Owen Parsons

I think the Forum was also blessed by the contributions of Nathaniel Weyl before his death.

I find it fascinating that the only person to connect Weyl with the "Ware Group" is Weyl himself. Not even Whitaker Chambers mentioned him. Ditto with Lee Pressman (who also refuted Chamber's allegation that Hiss belonged to this group).

My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist).

The key word here is "evidence," isn't it? There is indeed a good deal of evidence of *American* involvement (you mention the fact that these people are Americans, as if it is somehow more okay to accuse non-Americans of the crime, i.e. Castro).

P.S. In McCord's book, he gets into the details of the actual bugs, and explains that one of the bugs wasn't found for months afterwards. He cites this as but one example of the terrible work performed by the prosecution. Which brings me to another point (which may or may not have any bearing on Secret Agenda)... in McCord's book he goes on and on about the corruption of the Watergate prosecutors. If the CIA was in any way orchestrating his statements I would think they'd have made him focus on Nixon and would have asked him to avoid a fight with the Justice Department, if possible. But that's just speculation...

Read the chapter "The September Bug" for the story McCord won't tell you about this.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays etc.

I am I the only one here who watches Fox News and their "War on Christmas" segments just for the sheer amusement of it?

Owen, you need to understand that writers like Hougan have their own Secret Agenda. To sell a theory of what happened and sell lots of books... I have Secret Agenda, but only skimmed through it.

Oh, come on. This is the same garbage that gets thrown at JFK assassination researchers and witnesses. Whenever some one disagrees with you, they are out for money. I think this is a bit *inappropriate* since you haven't ever met or talked with Hougan and have only "skimmed" through his book. You are not in a position to pass judgements on his character. Why don't you try seriously reading and engaging with his book and leave out the character assassination? In addition, I find your attitude a bit condescending, like I wouldn't understand that people can have ulterior motives.

I read a lot more of Silent Coup (The Dean's wife is a whore book that Liddy found so attractive). I didn't find either one very credible. Their operating thesis seems to be that Nixon and his cronies were too smart to bug the Watergate, and too smart to get caught. I just don't see them as all that smart...true believers rarely are. In order to get into the muck, IMO, you need to read the memoirs of those involved...In McCord's book he announces that he is planning on writing a series of books exposing corruption in government. His lawyer was Bernard Fensterwald, one of the leaders of the assassination research community. In other words, McCord had thrown in with the research community.

Yes, I know all about Fensterwald and McCord. Hougan's book goes over it (he actually defends Fensterwald from allegations that he was CIA, something McCord perpetuated). I suggest you seriously read Hougan's book before talking about its "credibility" and "operative thesis." In addition, Helms is pretty much a peripheral character in the book. It is the Office of Security that gets most of the credit, if I recall (its been over a month since I finished reading the book and returned it to the library).

I just don't see him doing that if the whole expose-Nixon op was a plan hatched by the CIA. Would the CIA want their money to go to Fensterwald, who was personally lobbying Congress for a new investigation? Would they let Fensterwald use his involvement in Watergate as a platform to expose his views on the assassination?

Please read Hougan's book before building this strawman. Hougan's book does not hold that the ensuing scandal was a CIA "op." He thinks Nixon's bad press was fully deserved. He does not impute ulterior motives to either Woodward or Bernstein. The CIA was involved only to the extent of dissuading speculation about their own involvement. Bob Bennet did drive Woodward off the path of the CIA, as shown in CIA memos reprinted in full in one of Hougan's appendices. Also, Hougan cites numerous investigations by both the FBI and the phone company (one of which was immediately after the break-in), which demonstrate pretty conclusively that the phones of R. Spencer Oliver and Larry O'Brien were never tapped in the first place.

Besides, by the time McCord's book came out Helms was long gone and had been replaced by Nixon's hatchet man Schlesinger--so who was giving McCord his orders? In McCord's book and testimony he makes it clear that he'd heard from Hunt's wife that Nixon was going to try and pin the break-in on the CIA, and that this disgusted and horrified him. He decided to expose the whole thing right there. I totally understand why he would do this and fail to see what the mystery is. Yeah, it's possible he had a talk with Helms somewhere and that strengthened his decision. But that doesn't make his actions a CIA operation, merely a political act by a former member of the CIA.

