William Kelly

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

Mark,

The whole idea of getting a grand jury inquiry is an end run around the Congress, FBI and all others who could run interference. Once the procedure is started, it won't be easy to stop. We don't need the government's permission - other than one Asst. District Attorney to get a grand jury of ordinary citizens asking questions of witness under oath and investigating crimes related to the assassination.

Thanks to all who are interested, and those who responded seriously. More to come.

Bill Kelly

GRAND JURY INFO FROM SUSAN BRENNER

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW

This article explains why grand juries will be used in these investigations. It also seeks to demystify the grand jury, the least understood and most secretive component of the American justice system. And it outlines some of the challenges involved in conducting an international investigation.

Why use a grand jury? Why can’t federal agents just conduct the investigation?

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.

And even if a witness shows that he or she is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, a prosecutor can deprive the witness of that right by giving the person immunity. Once the person has been given immunity, he or she has to answer the grand jury’s questions; if the witness still refuses to answer, the person will be incarcerated for civil contempt until he or she complies. People have been served up to eight years for refusing to speak when ordered to; Susan McDougall, who was subpoenaed by the White Water grand jury, served 18 months for civil contempt when she refused to cooperate with that grand jury.

Grand juries also certain advantages in regard to gathering documents and other types of physical evidence. Assume agents want to obtain bank records that may provide evidence about the activities of the World Trade Center terrorists. To get a search warrant for the records, the agents have to convince a magistrate that they have probable cause to believe the records are evidence of the commission of a federal crime; while the agents may be able to do this, gathering the information they need to present to the magistrate and completing a warrant application take time. A grand jury, on the other hand, can issue an evidence subpoena (called a subpoena duces tecum) for records or other evidence whenever it likes; the grand jury does not have to show probable cause or, indeed, establish any other evidentiary standard to issue subpoenas for documents, computers, blood samples or any other type of physical evidence. Grand juries are given wide latitude in conducting their investigations, so they can cast a wide net in issuing subpoenas for witnesses and for evidence.

Finally, grand juries can hear evidence that is not admissible in court. They can consider hearsay evidence which would not be allowed at trial and evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whom may a grand jury subpoena? Does the location of a witness make a difference?

A federal grand jury has the power to serve a subpoena on any person within the United States. Thus, both U.S. citizens and visitors to the U.S. may be compelled to testify and/or provide physical evidence. A federal grand jury also has the authority to subpoena U.S. citizens and residents abroad. Federal law currently does not grant grand juries the power to subpoena non U.S. citizens and residents abroad. However, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 and the fear of further attacks, every possibility exists that Congress will elect to extend the reach of grand jury subpoenas.

The question of whether aliens outside the United States could use the U.S. Constitution as a shield against testifying remains open. Many commentators believe that Fifth Amendment Due Process rights do not extend to aliens outside U.S. territory. Further, even if such rights exist, they would not be violated if prosecutors can show that a nexus exists between the witness and the United States such that it would not be unfair to submit him or her to the power of U.S. courts. Such a nexus exists if a transaction was aimed at causing criminal acts within the U.S. Ironically, this standard was most recently articulated in United States v. Bin Laden, a case involving the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

May the U.S. use force to apprehend grand jury targets or material witnesses and bring them to the United States?

Yes. In the past the Supreme Court has upheld the indictment and conviction of defendants who were literally kidnapped by U.S. forces and brought to the United States. Once a person is within U.S. territory, service of a subpoena is no longer a problem. Although these cases involved grand jury targets, rather than mere witnesses, at least one U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded that the principle of these cases also applies to material witnesses. Material witnesses are persons whom federal authorities have probable cause to believe have crucial information pertaining to the crime at issue.

Where can I find out more about federal grand juries?

You can learn more about federal, and state, grand juries and share your experiences with grand juries at this web site: http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur.

Bill,

Given the manner that the LAPD dealt with this case, destruction of evidence and all, I would not be surprised if that's who is really behing this crime. Burg. of a Habitation is a second degree felony here in Tx. (highest felony is first degree). Carries 2-20 years in the pen and up to a $10,000 fine. I suspect it's the same level in CA. Hardly "petty".

Very disturbing. If you have this info I am assuming the LAPD has it too. Any arrests?

thanx,

Dawn

Dawn,

There was a women attorney from North Calif. who submitted a peition-request for a grand jury to investigate the LAPD's action/inaction regarding the RFK assassination, which failed because no prosecutor worth his salt is going to ask a grand jury to investigate the cops he has to work with every day.I would have asked the grand jury investigate the psycho-doctors who screwed with SBS before and after the assassination.

Teeter was also trying to get some new legal action for Siran, they wanted to preserve the Ambassador kitchen as a crime scene, and Phil Melanson talked to Donald Trump about getting in there before the demolished it. There was some more legal action being contimplated though I'm not familiar with the details -gee I can only try to solve one political assassination at a time.

