Owen Parsons

I don't know, he is pretty proactive in getting his point across. In addition, he stated "very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that was the correct conclusion." And remember, he arrived at this conclusion only three days after the assassination. What sort of "integrity" is this? Some one who's only contribution to JFK assassination research was ensuring that the public accept that Oswald acted along doesn't belong on the list, let alone as a "Yang." And really, if you think its so appalling that Garrison believed the Warren report until 1965, how can you honestly excuse Katzenbach?

When has Katzenbach ever been anything but a "Yin?" Has he made some spectacular turn-around in recent years that I missed? Thanks for the wonderful Mat Wilson link, I missed it the first time.

Stupendous! That's only the one millionth time you've posted that plagiarized "Mat Wilson" article. Like a broken record... BTW, I am still having difficulty deciphering your Bizarro logic in choosing Epstein and Katzenbach as Yangs. Can you help me here?

I'd also like to thank Duke for his very informative posts. Particularly interesting for me was the stuff he posted awhile back about the Tippit autopsy material. I had been wondering if this would support Jack Tatum (the coup de grace witness) for a while, since no other witness had reported this.

Like a broken record... What a wonderfully Manichaean view of things you have; the forces of darkness versus the forces of light. Who knew that JFK assassination research was such a mystical area of study? I am somewhat baffled by your inclusion of Epstein (he pretty much thinks Oswald did it now-a-days) and "Katzenback" (sic) in the "Yang" list. Katzenbach, in his famous memo, stated that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Are you from Bizarro World? Your posts have me wondering. BTW, who is David Ferrie?

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody. Why did Beckham not come forward to the authorities? Why was he not eliminated? You answer your first question with the second. Beckham did not tell his HSCA story to the Grand Jury because Fred Chrisman, and later A. Roswell Thompson, had threatened his life. It was only after he learned of Chrisman's death that Beckham really spilled his guts to the HSCA. Stephen Roy/Blackburst had raised a similar objection in alt.assassination.jfk, apparently not bothering to read Beckham's stated reason for the difference. He also noted that "even" Jack Martin warned the HSCA off Beckham, apparently not realizing that this is perfectly understandable as Beckham's testimony implicates Martin. It seems to me that questions about Beckham's testimony are usually best answered by paying attention to his testimony. I find Beckham's testimony compelling because it fits well with all I have learned about the assassination, and it explains aspects of his life well, the "church" activity, his relationship with Col. Lowry, the specialized knowledge of Jack Martin displayed in his Grand Jury testimony, etc. As for Shaw's sexual behavior, this is usually a part of the testimony of some of the homosexual informants (like David Logan and William Morris) with information relevant to the assassination, or information about his sexual activities is sometimes used to corrobate these very witnesses. In addition, Shaw's homosexual activities are pretty well tied in with his alias, Clay Bertand. They also reveal his more violent tendencies, which undermine Shaw's carefully constructed public image. I think you would do well to drop the cannard about Garrison believing the assassination was a homosexual thrill-killing (the source for this, James Phelan, has been revealed to be unworthy of anyone's trust), even if you do add a qualifier. Mellen shows just how ahead of his time Garrison was on the issue of "crimes against nature." In fact, just read On the Trail of the Assassins to see this. Garrison does not mention that Ferrie and Shaw were homosexual once, and thoroughly removes any traces of homosexual content from the accounts of David Logan and William Morris. I have already dealt with the objections to the "loan theory" (it isn't a theory if it's based on eyewitness testimony, you know this). The most virulent criticisms of Garrison did not originate, as you state, with respected assassination researchers but dubious "news men." Since you have read the book, you should know this. You say you do not "endorse" it, but by falsely stating that the most virulent criticism of Garrison comes from respected assassination researchers, you lend it legitimacy. Yes, but your general comments about it seemed pretty positive.