Secret Agenda depicts McCord acting much more autonomously and in his own self interest than you seem to think it does.

Anyway, I'm going to stop here because I don't have the book with me. I can only really rebut what you think the book is about from memory. Its a better position than your own, but I'm not comfortable with it.

A commonsensical explanation of Oswald's assertion of seeing Powers in Moscow would indeed be that he saw him on television. Where else would Oswald have seen enough to conclude that Powers "seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow?"

At the trial (which seems to square better with Oswald's phraseology), of course. If anything, he would get a better sense of Power's character there than from T.V. spots.

Now we are into the realm of defending Professor Mellen's claim that Oswald appeared at Powers' trial on the basis that sitting in the back of a courtroom would have provided "a better sense of Powers' character there than from T.V. spots." Let's get back to Professor Mellen's source, which, to reiterate, was not Weberman. Anyone taking up the mantle of dogmatically defending every aspect of the book should be able to demonstrate the source of such a bold historical claim without resorting to unattributed sources. Let Professor Mellen explain the bases for asserting that Banister was shot to death, Oswald attended Powers' trial and Harvey testified to specific White House approval of a Johnny Roselli assassination plot.

T.C.

I don't know if Professor Mellen bases her statement about Oswald being at Powers' trial on Weberman or not. I just brought it up to demonstrate that there is some reason for concluding that he was, since you didn't understand "why or how" she could come to that conclusion. As for the debate about what would provide a better sense of Powers' character, you're the one who started down that path. I think a plain sense reading of the passage from Oswald's letter indicates he saw Powers' in person. Oswald may be making it up, but I don't think he is referring to what he saw on T.V.

I think Mellen's sources re: Banister and Harvey should be pretty apparent from her footnotes.

Might not Oswald have seen Powers on TV?

If he had just seen him on T.V., it would seem more natural for Oswald to simply say so and leave out extraneous details like where Powers was when he saw him.

A commonsensical explanation of Oswald's assertion of seeing Powers in Moscow would indeed be that he saw him on television. Where else would Oswald have seen enough to conclude that Powers "seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow?"

T.C.

At the trial (which seems to square better with Oswald's phraseology), of course. If anything, he would get a better sense of Powers' character there than from T.V. spots.

Might not Oswald have seen Powers on TV? The Russians did have television in 1960, did they not? I would bet that Russian TV had Powers on the news every night, as his very existence gave their government a raison d'etre. Powerful propaganda, shooting an enemy from the sky and putting him on trial, as opposed to locking him up in a cement house.

If he had just seen him on T.V., it would seem more natural for Oswald to simply say so and leave out extraneous details like where Powers was when he saw him.

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.

Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet.

From the excerpts Hougan quotes, A Piece of Tape appears to be a somewhat bizarre little book. IMO, Secret Agenda pretty convincingly shows all the falsehoods in the stories of both McCord and Hunt. Hunt's protestations of "retirement" from the CIA are very convincingly debunked. I don't think I'll be capable of taking McCord's writings on his supposed motivation seriously after reading Hougan's carefully documented and argued book. If McCord's role in history is diminished, then it is deservedly so.

Excuse my confusion between Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. Both books take the established facts of Watergate--that Nixon was corrupt and that it eventually caught up with him--and try to pin the blame on someone else, namely Helms and McCord in one book, Dean and Haig in the other (as I remember). The real story of Watergate is incredibly fascinating--a peek behind the curtain--and pretending or convincing ourselves that there is another curtain is silly, IMO. With Deep Throat exposed, the only mystery left as far as I can see is what was meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing, and why conservatives such as George HW Bush "broke out in assholes and xxxx themselves" after hearing the tape where Nixon used those words.

Secret Agenda doesn't absolve Nixon from blame at all. Nixon gets full credit for the cover-up (which is all he is credited with in the standard story). Hougan accepts Nixon's guilt as established and refers readers to Lukas' Nightmare for the details of the cover-up. He thinks the Watergate break-ins themselves have been overlooked, and sets about remedying the situation. I had originally thought that looking for "another curtain" was silly, but eventually decided to read Secret Agenda and was very impressed by it. Its a surprisingly cautious and careful book; it doesn't even propose a Deep Throat candidate. I get the impression that you haven't read the book, just the summaries.