While the LAPD were told whose home was being vandalized, they were reluctant to act for a number of reasons, but were not behind the theft of the computer. That's one of the things that had some value for fencing, while the paper files didn't.

No arrests, but like I said, I got licenses plate #s, etc., though I don't think it worth pursing, though Teeter's girlfriend might need some help now in securing the files from the bar association.

BK

Many people criticized RFK for jumping into the race after McCarthy's success in NH for deviding the anti-war vote. I would be interested to hear the opinions of members of this forum.

-Was Kennedy wrong for entering the race?

-Could McCarthy have won the nomination and election if RFK hadn't entered the race?

Len

Len, I was one of the Clean for Gene, children's campaign, 17 years old and didn't know what I was doing.

I certainly liked my candidate and didn't like it when RFK joined the fray. An opportunist, I thought.

The New Jersey primary was around the same time as the California and Oregon primaries, and was overhsadowed by California.

I was shocked and saddened when my father woke me up that morning and told me RFK was killed.

Even at the convention in Chicago [60s Flashback #237], the Kennedy forces put up their own man - George McGovern, rather than back McCarthy, which I still don't understand.

The real powers that be wouldn't let McCarthy get the nomination let alone the election. McCarthy was too smart and independent.

During Ted Kennedy's 1980 campaign RFK, Jr. came to South Jersey and through my friendship with Stockton College professor Joe Walsh, I drove Bobby, Jr. around South Jersey to poliltical meetings, the black radio station where he did a live interview, and a fundrasing party, after which he stayed at my home in Ocean City. I told Bobby I was a McCarthy kid and how I felt about his dad, but there was no hard feelings.

I wrote up my "Reminiscences of the 1968 Campaign and the Chicago Riots," which details my conversion from a do goody liberal to an independent radical, if interested.

Like I said though, I was a 17 year old who didn't know what I was doing.

So the answer to your questions are No and No.

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. – By William Kelly – bkjfk3@yahoo.com

It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor’s Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK’s murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

The reason for the Congressional law that established the “50 year rule” on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.

It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we’ll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

“We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed,” JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 ‘Peace Speech’ at American University. We need not accept, “that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again.”

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort to do so is taken to do so. However belatedly, there has been a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, and the MLK assassination civil trial have all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a pot shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has “the fingerprints of intelligence.”

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn’t mean that they can’t be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra and the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.

How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a legal road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.

“As a general policy,” former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, “the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose.”

Well, besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK’s assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK probably would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury

Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…”

Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room.

If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime.

The DA can simply ignore such a citizen’s petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.

The Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor’s will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a “Runaway Grand Jury,” and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witnessed what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.

Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning Webb, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, “I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President.”

“I believe that a prosecution is feasible,” says Webb, “especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine,” which holds that “a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.” Agency theory holds that “all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators.”

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for.

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions. There are Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.

Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.

Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, New Orleans in particular, where a new District Attorney recently took over from former DA Harry Connick.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn’t a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

“That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a ‘Banana Republic,’” said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, “requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, ‘even if the heaven’s may fall.’”

It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal action take its course, wherever it may go.

William E. Kelly, Jr.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Pat, Dawn, John,....

After Teeter died, a group of people entered his home, evicted his live-in housekeeper, and ransacked the house for three days before Teeter's girlfriend and mother could get the local Bar Association to intervein and take custody of his papers.

When the housekeeper and Teeter's girlfriend first complained to the LAPD, they considered it a domestic issue and not a criminal one, especially when told it was SBS's attorney, and only acted with the Bar Association, who now has custody of the hard copy documents and records. Teeter's computer disapeared, and was probably sold.

If any attorney would like to inquire about this further, I can provide names and numbers. I also have the auto license plate numbers, descriptions of cars and names of those who did this, which the LAPD consideres a petty crime.

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

I sort a like GC's odds and analysis.

GC was in on the original administrative meetings that okayed the anti-Castro Cuban raiders in the spring of 63- April

Pardon me for my ignorance but who is (was) GC that was from before I was born.

Hi Len,

Gordon Chase was the assistant to JFK and LBJ's National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, one of the key principles on the inside at the White House and National Security Council.

I hope he's still alive so he can be called to testify about all this stuff.

And Len, BTW, I have a double homicide attributable to Bundy, alledgedly his first, if you're interested.

BK

John, I'm actually on Stewart's side on this one. While it's tempting to conclude that the journalists who helped out the CIA on occasion were under its control, I don't believe this to be the truth. To people as powerful as the Luces, the Grahams, the Alsops, Arthur Krock, Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, etc., their contact with the CIA was similar to Drew Pearson's contact with Johnson. To their minds, THEY were the ones gaining access and control over the CIA through the contact. Ultimately, there is just as much reason to believe Bradlee "controlled" Wisner as Wisner "controlled" Bradlee. I say this because Washington is a bureaucracy. Outside of Angleton, very few men in the CIA stuck around long enough to have the political power of the long-time columnists, and the long-time Senators, and Angleton was a hermit, a shadow. The only man who had the politcal clout to control the top journalists was Hoover, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of them had discovered ways of controlling him as well (such as writing stories about his homosexuality, and then never publishing them).