Please, Tim. Garrison did investigate Marcello in connection to the assassination, as documented by the internal NODA memos. This is not an action Garrison would take if he was, as you insinuate but do not state, covering for Marcello. Marcello also didn't even live in New Orleans, something people seem to forget. Your behavior in relation to this book is very strange. When you had the pre-review copy, I didn't sense that you had any misgivings with it whatsoever. Now that its officially released, you can't stop picking at real and perceived nits.

That's fine, but I would appreciate it if you at least notified me through a private message that you've moved your response into a separate thread.

Lamar outlined the contents of his book Ultimate Sacrifice. I had dinner with him last night and he has agreed to discuss the book on the Forum. Interestingly, he says he made a lot of use of the Forum (and my website) in his research. I think he has got it about 95% right. I suspect that his theory will upset some members because he argues that JFK was serious about his plan to overthrow Castro in December, 1963. Others will disagree about the reasons why LBJ and RFK covered up the assassination. It is a very impressive book and recommend that you all buy it. It is possibly the best book written on the JFK assassination so far. It is mainly based on recently released documents. I really have no qualms about believing that the Kennedy's had a coup against Castro in the workings. This could well be valid, and, after looking at the book's website, I am actually somewhat excited about it and may attempt to get my hands on it. I also note that Vincent Palamara gives it his thumbs up on the Amazon page, as well as Bill Turner on the book's website, which are good signs. At the very least, it will have a substantial amount of new material to chew over. I think the stuff about the mafia being the primary mover behind the assassination is pretty much wrong, though.

It would be a matter of pride on Ferrie's part, because Wagner said the loan looked dubious and wouldn't take it. Ferrie could probably have gotten the money if he just asked, but apparently he didn't. I've already offered several other example's of Shaw's blunders, and probably bigger ones at that. Outing himself as Clay Bertrand more strongly links himself to the assassination than his association with David Ferrie. As I have already said, the Ferrie flight to Dallas could easily be written off as coincidence, if the need ever arose. And really, if the conspirators pulled everything off so flawlessly, we wouldn't be here debating this. As for Wagner not coming forward with his story to Garrison, it could quite easily be because he feared for his life, with all the other corpses turning up (Ferrie's not being the least of them). This is certainly the impression I got. Saying the story is "incredible on its face" is really overstating the matter. Also, I would appreciate it if you would reply to my posts in the threads I actually posted them in.

Also read about Lisa Pease's encounters with Douglas here.

I got the impression from Mellen's book that while Garrison knew about Spiesel's other oddities, he was unaware of his claims of having being repeatedly hypnotized. The Spiesel scene must be in the director's cut, as I don't remember this at all. Edit: Just checked the IMDB page on JFK and it would appear that the Spiesel scene is indeed on the director's cut. Also, I am not sure if Ian Griggs brings anything new to the table, but Prouty offers a pretty detailed rebuttal of other attacks against the significance of the Christchurch Star story. It should be taken into account, at the very least.

You didn't address a single article I posted, Tim. That article you posted is wrong on several points (Hiss as ALES, and Navasky admitting Hiss' "espionage") and is in general pretty irrelevant. The reason Hiss denied knowing Chambers was because he knew him under another name at the time ("George Crosley") and Chambers looked much different by the time he began making his accusations public. It was only later that it occured to Hiss that they might well be the same man.

I don't really think that Marcello was involved to any significant extent (G. Wray Gill is his own man, after all, and his involvement with Ferrie would be more to the point). I just wondered where Mellen said he wasn't. If you still believe that Garrison was covering for Marcello, you must have read a different book than I have. Besides that, how would Beckham's account indict Garrison for failure to go after Marcello, since Beckham didn't tell Garrison any of this?

Why do you think? I like a certain amount of privacy. Maybe you wouldn't recognize me, but anyone else might. Nothing to do with being a "secret-agent-boy." Maybe I am being paranoid... Still... Also, that would be Terry, not Gratz, who pointed out the striking resemblance between Ms. Foster's photo and Lady Bird, unless I am mistaken.