I have never before even heard it rumored that Guy Banister was shot. According to the book, "Allen Campbell says a single round shot came in through the window, and that Delphine Roberts was present.... Mary Banister called her friend Ruth Lichtblau in terror. 'Guy's been shot!' she said.... Allen Campbell says he knows who shot Guy Banister."

Whether you have heard it rumored or not is pretty irrelevant, as Mellen cites her sources (who would be in a position to know). If you choose to disbelieve them that is your prerogative, but it has no bearing on Mellen's use of citations.

It's a wild claim to say that Harvey testified under oath that there was "White House approval and 'initiative' of the 'specific Rosselli operation' to murder Castro."

I don't know how you can call this a "wild claim." Mellen cites and quotes from the appropriate source (which is not the one Gratz was claiming Mellen used).

I can't help but wonder why or how Prof. Mellen would assert that Oswald "would even appear at Francis Gary Powers' trial" in Moscow. (p. 165). The notes generally reference some other books about the U-2 incident with which I'm familiar, but I don't know of anything more than baseless speculation that Oswald was anywhere near Powers, let alone definitively appearing at his extremely public "show" trial.

From Weberman's site:

On February 15, 1962, OSWALD wrote this to Robert Edward Oswald: "I heard over the Voice of America that they released Francis Gary Powers the U-2 spy plane fellow. that's big news where you are, I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow, when I saw him in Moscow."

The CIA commented: "The only period during which it would have been reasonably possible for OSWALD to have seen Francis Gary Powers in Moscow in person was between August 17, 1960 and August 19, 1960, when Francis Gary Powers was in Moscow, undergoing trial. There are no other indications that OSWALD was in Moscow after January 1960, so OSWALD'S statements remain unclarified."

Its not totally definitive, but its very far from being baseless.

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.

On the other hand, the recent furor about Beckham in my book should excite suspicion. I told Beckham on Sunday about Gus Russo's statement that Beckham was peddling a 300 page manuscript about the assassination in the 1970s. "I couldn't write a three word manuscript," he said to me. As you all know, his formal education ended in the third grade. So disinformation is being spread, smoke to confuse, like the recent book with the absurd thesis that Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcello and Johnny Rosselli, plotted the assassination of President Kennedy, a book that goes on to defame a very decent man, Alberto Fowler.

That was one of the things that immediately jumped out at me while skimming through Ultimate Sacrifice at Barnes & Noble and turned me off to the book.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you've finally arrived.

A couple of questions:

1. Do you have any more insights or information on Fred Crisman and his activities?

2. You state that Garrison would later come across information that would indicate that Oswald did indeed possess Ferrie's library card, but that it had been destroyed. Could you fill in the details?

Thanks for an excellent book!

When you talk to them, you don't get the impression of lying. One of them was remarkably candid about all sorts of embarrassing things, and he agrees with Garrison that there was a conspiracy at high levels, but he thinks the only way his close friend could have been a part of it was to completely fool him, and he doubts that. Why, 40 years later, with no real legal complications, would they lie about this one thing? If there were something suspicious on the trip, they could make a bundle with a book.

Loyalty to a friend? Self-preservation (I am not speaking of legal complications here)? I think there are some concerns that may override monetary gain.

As for guns, both told me there were no guns, but that there had been a separate hunting trip around that time. Mellen quotes Beaubouef as saying that there were guns but that they were afraid to admit it. I hope to follow up on this.

Beaubouef said that Ferrie told him to lie about the guns. Ferrie also told his godson, Morris Brownlee, that this attempt to lie about the guns was to keep the D.A. from getting anything on him.