I think your writings on such matters would be easier for men like Stew 2 to take if you changed the word "control" into "develop a relationship with" or something equally nebulous. It is also probably closer to the truth.

I'm with Pat on this one. There must be a better word than 'control' like there's a better word for 'lie,' especially when its a two way street and the so called lie isn't intentional.

The Alsops are as much an American icon family as the Kennedys, and have earned the privildge and benefit of the doubt. Joe Alsop not onlly sat down socially with JFK, he got JFK to conceive of a coup d'etat in America if there was a Bay of Pigs, a situation similar to the Bay of Pigs (ie. Cuban Missile Crisis), and a third incident, then JFK said there could possibly be a coup in the US. [CAN SOMEBODY SITE THIS FOR ME?- THANKS -]

Also look at the first people LBJ calls after the assassination - Joe Alsop is one of the first reporters he calls, and gets assurances of alligance. I think that if JFK had durvived the hit, one of the first journalists he would talk to would be Joe Alsop, who played all sides of the fence, though was on the take as far as working for the CIA went.

BK

Tim G., after my post of the Scripps-Howard CASTRO PLOT TO KILL REAGAN bogus news report, asked if I had any evidence that Hinkley's attempt to kill Reagan was a conspiracy. Here's an article I wrote a few years ago on HINKLEY & COMPANY - BK

Bill: Excllent piece. So much food for thought here. We could spend every hour of our lives trying to sort these matters out, but it seems that there are so few of us and that the deck is so loaded. Reading thur this piece I thought about all the violent video games so many kids have been watching for now two decades. I have always wondered why these were manufactured. Obviously for profit, but that they lead to some kids viewing violence as the norm, culminating in many school shootings, made me wonder if there was not some more sinister force behind the production of these videos and films. (Your article certinly implies such).

The connections here between these indivuals, "Christian" fronts like World Vision and programming do indeed raise a LOT of suspicion.

You should send this to a mainstream mag like "Pshchology Today". They probably would not print it, but it needs to be widely read.

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

Thanks for reading it.

You wanna be my agent?

Are you interested in the JFK Grand Jury Project?

Also, when you hung out with Oglesby and the AIB were you in Boston or DC?

Many thanks,

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Hi Len,

And yes, many thanks for coming up with that gem.

I sort a like GC's odds and analysis.

It goes against what Lamar Waldron implies in his Ultimate Sack - That Che was one of the inside guys in on the Dec. 1 'coup'. The only coup took place on Nov. 22, and the Dec. 1 C-Day is growing figment of LM's imagination. Che wasn't Cuban so

GC was in on the original administrative meetings that okayed the anti-Castro Cuban raiders in the spring of 63- April - Nov, which included the Bayo Pawley/Rex missions, and was a middle man with the Castro-Lechuga-Attwood-JFK backchannel meetings, that took place in the same Lisa Howard NYC apartment where McCarthy met Che.

Does anyone have an address for Lisa Howard's NYC apartment? They should put a histoircal plaque there.

I still wish I had known about this when Gene McCarthy was alive so I could have gotten his first hand impression of meeting Che.

And I'm going to run out to the mall and get my Che t-shirt.

BK

Oddly McCarthy supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and backed the stratigic defense initive (Star Wars). In 2005, he was listed as a member of the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform a right-wing anti-immigration group.

Maybe McCarthy was talking with Che about Cuban immigration.

Can anyone document any references whatsoever for McCarthy meeting Che, Tad and Lisa in NYC?

BK

Ron wrote:

Can someone who knows Gordon Winslow (who Bill says has the microfilm of the court case) ask him how the story ended?

I received this reply from Mr. Winslow:

I never heard of this case before in my life. There are only a few trial transcripts I have on film and that one does not ring any bells

Tim, It's a MICRO-FILM - or MICRO-FESH - reels that you feed into a screen - not a Movie film of the trial. The film of the JFK assassination is mentioned in the trial transcripts that's on the microfilm.

What I know is this: Ohio researcher Ken Forment told me he had acquired a microfilm or microfesh tapes of the Bray v. Bendix trial and did I know anyone with a machine to read it. When I suggested Jim Lesar and the Assassination Archives and Research Center in DC, he replied that he had sent it to Gordon Winslow in Florida. Formet's name and address is in some of Winslow's old Researcher Directories.

I haven't been in contact with Formet in years, but will ask Lesar if he has any knowledge of what became of Formet's microfilm.

Also, this is why we need to reinforce the efforts of people like Prof. McKnight and Hood College and other independent archives, like AARC to save and preserve such records.