------------------------ You suck-seded in WHAT ??!! Are you a "high school senior" in real life NEWBIE/FNG -- or NOT ??!! Where is your response to my BIO question ?? Cat got your fingers ?? Join up with Ms. MATTine, your cruising in the same lane [Ford] !! GPH __________________________ Its true that I am quite hesitant about supplying a pic. I won't deny this. And yes, I am a high school senior in real life. What kind of idiot would fabricate such stunning credentials as those? I would certainly classify that outburst of yours as a "hissy fit." What would you call it?

Although I had never intended to bait you into a hissy fit, I certainly succeeded. I can only assume that this means that you will show us all that Murgado is doing your bidding and move this out of the area of speculation. Wonderful, Gerry. Blind us all with this light you speak of. You've lead a fascinating life, no doubt. Even making a fool out of a law professor. My, my. I am most certainly not Mellen's research assistant. This is the first I've heard of this alleged incident.

Bill Turner is an example of a good historical researcher/writer. As for previously denied accusations about "attacks," it is precisely the distinction between Turner's scholarship and Mellen's that is at issue. Bill Turner didn't use the hook of a face-to-face meeting between Bobby Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, only to discredit the story's source. Angel Murgado's story endows Bobby with knowledge of Oswald, but not face-to-face contact. Hemming's story conveys the same gist, but more strongly. She uses it to make Bobby's alleged knowledge of Oswald more forceful to the reader, but it is not the source of her point. It is a "metaphor" for it, as explicitly stated. The reader is supposed to treat Hemming's tale as a metaphor rather than historical narrative? What kind of sense does that make? Looking at the sum total of the use made of Gerry Hemming for this book, one can see that he was a serious contributor to the work, both above and behind the scenes. If one dismisses that contribution as not to be "treated as true," one is cutting out a substantial amount of the new material contained therein. Tim Carroll I really don't see Hemming being a "serious contributor to the work" or contributing a "substantial amount of new material." Angel Murgado is a different person than Hemming, and Mellen assumes that he is not doing Hemming's bidding. Cut out every instance where Hemming is cited, and you will lose next to nothing.

What is the primary source for "Bobby's anti-Castro activities?" What is the source for the declarative assertion that Oswald was in Florida in the summer of 1963? Tim Carroll I'm not going to bother picking up the book for this, but the primary sources would be the accounts of Angel Murgado and various CIA personages like Helms (neither of which I regard as credible [again, I am undecided about Murgado], but there is not really any dishonesty in using them). William Turner has an entire chapter in Deadly Secrets about Bobby's post Bay of Pigs anti-Castro activity, but no one attacks him for it. I assume you are refering to Hemming's tale for Oswald being in Florida. Again, this is not treated as true and is not supposed to be taken that way by the reader. If I'm wrong about the source, give me a citation.

I have never said that you are attacking Mellen, and I think I have a right to defend the book if I believe the occasion warrants it. I am undecided about the Murgado material (leaning slightly towards it being untrue), but just about every nonfiction book I have read (and JFK assassination books especially) has at least a small amount of material I would consider untrue or dubious. It comes with the territory. There is no reason to single out Mellen's work over this. Of course anyone has a right to defend the book, what matters is that they have a good reason. Knee-jerk defensiveness isn't the best approach to a critical examination of historical writing. I agree with Owen that a "small amount of material" that seems "untrue or dubious" can creep into the best of JFK assassination books, but some are more accurate and hold to a higher historical standard than others. Assessing the degree of credibility of such assertions is one of the best purposes served by a forum such as this. Its not knee-jerk defensiveness. If Tim Gratz asserts that a certain narrative that Mellen includes in her book is "preposterous," and I don't consider this judgement warranted, I will respond and attempt to back up my opinion. This is called "debate," which I think is an essential part of "assessing the degree of credibility of such assertions." Allow me the priviledge. I have already said that I don't regard everything in the book as true (i.e. Murgado). While I believe that Professor Mellen subtly trashes Gerry Hemming's credibility, she still used his claims about Bobby Kennedy to develop an impression that isn't supported without the inclusion of those claims. If she thought his story not worthy of being taken "seriously," she should have just left it out. She shouldn't both use and abuse it. Otherwise, she needed to include James Files and Judyth Baker in the book. Tim Carroll The difference between Hemming and Files and Baker is that Hemming deserves at least a footnote in history. The qualifiers she uses for Hemming's story are not "subtle" ("imagines," "spins," "postulates," "metaphor") and indeed quite blatant. I think the use she puts it to is fine, since is not treated as literally true. Nor is it even the primary source of information for her thesis about Bobby's anti-Castro activities.