As for purpose, as one put it, a trip is not always for one reason. I don't really see much conflict. "A" trip had been discussed as far back as a month or so. None were sure exactly when it would be. The end of the Marcello trial made it possible. The need to transact legal business with a Gill client in Vinton made it almost imperative. It seemed apparent on about the 20th that the trial would soon end, and tentative plans were made. On the 22nd, they decided to go. Part business, part visiting relatives, part drinking and driving, etc., and part looking at ice rinks as a business venture. (There was apparently some pre-assassination interest in one particular rink venture. And remember that Ferrie and Beaubouef had capital and DID invest in a business together just a few weeks later.) In one sense, it seems a little odd, but when I think back to some of my trips, I can see his point.

Coffee says the trip was planned two days in advance, that they left at 7 pm, and that it was Ferrie's idea. Beaubouef says it was planned in detail a week in advance, that the trio left at 4 pm, and that he came up with idea. These two stories are not all that reconciliable.

What purpose would Ferrie have had for establishing his presence there on Saturday November 23 from 3:30-5:30pm? Russo claimed the trip was to form an alibi for the assassination, not the day after.

I am perfectly aware of this, of course. Ferrie apparently had a change of alibi plans. I wonder why, however, Ferrie felt the need (after learning that he was being investigated) to drop his buddies off in New Orleans and then flee to Hammond in the first place. Are these the actions of an innocent man? What did Ferrie have to fear?

They had originally planned to go to a rink in Baton Rouge, which was closed. Then they tried Winterland. And one of the boys said that, when they got there, Ferrie talked for about 5 minutes with the "manager". But Ferrie did mention Rolland by name, so it becomes a he said-he said.

I think if any account of this alleged discussion is to be authoritative, it ought to be the one Ferrie gave to the FBI within days of the incident. And, as I noted before, Ferrie would later drop this aspect of his story totally.

With respect to Rolland, he seemed very eager to please Garrison. He said that Ferrie did not don skates, then admitted that he had not been there when Ferrie arrived (and his friends say he tried skating). He said Ferrie stayed at the phone, but admitted that he was doing other things and did not watch him.

This is not exactly accurate. Rolland doesn't base his conclusions on Ferrie's skating activities on what he saw, but rather on the fact that Ferrie did not buy a ticket for that purpose, a thing Rolland would be in a position to know. I don't know what you're point is about Rolland not watching Ferrie at all times. When Rolland was watching Ferrie, he was far more often than not on the phone.

First, as Ferrie's time is accounted for by the boys from about 4pm Friday through the weekend, it doesn't seem possible for him to have visited Garner on the night of the assassination, or until at least the night of Monday November 25.

I agree with you here. I think Garner was probably mistaken about the date.

The library card did not become a big issue until after Ferrie's death, but the friend remembered him mentioning it just after the assassination. He said Ferrie was called in by the FBI and Secret Service and questioned about Oswald, whom he said he did not know or recall. One of the two agencies asked about "one of his cards" that might have been found in Oswald's possessions, and he said he knew nothing about it. Then he contacted a CAP boy [presumably Voebel] who told him that Oswald had been in the Moisant squadron in the mid-50s and attended a party at Ferrie's home. Ferrie said he didn't remember him but worried that he might have been there and taken one of his cards.

That's the extent of what he remembers. Ferrie did contact Voebel, according to the FBI, and he passed Voebel's info back to the FBI. I speculate that this is when Ferrie looked to see if the authorities had found any card of his at Oswald's homes.

As I noted in another thread, the FBI/SS interest in a library card is directly attributable to Jack Martin, who said he based it on something he heard on TV. I'd consider the possibility that this is just Ferrie's "spin", but for the fact that Martin was the source of the allegation and there was no such card ever recorded in Oswald's possession.

So I'm following Ferrie on two tracks, two possibilites: One, that the prevailing wisdom about Ferrie is true, and Two, that it may not be.

The biggest problem with this account is that it has Ferrie first learning of the library card from the FBI. I think this is unlikely, as G. Wray Gill knew of this allegation and left a message to that effect at Ferrie's residence. Gill had been conversing with Ferrie over the phone prior to Ferrie's return to New Orleans and his FBI interview. Besides that, it still doesnt explain why Ferrie would get worked up over Oswald being in possession of his library card, even after the FBI had dropped the matter.

The "BIG" question remains -- how the hell would I know anything at all about Helm's activities during the 1960s, and why would I even care ??