Below, my notes on all of this from years ago, and haven't worked on it since.

BK

KEYWORD:SUBMARINES

Submarine Serials

1) Clay Shaw wrote a play called “Submerged,” about men trapped in a sunken submarine.

2) George DeMohrenschildt introduced Lee Harvey Oswald to retired U.S. Navy admiral Chester Bruton, a former nuclear submarine commander and administrator at Collins Radio where he was working on a new communications system for the submarine fleet.

3) George DeMohrenschildt, while living in Washington D.C. during World War II, roomed with a naval officer (Hall) who became the commander of the U.S. Thresher, though he was not with the ship when it went down during sea trials on :

4) April 10, 1963, the day Lee Harvey Oswald is accused of taking a pot shot at retired General Edwin Walker.

5) “A team of scientists was asked to help test the USS Thresher (SSN-593), the first of a powerful new class of nuclear attack submarines designed to go somewhat deeper than the other subs of the day. On April 10, 1963, Thresher failed during a test dive to 1,300 feet. As best as anyone could tell, a piping failure and a subsequent loss of propulsion set off a series of events that caused the submarine to sink, killing all 128 men aboard,….In the wake of Thresher, the Navy promised a massive effort to learn about unforgiving ocean depths. There would be a ‘Safe Sub’ program. There would be ‘Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles.” – p. 68 “Blind Man’s Bluff – The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage” by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. ( 1998, Harper).

6) “The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, with the Office of Naval Research, was designing the ALVIN, a three-man submersible that could go down 6,000 feet….A Naval Intelligence officer….helped coordinate the submarine surveillance operations off the Soviet coasts. By now, those operations had been expanded to provide a year-round presence. Operating under the code name ‘Binnacle’ – later ‘Holystone’ – the Navy’s growing fleet of nuclear subs and diesels were keeping constant watch on the Soviets…In addition to these operations off the Soviet coast, some diesel subs carried Russian émigrés back to the Soviet Union to spy for the U.S.,…Submarine spying operations had become so important that the chief of Naval Operations in Washington had taken charge of coordinating all operations, and a special undersea warfare office had been set up within the Office of Naval Intelligence to plan them.” -p.70

7) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is on the coast of Massachusetts, not far from if not adjacent to the private island owned by the family of Michael Paine’s mother Ruth Forbes Paine Young, and where Michael’s wife Ruth Hyde Paine visited during her summer vacation in August, 1963.

7) An employee of the defense contractor that made allegedly falty o-rings used aboard the Thresher, Edward Bray, was visited by five men who claimed to represent JFCOTT – Justice for the Crew of The Thresher. They threatened the life of former Secretary of the Navy John Connally, and Bray wrote a letter to Connally warning him of the threat.

8) The novel “The Parallax View,” made into a movie with Warren Beaty, is about a reporter who uncovers a professional assassins recruiting ring. While the movie ends at the Dallas Trade Mart, the book ends in a remote area of Cape May, N.J., where there was a Coast Guard Electronics Engineering Base that served as a cover for a secret Navy base used to communicate with the U.S. submarine fleet. Lee H. Oswald’s brother was stationed at the nearby Coast Guard training base.

9) Navy Lt. Commander T. Narut told a reporter for the London Sunday Times that the U.S.M.C. maintains teams of assassins at embassies abroad, men recruited from submarine crews and paratroopers.

10) General Dynamics, who builds most of the U.S. nuclear submarines at their New Bedford, Connecticut plant, also built a special fleet of small, fast and maneuverable speedboats for the CIA’s anti-Castro Cuban fleet. The same Nazi scientists who designed the first jet plane was brought into the U.S. via Project Paperclip and worked on the speed boat hull design as an employee of Collins Radio.

11) President LBJ replaced John McCone as director of the CIA with Navy Adml. William F. “Red” Raborn, who brought the Polaris submarine missile program together, on time and under budget.

12) Among the contents of the Rambler Station Wagon owned by UT professor Wing, was a Life Magazine article about the Thresher and the Woods Hole O.C.

Thanks for putting that in perspective John. My eyes still water from the teargas.

I called McCarthy's former secretary, (correct name) Jean Stack, but the numbers no longer any good. Found the transcript of the brief phone conversation I had with McCarthy a few years ago, and dug out my McCarthy file, at the bottom of the pit, to see if there's anything there.

Will someone please comment on the McCarthy-Che-Szulc-Howard meeting in NYC? Maybe they read poetry.

- BK

William Kelly conversation with Eugene McCarthy – Friday, November 3, 2000.

Kelly: How are you?

McCarthy: I’m okay.

K: How old are you now?

Mc: I’m 84.

K: I hope to be in Washington next week, perhaps we could get together?

Mc: I maybe in Washington on Monday, I have to be in Princeton later in the week.

K: I got your number through your former secretary Jean Stack.

