK. So the white supremacists needed a modified, limited hangout-- that is how you get two independent, post-assassination (July/Aug 1968) reports on Tarrants's involvement in the King murder. Everyone esle implicated in the later reports had an alibi, and one was an active FBI informant. So the effect of this later report was to kill any investigation of the KKK (or the white knights) and any further investigation of Tarrants-- at least that was the hoped-for effect. Hope that explains a complicated matter. AGOG goes into much more detail.

-Stu

That is fair enough. And I appreciate the response. I await the review then.

It galls me that someone who telegraphs his (negative) review to someone who slammed our book before it came out could find such tame posts "appalling."

Let me be less tame. You are someone who has been given a voice to express his opinions on books. Those books have audiences. It is highly convenient for you that you can do that and no one is allowed to make a response. We put in several years of work on this and have commanded the respect of people who have literally taught courses on the subject. So let me be clear: if you are going to embrace the kind of "mother-of-my-own-theory" reasoning you display in your dialogues with Len Colby, you are going to embarass yourself. I am not trying to foreclose your review. I am trying to get you to consider how it might look, if say, you attempt to discredit our work for using William B. Huie-- even though he is far from foundational for our book-- while you, say, rely exclusively on James Earl Ray for *anything* and embrace *any* of the theories of gullible William Pepper. Keep that in mind because, from the way you argue with Len, it won't be pretty. You have a responsibility to hold yourself to the same standards you hold others. From what I see thus far, I am far from confident.

-Stu

I anxiously await to see if the "whole lot of people" who lied about Ray include, for instance, Annie Estelle Peters, the piedmont laundry desk clerk who confirmed Ray's presence in Atlanta when Ray claimed he was in Memphis post-gun purchase. The receipt from the laundry corroborates Peters. Nothing corroborates Ray. For instance no one has ever been able to find any record of Ray staying anywhere in Memphis at the relevant time. The normal approach to such an issue would be to see Peters, who has no known reason to lie, and has a receipt to prove her point, as reliable, and to treat Ray-- who has every reason to lie about this and no corroboration for his account-- as being untruthful. I hope your review deals with this basic issue of protocol and research methodology that you yourself are employing. And I hope you are prepared to defend it. Such that if I applied to your own positions on the King case, that they would hold up. Larry and I, for instance, hold the default position that one should be skeptical of what James Earl Ray says unless he (a) had no obvious reason to deceive and ( can be corroborated; we do that because we would apply the same approach to ANY career criminal, convicted of a serious crime, much less one who affirmed his complicity in front of a judge, only to immediately retract it. If you give some default credibiity to Ray then you have to explain why Ray deserves any more benefit of the doubt beyond any other person in a similar position to him. If you can't do that without, more or less saying "he tells me what I want to hear" you better have some compelling reasons for everyone else to believe what you want to hear, independent of Ray.

For years I dealt with Ken Rahn, who taught his students a set of reasonably sound empirical principles for figurig out the truth, then consistently and flagrantly violated those principles when it came to his own work on bullet lead. The end result was years of Rahn insisting everyone respect his own authority, begging the question, and overstating his conclusions even as the science around him crumbled to the ground. Let's not go down the same path.

-Stu

I have been late to join this discussion, but I wanted to ask Martin something as he is writing his review.

Can you list the specific examples where an author said something that Ray himself said was fundamentally at odds with what Ray said? Not where Ray said he opposed the conclusions or direction taken by the author. Not where Ray's attorneys made insinuations about said author. But actual examples, in his many books, many interviews, and actual testimony, where Ray said: "Author X said A, but I said Z." Given that you say this is the focus on your upcoming review, I want to make sure we are talking about the same material. I don't think we need great detail, just a quick bullet list would be fine.