Gee, I dunno Gerry. You seem to know everything about everyone else, why stop with Helms?

The entire series is here.

I don't think speaking out in support of conspiracies should negatively impact a witnesses' credibility. It is only when they start alleging too much personal knowledge in support of their beliefs that I think eyebrows should be raised. Wheaton only has important personal knowledge about one event, he theorizes about the rest.

Also, Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink? I doubt this, as Rowland Rolland, the president of the rink, only recalled Ferrie approaching him and mentioning his name a few times, in addition to the incessant phone activity (which I'm sure you are aware of). I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

I have some new info about that, which involves some pre-assassination interest in a rink and a different man. I spoke with both the boys who made the trip, and they insist that Ferrie did discuss operating a rink with somebody at Winterland, but they think it may have been the manager on duty before Rolland arrived. They insist that all three men skated initially but Ferrie gave up because he was "hopeless", ate a sandwich and made a few calls. Rolland did arrive late. They deny that he tried to draw attention to himself. It is enlightening, talking to the actual people involved. I don't have the tapes handy, but they say things like: "I was THERE. It was a damn trip. Dave did nothing suspicious, I would have noticed if he did. People have elevated a simple trip with some legal business and a joyride to something sinister." I am NOT saying this is the final word on it! People have warned me that "Ferrie's friends are all a bunch of lairs", but you don't get that impression talking to them. I'm just going to tell "both" sides of it in the book.

I think there is some reason to doubt the veracity of Ferrie's friends, seeing as how they initially couldn't keep their stories straight as to who proposed the trip and when, whether there were weapons in the car or not, and its exact purpose. I certainly think their accounts should be presented though.

As for Mr. Rolland, he may have arrived late, but Ferrie apparently didn't mention anything about opening an ice rink in his call to him a week prior. And if Ferrie was genuinely interested in purchasing a skating rink, I find it odd that he would say nothing of this during the five times he came up to Mr. Rolland to mention his name and make his presence known (which I think qualifies as "draw[ing] attention to himself" and comes from a source who was certainly "involved" and seems to have no ulterior motives, unlike Ferrie's friends). Ferrie's friends are either very much mistaken or just plain untruthful if they insist that Rolland was probably not the one Ferrie allegedly talked to about his rink purchasing plans. Ferrie, in his FBI interview of the 25th, very close to the incident, states that it was Rolland that he had a lengthy conversation with about the "cost of installation and operation of the rink" (which is not born out by Rolland himself). Apparently Ferrie realized this story wouldn't be corroborated by Rolland and later dropped the rink purchasing aspect of his tale, stating that he "just had the urge to go ice skating" in his 1967 NODA interview. Also, Rolland may not have have been monitoring Ferrie's activities at all times, but he did testify that Ferrie "did not buy a ticket of admission for skating purposes," which would appear to rule out skating activity.

I'd like to hear this "sketchy account" re: the library card.

...Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink?... I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.

Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president.

I don't for a moment admit that the library card and the activities of David Ferrie to recover it are a "minor detail." The use of a public telephone at an ice skating rink is to be deemed significant but visits to people like Oswald's landlady to recover the library card aren't? So what is Owen saying? Jack Martin created Ferrie's library card anxiety? That there was an assassination planned out involving both Ferrie and Oswald, but something Martin did suddenly raised concern? Despite all the planning, Ferrie forgot about the card until just after the shooting, and then suddenly realized the significance? Or is Owen trying to claim that Ferrie didn't know of Oswald's involvement until after he "heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president?" It doesn't make sense.

T.C.

The library card itself would be a minor detail, Ferrie's activities to recover it aren't. The library card wouldn't be significant to Ferrie (if it ever existed) during the time leading up to the assassination because it is a small item that wasn't involved in the assassination planning (and would have to have been loaned to Oswald while he was in the CAP, during the 1950's, since Ferrie had a more recent card on hand). Its a detail that anyone could easily forget. Ferrie's getting so worked up about it (after Martin started spreading the library card story; this wasn't something that just occured to Ferrie) is what I find strange. And the use of the public telephone and his odd behavior around Rolland take on more significance because they run counter to Ferrie's own story of his activities in the ice rink.