Mc: I could tell you a lot about her. She was with me for a long time. She was with me when I was in the House of Representatives, before I went to the Senate. I guess overall she was with me many years.

K: She must have been very good at what she did.

Mc: She was very good secretary. She’s the only one who has custody of my telephone number and address.

K: Well, I appreciate her hooking me up with you, it’s been a long time. What are you doing now, she said you have a new book out?

Mc: I have two books out, one is a thesis is that of a proper study of politicians, and the press as animals.

K: I’ll look them up and hope to talk with you again after I read them. What will you do in Princeton next week?

Mc: It’s a tribute to Adele Stevenson; a panel discussion on the influence of Adele Stevenson, he graduated from Princeton in 1925 or something, so there’s a Princeton connection.

K: What about a testimonial to you, will there be one?

Mc: I’ll have to live to be a hundred or something unusual like that.

K: Have you been back to Minnesota recently?

Mc: Yes, I was back in the last month I guess.

K: And what do you think of their governor, Jesse Ventura?

Mc: I think he’s an interesting person, and certainly capable of being governor of Minnesota. It’s interesting that he was elected governor of Minnesota, which is considered one of the most responsible electorates in the country.

K: Yes it is, but it seems they have a penchant for radicals, as when you were elected on the Democratic-Farm-Labor ticket.

Mc: Well it’s an earlier tradition than the Progressives, but the only bad thing it did, Minnesota was one of the principle advocates of the Volstead Act, which was the Prohibition amendment. Minnesota doesn’t make for good reformers, but they’re all right for radicals.

K: Jean Stack said she worked for a Socialist Congressman before she worked for you.

Mc: Yea, what was his name – Roark – from Pennsylvania? He was a nice, kind, socialist.

K: Are you on the internet?

Mc: No. Not on my own. Some of my things are on the internet, but I don’t know who put them on.

K: It seems to make things easier today.

Mc: Yea, that’s one of the good things that’s come of it.

K: Do you have a take on the election?

Mc: I always thought you campaigned the best you could and took the results, instead of determining your platform on the basis of polls or measure whether you are going to succeed or not based on polls. As far as I know, in 1968 we didn’t sponsor in the whole campaign.

K: Well, I remember 1968 very clearly, it was one of the most pivotal times in my life.

Mc: It was a critical time, and in fact, if given a free and open chance I think the American people would have demonstrated conclusively that they were prepared to cast judgment on their own policies. The principle of “My country right or wrong,” was not valid. It might have been all right in the War of 1812, but was not valid in 1968.

K: What about the influence of the Third Parties on this election?

Mc: I don’t know. The two major parties are tied to Parkinson’s Law, they’re trying to ensure their survival by legislating themselves into a precarious position. When the heat is on they challenge the independent thing where you will throw the election to one party or the other, instead of saying, let’s change the system so the 50% of the people who are not involved in the American Presidential election will feel they will have a chance to have some influence on it, instead of being passive as they are now.

K: My associate in Washington, John Judge, advocates what they call Real Democracy, in which they suggest the direct election of the President instead of an Electoral College, and that representative democracy is obsolete.

Mc: I think he’s mistaken. I think we should have representative government, and we ought to pick representatives, but we should not do on terms of winner-take-all, state-by-state, but by general national distribution by districts, as the founding fathers intended. If we had direct elections, it would deliver us into the hands and minds of the television people even more than we are now. Direct democracy would mean television democracy.

K: That wouldn’t work either. In any case, we are working on a project now, as the principle people behind the movement to release the JFK assassination files, the JFK Act of 1992, records which we are reading now. We’re trying to get a new Congressional Hearings in the next Congress to review what we have and what they are still withholding.

Mc: On what aspect of the Kennedy case?

K: On the assassination.

Mc: Well Lyndon Johnson was right. He was mistaken in what he did, but he was right in the reason he gave for doing it. He said, ‘If we don’t clear it up with a Commission and do it fast, it will become like the various speculative theories about the Abraham Lincoln assassination. And he was right. But closing it up really didn’t end the questions about it.

K: And we’re still fighting for some of the records, and have concluded that the best way is to try to get Congressional Hearings, possibly with the Government Operations Committee, which you were on at one time, is that correct?

Mc: I was on it for two years, the last two years I was in the Senate.

K: Well, I think they’re the people we’re going to have to go to.

Mc: When I first came to Congress, I was told, “Don’t worry about the big prestigious congressional committees, get on the Government Operations Committee, that’s where most of the work of Congress will occur in the future.”

K: And was it true?

Mc: That’s why I went on it, finally, before I left Congress, twenty years later.

K: The assassination affected you because you were on the short list as a possible candidate for the Vice Presidency in 1964.