-Stu

The allegations that Tink is an agent are absurd. I'd take it further. The allegations made about virtually everyone is this case as being agents are pretty much absurd. I would include in this people like McAdams and others on the LN side. I disagree with them often, but they are honest in their convictions, and even when they are intellectually dishonest, I see the same thing with conspiracy theorists who become the mother of their own theory. If one studies COINTELPRO and similar operations, disinfo agents are the people who pit group member against group member, by instigating fights and raising suspicions about the people in the group. In that sense-- while I am loath to think virtually anyone in this field is a disinfo agent-- the ones who are doing the best job at playing the role are those who accuse researchers of working for the CIA, FBI, etc.

What bothers me about the whole thing is the premise: that individuals can get lucky but that groups of individuals cannot. This kind of logic gets bandied about when talking about Oswald's employment at the TSBD, for instance. It assumes that historical actors don't change with circumstances-- that the way history works itself out is the only way it could have worked out. Thus if the outcome requires that a group/conspiracy got a bit lucky, it must not have been a group/conspiracy.

The best counter-example to this is an actual assassination-- that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Several conspirators were in place along his parade route and attempted but failed to kill him. It is widely accepted that the conspiracy was larger than that-- and connected to a Serbian nationalist group known as the Black Hand. So how did Ferdinand die? He happened to have taken a wrong turn and approached Givrarlo Princip, one of the conspirators, who capitalized on this second opportunity to kill him. Pure chance. A group got lucky. Just like the Lincoln conspirators were lucky that Lincoln's guard was out drinking when Booth came to shoot him.

Nothing ever goes completely as planned. Groups have well-thought out ideas that go poorly due to bad luck and poorly-thought-out ideas that pan out due to good fortune. Groups, and individual group members, adjust to changing circumstances. Just like anyone else. Would world history (WW1) really be that different had the group succeeded in their first efforts? Even if Princip failed, whose to say they would not have tried at a later point?

In short: if Ruby was part of a conspiracy, whose to say that he simply wouldn't have shot Oswald in a courtroom, or paid a jailmate to kill him, etc. ? Maybe the conspiracy simply would have failed. But to base a whole line of logic on the idea that groups/conspirators can never get lucky is ridiculous and not historical.

-Stu

I need a picture of Gene Wheaton, preferably one from the 1990s. Could someone please send it to me at

swexler2@hotmail.com

... this could be a screen capture, etc.

Thanks,

Stu

Does this report (or another) list who those 83 people are and the people they targeted?

-Stu

Commission Document 1075 Justice Prison Bureau Rothstein Letter of 04 Jun 1964 with Attachments re: Threats to President

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=5

Dr. David A. Rothstein, clinnical staff psychiatrist at US Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Mo., wrote this original report on eleven inmates incarcerated for threatening the life of the president.

Of those cases, ten were ex-military, nine with dishcharge issues.

None of these studies consider the profile of the most prolific assassin - what I call the Operational Profile - based on the ex-military model, Lee Harvey Oswald, Michael Townley, Frank Strugis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Brad Ayers, El Nosair, Ali Mohammed, et al., whose MO is that of the covert intelligence agent, who uses alies, PO boxes, safe house apartments, codes and ciphers, foreign language, etc.

The first meeting of the Warren Commission Allen Dulles took a copy of a book about American Assassins and how they were all lone nut cases, except, as Commissioner McCloy pointed out, Lincoln's assassination.

For a better understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, Dulles should have brought a copy of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and the five types of agents that compromise a network, as outlined in the chapter on the Use of Secret Agents.

Instead, we get a psychological analysis of the framed patsy.

The copy of Rothstein's study posted at Mary Ferrell is hard to read. If anyone can find a link to another version of the same report I'd like to read it.