Also, I am not saying that Ferrie didn't know of Oswald's involvement until after he heard of the assassination; I am simply setting up the scenario for Ferrie's innocence, which I think should be fairly obvious. You are only making this difficult for yourself.

...Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink?... I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.

T.C.

Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president. More to the point, one wonders why Ferrie would become so worried about something that only links him to Oswald and not an assassination plot. This takes a great deal of paranoia.

Matt, it's not just Garrison; it's Hoover and Nixon and who knows who else.

But Matt, respectfully, Garrison got it ALL wrong (and I say so without necessarily impugning the sincerity of his motives).

Read "Ultimate Sacrifice", IMO the definitivew work on the assassination to date.

Then try to find Shaw in the book. He's on all of one page!

You go on and on about how wrong Garrison was without adressing his evidence (except to say that Garrison's case against Shaw boils down to Perry Russo, which is wrong). And why is the number of times Shaw is mentioned in Ultimate Sacrifice of any significance?

Also, Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink? I doubt this, as Rowland Rolland, the president of the rink, only recalled Ferrie approaching him and mentioning his name a few times, in addition to the incessant phone activity (which I'm sure you are aware of). I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Stephen, as one who has appreciated your knowledgable and thoughtful posts on all things Ferrie can I just say, save your breath, Lynne is not here to learn. you will find debate with her is akin to banging your head against a brick wall, your damn pleased when it stops. Steve.

I second this. Don't waste your time on her. She is an automaton that posts the same things over and over and is totally incapable of changing her opinion one iota. I spent about 2000-3000 words in a single post rebutting her over a month ago to no avail.

Tim apparently has difficulty seeing that Russo's book is a "black book," complete with a cooked Agency-backed thesis.

You haven't read the book, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't post something so blatantly untrue. Mellen never says Garrison hated Turner. Mellen has her own criticisms of Turner's investigative work in one particular area. But she says that Garrison trusted Turner. What you have posted is a complete fabrication.

Even if Garrison did hate Turner (which he didn't), this wouldn't change the fact that Turner endorses the case against Shaw.

Dawn, of course I read Mellen's book cover to cover. It is replete with errors.

I'll go with William Turner's endorsement of "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Bill Turner also endorses the "non-existent" case against Clay Shaw, last I checked.

I was seeing so much red after reading that post that I missed Tim's explanation. Whoops.

I know Tim believes that Oswald was an intelligence asset (thus cutting himself off from most of the CIA's cooked evidence of Commie links to the assassination). This takes some intellectual courage and I commend him for it. I don't buy his protestations that his assassination views aren't linked to his political ideology, though. I don't think its a coincidence that a card-carrying Buckleyite would just happen to come to the conclusion that Castro engineered the assassination.

John wrote:

It has always been the policy of the CIA to deny the truth of these allegations whilst smearing the good name of the investigators. This has been true of all those who have investigated the role of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. Some like Tim Gratz are only too keen to believe these smear stories. In fact, at every opportunity, he takes the side of the CIA against these investigators

Why would I not "take the side of the CIA" as you put it when the evidence for any CIA involvement in the assassination is as thin as a reed? But I repeat myself til I am blue in the face: it was reprehensible beyond any level of condemnation for the CIA to almost literally get "in bed with the devil" in an attempt to murder a foreign head of state. If the preemise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is correct, it was that moral compromise that allowed the Mafia to kill our president with impunity.

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.

The only person who has utilized evidence as "thin as a reed" here is you. Your "nonexistent" case for Castro's culpability (which has since morphed into the slightly more solid case for the Mob's culpability) in the assassination is/was based entirely on could-haves and would-haves. I find it particularly humorous that you fault Garrison's case because his only witness to the overt act of conspiracy was Perry Russo* (leaving aside the other evidence against Shaw). This a good deal better than the smoke from which you constructed your theory.

Your thesis that the reason "left-wingers" implicate the CIA in the assassination is to harm the United States is so laughable, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It speaks for itself.

*Russo, by the way, was an extreme right-winger, probably more so than yourself. This makes his testimony all the more compelling to me, because I find it doubtful that he would fabricate a right-wing conspiracy to murder JFK (whom he despised).