Mc: Well, I don’t know about the list. That was a Johnson operation. I always said that I lost by one vote, because there was only one vote cast. So whoever won or lost on that either won or lost by one vote because Johnson controlled that. It was a complicated situation, but I said at the time that when Lyndon said he was going to give new meaning to the office, I lost interest in it. I was content with the old meaning – Thomas Jefferson gave to it. The whole idea of giving new meaning to the vice presidency is….the only new meaning that’s been given to it is that we now expect the vice president to pardon his predecessor if he’s impeached or convicted of some crime. So the vice president used to only have to vote in cases of ties and preside over the Senate, I was surprised that in the debates between Chaney and Liberman, no one asked if either or both of them were willing to pardon Bill Clinton or Albert Gore if they were convicted. It’s a new responsibility for the vice president.

K: Kennedy tried to give Johnson new responsibilities because he was going from being a powerful person in Congress to vice president.

Mc: He was willing to take it, but they really didn’t give him much authority. He didn’t think he was where he should have been when he was vice president.

K: Do you think we will ever have a resolution to the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mc: I don’t think so because there are too many people who were witness to it who are dead.

K: Well, I’m going to go out and get your books and get back to you when I’m in Washington, and I look forward to meeting with you again.

Mc: Thank you, and I’ll see you when I can.

Xxxyyyzzz

That is a really disturbing story. I'm not sure I believe it. Isn't it more likely that the housekeeper was in on it?

Does anyone know if Larry had any family?

Yes, Pat, I know, it is hard to believe.

Will get more details.

BK

Robert,

What do I make of John Goosh's assertion that the Thresher teletype made the Roscoe White orders?

I don't know. He also said he's identified the officer who sent the orders.

I'll try to reestablish contact with John. When I was in New Orleans once, he showed me around and I've been to his home, not far from downtown.

BK

Now I want to hear the Kennedy family's official response to all this - probably from Ted, and unofficial, feelings - from RFK, Jr.

Schlessinger also should chip in.

BK

The December 11, 2006 "New York Times" reports the death, at 89, of former Sen. Eugene McCarthy, whose dramatic showing in the New Hampshire primary caused LBJ to decide not to seek re-election in 1968.

Tim, to bring this around to topic, have you seen this tidbit from Ultimate Sack? (p777)

"...On Che's eight-day trip to the UN in December, he halso had secret meetings with Senator Eugne McCarthy and former ABC reporter Lisa Howard, who had told the White House 'Che has something to say to us.'...."

God Bless Gene McCarthy.

Bk

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

I met Larry Teeter briefly in Dallas last year, and he appeared to be in very poor health, taking only a few steps between stops. His lung problems were clearly in evidence. I doubt there is anything suspicious about his death.

Teeter lived in a bad section of LA, Cheech and Chong territory, and when he died, some blacks, claiming to be his family, evicted the live in maid/housekeeper, took over the house and began selling the computers, TVs, furniture, etc.

COPA secretary John Judge, in DC, got a lawyers group to get a court to order to force LAPD to secure the house and lock it up. I don't know what happened to the comptuers and files, but I would hope they were retrieved.

BK

John,

Thanks for starting this thread.

I just got Ultimate Sacrifice, and began reading it backwards, and was surprised to come across this passage: (p. 777) "...The combined operation reached a critical juncture in December 1964. AMTRUNK's Tad Szulc met in New York City with Che Guevara for "several hours" on Deccember 13, 1964. 25. On Che's eight-day trip to the UN in December, he also had secret meetings with Senator Eugene McCarthy and former ABC reporter Lisa Howard, who had told the White House 'Che has something to say to us.' At that time, historian Jorge Castaneda says Che's relationship with Castro was at a low ebb and 'his situation [with Castro] was untenable." 26

I didn't get to the Attwood-Howard part yet, but I think the backchannel coms is more significant than the plans for a coup, which I don't believe were that far advanced to be successful on Dec. 1.

AMTRUNK is Szulc's offer/mission to find disgrunted Cuban military and pols inside Cuba and forment an internal coup, which we are led to belive would take place on Dec. 1, and include US military intervention, when needed, ie. Dec. 2.

That JFK/CIA is using journalists to take the lead on both missions is telling, and that they both met with Che in New York is almost unbelievable.

The footnotes refer to published books.

And oh, yea, God Bless Gene McCarthy. The only living witness, now dead.

His longtime secretary, Jean Stafford, was a neighbor of mine, and played bridge with my mother. She gave me his phone number and I talked with him at length a few years ago. I was reaching for his phone number to call him when his picture flashed on the tv, along with Richard Pryer, and I knew he was dead. Maybe he said something to Jean or left some records of this now reported meeting in NYC? I'll check this one out.

(Attwood might still be alive)

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Eugene McCarthy - He died.

Eugene McCarthy died in his sleep in a D.C. area nursing home. The Senator from Minnessotta galvanized the anti-Vietnam War forces in 1968, almost defeating LBJ in New Hampshire, kicking open the door for RFK to run for President. RFK's opponent in the California primary, McCarthy was a poet and philosopher who inspired a lot of people, including me.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yaho.com

Some memorable quotations by and about Eugene McCarthy:

"Politics is like football -- you have to be smart enough to understand the game, but not smart enough to lose interest."