After writing his initial study of the eleven inmates who had threatened the president,

Rothstein went on to develop a theory he called Presidential assassination syndrome, which others have used as the basis for more recent studies of assassins, such as:

Assassination in the United States: An Operational Study of Recent Assassins, Attackers, and Near-Lethal Approachers – Robert A. Fein Ph.D. Bryan Vossekuil

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf

And The description and classification of presidential threateners

Dr. William S. Logan, M.D. 1 *, David L. Reuterfors, Ph.D. 2, Martin J. Bohn Jr., Ph.D. 2, Charles L. Clark, M.A. 3 1Staff Psychiatrist, Forensic Unit, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri 2Staff Psychologists, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners

3Mental Health Treatment Specialist, U.S. Probation Office, Western District of Missouri

*Correspondence to William S. Logan, 5019 S. Colonial, Springfield, MO 65807

Behavioral Sciences & the Law

Volume 2 Issue 2 Pages 151-167

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

Abstract:

Presidential threateners who received court-ordered psychiatric evaluations at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in 1981 and 1982 were studied. Using data from psychiatric reports and other background documents, the cases were analyzed according to demographic, legal, and psychiatric variables. Cases were also classified according to a system based on the characteristics of the threatener and the context in which the threat was made.

Then there's Political Assassinations and Personality Disorder:

The Cases of Lee Harvey Oswald and Yigal Amir

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/inter...i/vol12falk.cfm

By: Avner Falk, Ph.D., F.I.N.S. Avner Falk, Ph.D., F.I.N.S. (Jerusalem), is an Israeli clinical psychologist, political psychologist and psychohistorian. In addition to forty scholarly articles, he has published A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews and psychobiographies of Moshe Dayan, David Ben-Gurion, and Theodor Herzl. He is currently completing a psychobiography of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Abstract

This study reviews the current psychological understanding of political assassination—concluding that most political assassins are late adolescents in their middle twenties suffering from a severe narcissistic personality disorder or from an underlying borderline personality disorder with narcissistic features—and sketches the unconscious emotional dynamics of the political assassin, which involve deep murderous rage against the mother, rather than the father, even though the assassinated leader is usually a man rather than a woman. The examples of John F. Kennedy’s assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin Yigal Amir are adduced to illustrate these dynamics. An extensive bibliography is provided.

In which Rothstein's work is heavily cited:

He had failed as a Marine, a revolutionary, a husband, a provider, and a lover .... Now he would have the chance to kill the President of the United States and be welcomed to Cuba as a hero by Fidel Castro. He would undo the humiliating rebuff in Mexico City and still any of [the Cubans’] doubts about him .... In his mind, Oswald, in one bold stroke, would undo all his past humiliations and failures. He would kill the sexual rival for Marina’s affection. He would take his revenge on the society he blamed for his mother’s failures. He would destroy the man who held the position he felt his skills entitled him to hold. Kennedy was a symbol of all Oswald envied (Thomson et al., 1997, pp. 135-136, emphasis added).

As Rothstein (1966) wrote of Oswald: “Ironically enough, despite Lee’s hostility to his mother, he may have revealed his attachment to her by acting out through the assassination his conception of her own wish to be famous” (p. 264). At the same time, Oswald’s quest for an ideal “motherland” in the USSR, Mexico, and Cuba was a desperate unconscious yearning for the good mothering that he had never experienced. Through the unconscious defense of splitting, Oswald denigrated the United States (the bad mother) and idealized the Soviet Union and Cuba (the good mothers). Through the unconscious process of “projective identification”—an unconscious process by which “parts of the self and internal objects are split off and projected into the external object, which then becomes possessed by, controlled and identified with the projected parts” (Segal, 1973, p. 27)—Oswald seems to have repeated his early-life trauma with the roles reversed: he became the injuring early mother, while assigning to the president his own role of injured infant. Thus he displaced his murderous rage at his mother to Kennedy, with whom he identified....

Bla, bla, bla,....Of course, this analysis is of the Patsy, rather than the real assassin, so it too is useless in trying to explain and identify possible future assassins.

The most recent attempt at psychiatric profile of assassins:

Assessing Presidential Stalkers and Assassins

Robert T. M. Phillips, MD, PhD

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/2/154

The description and classification of presidential threateners

Dr. William S. Logan, M.D. 1 *, David L. Reuterfors, Ph.D. 2, Martin J. Bohn Jr., Ph.D. 2, Charles L. Clark, M.A. 3

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online

Dr. Phillips is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Maryland Schools of Medicine and Law, Baltimore, MD, and Consulting Psychiatrist, Protective Intelligence Division, United States Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC....