I have never said that you are attacking Mellen, and I think I have a right to defend the book if I believe the occasion warrants it. I am undecided about the Murgado material (leaning slightly towards it being untrue), but just about every nonfiction book I have read (and JFK assassination books especially) has at least a small amount of material I would consider untrue or dubious. It comes with the territory. There is no reason to single out Mellen's work over this. Mellen does not treat Hemming's story seriously, and this should be clear to the reader. I still fail to see your point about this.

The independent confirmation would be Jack Martin, Allen Campbell, Thomas Beckham, and Ben Wilson (sorta). While the confirmation of the trip to Dallas doesn't necessarily confirm the loan's existence, it is very supportive of it, since the loan story presupposes the Dallas trip. It isn't simply a matter of Clay Shaw co-signing the loan when he could have given Ferrie the money directly. Ferrie brought the loan to Herb Wagner, Wagner thought it a bit dubious and asked Ferrie to get someone to co-sign it. Ferrie brings in Clay Shaw, a highly respected citizen of New Orleans, to sign it. This could easily be a matter of pride on Ferrie's part. As to why Shaw would implicate himself in this manner, I would chalk this up to arrogance. It was probably assumed that the lone assassin story would stick and no serious attention would be payed to this incident, which could, after all, be merely coincidental. Shaw twice implicated himself in two other documents, the VIP book and the booking card, neither of which are "phantom documents," as Lambert terms the loan. I would also note that there is no real reason to fabricate a story (and document) like this. Wagner did not inform Garrison of this, so the intent was obviously not to frame Shaw. The man who relates Wagner's story and viewed the document, Roger Johnston, a deputy police marshall, is obviously a credible source and has no motive to make up a story like this, that I can see. Nor is the loan "essential" for Mellen to connect Ferrie and Shaw with. This would be quite well established in the book without the loan. Edit: Tim, I don't really understand what you are getting at. Joan Mellen makes it pretty clear, in that paragraph and elsewhere in the book, that she doesn't regard Hemming and his tales as credible. Mellen uses his RFK story primarily as a "metaphor" and not as a genuine historical account. The qualifiers for Hemming are quite a bit more severe than those for Murgado. As for Murgado, his story is certainly of interest and Mellen certainly has a right to included it, whatever is to be said of it. Mellen makes the discrepancies between his story and Odio's clear in the book. If Mellen didn't tell all of his story, this would open her up to charges by the likes of Hemming and Gratz that she is distorting and covering-up the evidence. Which way would you have it?

How in hell can I be a Nixon lover if I support Alger Hiss' innocence? And why is my post nonsense, since you obviously agree with my viewpoint here? You aren't making any sort of sense.

L. Fletcher Prouty has an interesting article on the the 1958 phase of the CIA's war against Sukarno. Lisa Pease has a very good two part article on Freeport Sulphur/Freeport McMoRan and its involvement with Clay Shaw, the CIA, Cuba, and the CIA's Sukarno coup. The links are here and here. The second one focuses primarily on Indonesia.

Beckham's story has Marcello's lawyer, Gill, Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, and many others involved. Though Beckham does not really have direct knowledge of Shaw's involvement, Shaw is part of this circle. Hello? When does Mellen ever say that Marcello wasn't involved?