- McCarthy

The Vietnam War and the suffering it produced were "morally indefensible," McCarthy told his youthful audiences as he traveled the country to prepare his run against President Lyndon Johnson. "Party unity is not a sufficient excuse for silence."

McCarthy's iconoclasm may have peaked in the early 1980s when he endorsed Ronald Reagan for the White House and described fellow Minnesotan Walter Mondale as having "the soul of a vice president."

Asked if he would attend the Democrats' 1996 convention in Chicago, he replied dryly: "I wasn't invited. But then, I wasn't invited the last time [in 1968] either."

"There are altogether too many technicians in Washington now," he said in 1949 after being elected to the U.S. House. "I guess I agree with Plato that it's the philosopher who should rule."

McCarthy reflected on the 1968 campaign: "The press wondered if I had a deep, burning interest in being president. I had it for two days before the primary in Wisconsin. It never recurred after that."

Political biographer Theodore White wrote of McCarthy: "All through the years, one's admiration for the man grew -- and one's affections lessened."

After straining to describe the whole of McCarthy, journalist Jim Naughton once wrote: "To get it right you would say that for a few months in 1968, Eugene McCarthy stood at the flash point of history with a book of matches in his hand."

McCarthy seemed to take bittersweet delight in his alienation. "I think he has a rejection wish," his friend Maurice Rosenblatt once said. "He wants to reject others and be rejected by them."

McCarthy rebuked Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign as "those sitting by their campfires up on the hillside, throwing notes of encouragement down to those fighting the battle on the valley floor and then coming down to join in shooting the wounded and declaring victory when the battle was won."

Some years ago his dry wit was on display when television interviewer David Frost asked him: "How would you like the first line of your obituary to read?" McCarthy replied: " 'He died,' I suppose. That would be most reassuring."

He repeatedly declined to assess his place in history, insisting the record would stand for itself. "You just kind of let it happen," he said.

During the second COPA organizational conference, at the Chinatown Holiday Inn, I shared a room with Dennis Bartholowmew, and was very impressed with his research on the Rambler.

Dennis actually purchased the car, and if we can get a grand jury going, the Rambler will be one of the first items to be subpoened and given a thorough shakedown for evidence.

In addition, Formet, the Ohio researcher who came up with the microfilm of the official court records of the Bray v. Bendix trial, says that he sent the microfilm to Gordon Winslow in Florida, if anybody wants to follow up on that.

Also, a New Orleans researcher, John Gooch, says that in his investigation of the Rosco White ONI teletype orders, he is led to beleive that the teletype maching that made them was from the Thresher.

Now I know Roscoe and Ricky White's story has been challenged, but you can't take away the fact the Roscoe's wife worked for Jack Ruby and Roscoe served in the USMC with Oswald, two established facts.

Although I haven't been in contact with Gooch in the post-Katrina world, I hope he and other researchers down there are all right.

BK

The problem I see with establishing a People's Commission has surfaced within this very thread: those that wish to sidetrack and/or derail the purpose will evidently be able to do so at will. For if we begin the process of weeding out the disrupters, at what point do we become another version of the WC or the HSCA investigations, in which some witnesses were ignored or not invited, and some important questions not asked? WHO, then would decide which witnesses are important and which are not, and which evidence is germain to the issue and which is not?

In other words, how do we go about doing this fairly, and at what point do we concede, in "Pogo"-esque terminology, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us?" Better, how do we AVOID arriving at that point, without becoming a copy of the failed investigations that precede us?

Commissions have historically established to confirm a previously determined outcome, from the Doubleday Commission that determined Abner Doubleday invented the game of baseball in Cooperstown, New York in a certain year, which never happened.

In addion, the only thing a Commission can do is issue a report, it has no power to act. f

The Grand Jury on the other hand, especially a runaway grand jury, has the power to indict individuals for crimes - (though it is still up to the DA prosecutor to issue the indictment and bring the matter to trail).

The bets part of the Grand Jury proceedings, as far as eleminating disruption, is that only the evidence of crimes is presented, and those being questioned by the Grand Jury cannot have legal representation in the room for advice, and hearsay evidence is allowed.

If it goes to trail, then the defense is allowed to advise and cross examine witnesses, and hearsay isn't permitted.

Those responsible for the assassination of JFK and the coverup, really aren't affected by a Commission, but would be certainly scarred of a Grand Jury.

BK

Bill, with all due respect, the Mafia killed JFK (possibly with the help of Castro).

Bill wrote:

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

Of course it is a stretch, Bill, and I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Tim, it was late last night and I didn't read through the sarcasm, but such accusations happens routinely on every forum.