Abstract:

A considerable body of research on stalking has helped in our understanding of what motivates and characterizes this behavior. The stalking typologies that have evolved fall short, however, when we attempt to use them to understand persons who have pursued the President of the United States. Because of this shortcoming, the author (a consultant to the United States Secret Service) has had to develop a unique framework for understanding persons who have threatened, approached, or attacked Presidents of the United States or have appeared at the White House without invitation. The author has developed a technique that integrates psychiatric diagnosis with a conceptualization of what is known about others who have acted similarly. By codifying their actions based on motive, presence or absence of delusions, active psychosis, and intent to do harm, the author presents five descriptive categories that he suggests capture the various motivations of presidential stalkers and assassins and characterize the clinical context in which the behavior occurs....

...Finally, the Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project (ECSP) carried out by Fein and colleagues14 provided a behavior-based case review and analysis of "the thinking and behavior of all 83 persons known to have attacked or approached to attack a prominent pubic official or figure in the United States from 1949–1996," thereby dispelling many myths about assassination. This project operationalized how the idea of assassination developed into lethal or near-lethal action by focusing on motive, target selection, plan of attack, and communications and whether mental illness or life circumstances contributed to the assassination interest or behavior. However, no typology was offered, as the Project concluded that there is no profile of an assassin.

...Comparing and Integrating the Existing Classifications

Clarke's10 contribution of a taxonomy of American assassins and would-be assassins provided a much-needed framework to conceptualize their behavior. He suggested the following (Ref. 10, pp 14–16):

• Type I assassins view their acts as a probable sacrifice of self for a political ideal.

• Type II assassins are persons with overwhelming and aggressive egocentric needs for acceptance, recognition, and status.

• Type III assassins are psychopaths (or sociopaths) who believe that the condition of their lives is so intolerably meaningless and without purpose that destruction of society and themselves is desirable for its own sake.

• Type IV assassins are characterized by severe emotional and cognitive distortions that are expressed in hallucinations and delusion sof persecution and/or grandeur. As a rule, their acts are mystically "divinely" inspired—in a word, irrational or insane.

Eight major motives were identified by the ECSP (Ref. 14, pp 185–6):

• To achieve notoriety or fame;

• To bring attention to a personal or public problem;

• To avenge a perceived wrong; to retaliate for a perceived injury;

• To end personal pain; to be removed from society; to be killed;

• To save the country or the world; to fix a world problem;

• To develop a special relationship with the target;

• To make money;

• To bring about political change.

By drawing on the ECSP14 and integrating the Clarke10 classification with modifications, I have conceptualized five descriptive categories to try to capture the various motivations of presidential stalkers and assassins and the context in which the incidents occurred.

I have found these categories to be of great assistance in the clinical assessment of risk when consulting with the Secret Service as well as considering treatment options, case management, and prevention strategies when providing opinions to the United States Attorney, the Federal Public Defender, or private counsel. They may also be useful when developing a therapeutic plan for treatment of such persons by forensic clinicians who are responsible for their care.

The question raised by this effort is whether such a classification system may be useful to others. Would, for example, the six other psychiatrists who consult nationally for the Protective Intelligence Division of the Secret Service find this system useful when conducting their clinical assessments? Are there practical applications for this model beyond protecting the President? Are there parallels between stalking and assassinations of other public officials and celebrities?

It would be important to subject this model to empirical review. Given the low base rate of assassination and attacks coupled with the nonpublic nature of the cases in which attempts have been prevented, the adequacy of sample size will always be a concern. Although there is a greater number of White House cases, they represent a distinct group. We may be left with a descriptive methodology as the only viable alternative.

See My post on the Tim Russert Dead thread, it correlates a bit on the same topic you have posted here

Greg, on a different front, could you email me: swexler2@hotmail.com ... The email I have for you does not work and I am trying to arrange a connection for you.

I am saddened by the loss as he was a helpful source for our MLK work. Nice guy.

Stu,

without wanting to detract from the help he gave you, or indeed, deny he was a nice guy, I don't believe death should suddenly erase the bits which, for all I know, he may well have come to regret in later years.

The fact is, if he and his comrades had done their job to the fullest during those crucial investigations in the '60s, the neocons would be but a stub in Wiki for one...

Then there is the little matter of not wanting clerks to look too deeply into complaints about his employer. This demonstrates an attitude that at it's core, is antithetical to democratic principles and to justice.

I am saddened by the loss as he was a helpful source for our MLK work. Nice guy.

Stu,

without wanting to detract from the help he gave you, or indeed, deny he was a nice guy, I don't believe death should suddenly erase the bits which, for all I know, he may well have come to regret in later years.

The fact is, if he and his comrades had done their job to the fullest during those crucial investigations in the '60s, the neocons would be but a stub in Wiki for one...

Then there is the little matter of not wanting clerks to look too deeply into complaints about his employer. This demonstrates an attitude that at it's core, is antithetical to democratic principles and to justice.

I am saddened by the loss as he was a helpful source for our MLK work. Nice guy.

A note on POSTPONED IN FULL... as someone who has visited the archives in search of documents on many occasions, it is quite common to find documents that are "POSTPONED IN FULL" to be available in part or in their entirety. The NARA database is not updated often and I don't think it has been updated for some time.

Thanks, Steve and Jim. It's threads like this one that made we want to join this forum in the first place.

Years after his very suspect prison term for allegedly being implicated in a counterfeiting scheme,

Abraham Bolden would write Louis Stokes stating, “.......who is John Heard? If the name John Heard [Hurd] has not been documented in the files of the Warren Commission, then the files of the United States Congress are far from complete regarding the assassination of the President. Less than 24 hours after the assassination of the President, and while Lee Harvey Oswald was still in custody prior to his own assassination by Jack Ruby, all Secret Service offices across the nation were instructed to determine the whereabouts of a John Heard and any name phonetically sounding like Heard whose name was in the Secret Service Files. At a time when the nation’s attention was focused on the name Lee Oswald, the Secret Service were investigating John Heard all across the nation.......”

From Survivor’s Guilt Vincent M. Palamara Chapter 17 page 15-16.

It is also significant that both Bolden and Nagell acknowledged the other years later regarding being placed

in a cell next to each other.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

Additionally, NARA has three JFK Assassination documents that would seem to be pertinent to the above.

1.......180-10109-10264 ABRAHAM BOLDEN CHICAGO WASHINGTON 00/00/0000

2.......180-10075-10028 DOD, FILES; HEARD, JOHN [No Title] MILLER, JUDY, DOD [No To] 03/21/1978

3.......179-30001-10409 SUBJECTS : REVIEW OF RECORDS RE ATF (TREASURY)

Furthermore, in the following document at maryferrell.org Blakey request a namecheck re 5 topics...

# 3 would seem to fit in on this thread.....

LETTER TO CARPENTIER FROM BLAKEY :IN CONNECTION WITH ITS INVESTIGATION/REQUEST FOR FILES ON 5 NAMES..They were

1. NESTOR CASTELLANOS

2. CARL MATHER

3. JOHN DAVID HURT

4. COLLINS RADIO

5. MINUTEMEN ORGANIZATION

The information on Hurt is as follows

JOHN DAVID HURT

DATE OF BIRTH: 05/12/09 PLACE OF BIRTH: River Bend, Colorado Social Security No. 107-05-5407

Served with US Army Counterintelligence Corps in Europe and Japan

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

Yesterday, I had the first opportunity to peruse Abraham Bolden's book, he mentions this as well.......