Now the name of the forum is JFK Assassination debate, which is different from JFK Assassination research, where the purpose isn't to argue different sides of an issue but to take what is known and learn more.

To me the JFK Assassination isn't a sophmoric forensic society debate team issue, but an unsolved homicide that can be solved despite the institutional unwillingness to do so.

Hijacking posts and giving your unasked opinion on every thread is a distraction.

And we know, LBJ knew, I know and everybody who wants to know understands the Mafia, Cuba or the Russkies didn't kill JFK because we - the FBI and NSA - monitored the leaders of these enteties when they received the news of the murder. And besides, such organizations can't be indicted for crimes, only individuals who may be a part of one of those entities, however when we get down to naming names, I'm sure it will be discerned as a domestic, inside job, and thus a coup.

As for Sheehan's tactics, using RICO and Tony A. to go after the covert action boys, well I hope the same tactics are used against those who commit domestic political assassination - including those who killed JFK.

I don't think it will be a matter of opinion or a long debate, but we will all know for sure soon, maybe a few years, but in the end, it will all come out in the cosmic wash.

BK

John wrote:

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

And if it wasn't for Tim Gratz's inquisitive and decisive requests, he wouldn't have drawn out and given us the jucey details and solid overall perspective that we've come to expect from Simkin, so its always good to have the devil's advocate at the table to call the hand and make sure we're all playing fair, as the devil is in the details.

But on the same tokin, almost every significant post on a topic of importance is hijacked enroute before it goes anywhere, degenerating into a sophmoric debate that ends nowhere. Is that by ignorance or design?

Anybody who views the assassination of JFK through the lens of a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, right wing or left wing philosophy, is not even in the game, where truth is the goal.

In the current issue of Rolling Stone, with Madona on the cover, James NSA Bamford premiers his apparent take over of the National Affairs Desk (God Bless HST), profiling John Rendon, a "perception manager" and Jersey Guy who the DOD and CIA paid $100 million dollars, so far, to sell the war in Iraq. Modern Mockingbird Guru.

Among the uses for this money is : "...engaging in 'military deception' on line....contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic - and 'participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked....'"

Rendon, by the way, is a, was a liberal democrat behind McGovern and Carter. who supports the whales, so all this liberal v. conservative, democrat v. republican stuff is all BS.

There really is no debate, JFK was murdered, those who killed him took over the government and got away with it, and those responsible are still in power today, and there's nothing you or me can do about it.

And anybody who thinks the CIA or Republicans or left wingers or right wingers are responsible for anything, or bothers to defend them, just don't get it.

BK

Tim,

Why you always trying to pick a fight with John?

You're not in the same weight class.

And Dawn,

The name of the former Jesuit priest is William J. Davis - not Davies.

BK

The day Lennon was killed I was working at the Atlantic City Sun newspaper, now defunct, then owned by Geofrey Douglas, New England blueblood, and edited by Semper Fi Charlie Montgomery, now editor at the Globe/National Enquirer in Florida.

I had already submitted my weekly music column, but when news of the assassination hit, I called in and asked to replace it with something on Lennon, who had appeared with the Beatles at Atlantic City Convnetion Hall in 1964, where the Democratic National Convention was also held that year.

Familiar with the Dakota, I knew a girl from college - UDayton,O, who lived acoss the street from the Dakota, where I had crashed on the couch a few times while in the city. I called her and she gave me the story: She was getting out of a cab with another girlfriend, new to the city, who remarked about John Lennon getting out of a limo across the street. My friend said to leave him alone, that they see him and other celebrities all the time, and would run into him again at the coffee shop in the morning, if they timed themselves right.

A few minutes later, as they got off the elevator, they heard the gunshots, went into the apartment and to the window, where they witnessed the arrest of Chapman. Since then, she said, the street was blocked off and thousands of people were outside her apartment with candles and singing.

I wrote it up, with quotes from and earwitness to the murder, and eyewitness to the arrest of the killer, which the NYTs didn't even have, and they put my column on the cover, but left off my name, a production error.

Chapman most certainly fits in with the Siran/Hinkley/Castillo mold, that he worked at one of the refugee camps where there were multible intelligence agency ops going on, and that a bay of pigs veteran would be on security at the scene, certainly makes it easier to follow the able danger dots, if anyone has the inclination to do so. I think Jan Weiner had a foia law suit on Lennon's goverment file, which documents the amount of effort the government put aganst Lennon.

There certainly are legitimate lone nuts out there - Howard Unruh comes to mind, but there's also those who have demonstratable associations with the government's mind-control/assassination programs of the 50s-70s, certainly don't qualify for lone nut category any more than Osawld does.

At first and for a long time I was unconvinced that the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK were related, but indeed they remain unsolved homicides, and I know that if the killers of JFK, or even Medgar Evers, were pursued and prosecuted, where ever the chips may fall, then MLK and RFK would still be alive today.

BK