Robert

Although at this time declassified files on John Hurt are not voluminous here is another one that has not been showcased on the Forum.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

And this is the guy who Oswald attempted to call while he was in jail?

The question mark is not there to take exception to the premise, but to show how illogical the whole issue of mental cases becomes after an incredible amount of repetition.

After a few years of perusing various documents pertaining to assassination related persons, an observation that should be pointed out that is applicable across the board, as well as in regards to the URL on John Hurt listed above.

How many persons in the legacy of the assassination have a history of mental problems?

The number if one set out to document it, would stupify you.

Leading one to the conclusion that one of the conditions of belonging to the conspiracy club was to have a history of mental problems, for those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, at first glance seems like a godsend, as in "the only people who allege a conspiracy are nut cases," but where it gets dicey is when the list of nut cases runs into dozens of people.......Leaving one to swallow a surreal logic that yes Oswald killed Kennedy and practically everyone that submitted

information either casting doubt on that conclusion was a mental case. The more crazy people in the boat, the more implausible the logic becomes. In the 1960's fear of getting to close to the truth made people fear for their lives, then the HSCA came alone and practically made fun of "the very idea" of mysterious deaths. Someone once uttered "who are you going to believe me or your own eyes." It seems appropriate regarding scores of people who died before they were going to testify.

Consider the case of the religous cult types that came out of the woodwork during the Garrison Case involving Clay Shaw.

While a great deal of attention focused on the death of David Ferrie, another religious figure the Rev. Carl Stanley also died in the same time frame, according to Peter Lavenda.

Yet there are at least five documents pertaining to Stanley that as of yesterday July 29, 2009 are still postponed in full.

Go to NARA and see for yourself.

I am anxious to see this for a number of reasons. For one thing, I am interested in seeing how they interpret the blood splatter differently than Sherry G. I would also like to see where exactly they place the rear entry wound: those unfamiliar with the LN world may not realize this, but the location of a supposed rear entry wound now really divides the LN community.

I do, however, have a big problem with what I have read thus far, namely, their decision to use a MC rifle in shooting from all of the locations. Who says the shot -- even a rear entry-- had to come from an MC rifle, or, for that matter, from normal FMJ ammo. There are ways of adjusting even FMJ MC rounds to get them to "behave" like varminting rounds, to my understanding. And did they test a double head shot? That is one of the most common theories.

This is to say nothing of how they interpret the head wounds to begin with, a la Pat. I know Pat and John Hunt have different interpretations, even from each other. The HSCA differed from the WC to some degree. Heck, even the HSCA's own experts had serious disagreements, ie Larry Angel.

I am also a bit skeptical of even their interpretation of their own results. Anyone who has seen the Discovery Channel Magic Bullet show knows that they got a radically deformed bullet from their simulation and then went into a bizarro world where this radically deformed bullet suddenly became proof of the SBT.

-Stu

Tim I think the incident was primarily an attempt to get someone who had connections to the Cuban underground (Sylvia, through her father) to help Oswald if he got into Cuba, as part of a plot against Castro.

I also think Leopoldo telegraphed the intentions to kill JFK if that failed; perhaps this an example of the vaunted indiscretion of the Cuban exile community.

I think Castro is a possibility as having ben behind this but I think it is much more likely that these were right-wing exiles who either had to pose as left-wing exiles (JURE) to manipulate Oswald and/or who wanted to implicate a left-wing group in either assassination. This would then, under either assassination scenario, preclude JURE from having a role in a post-Castro government. In the hardline exile community, and there are documents that attest to this, JURE was viewed as Cuban Communism Without Castro.

-Stu

To Stu:

It is my OPINION that the Odio incident had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Since there are at least several non-sinister explanations for what happened there, it cannot be considered evidence of a conspiracy. Therefore, those who argue the Odio incident is "prrof of the plot" are wrong.

To Bill:

So do you think the Odio incident was an attempt to link Oswald to anti-Castro Cubans? If so, perhaps the men at Odio's doors were in fact Castro agents pretending to be anti-Castro exiles.