James DiEugenio

Davey: The link to the whole film is at the bottom of the review. But I should add, Len Osanic told me that the director may come out with a longer version of the film later this year. This one is about 60 minutes. Its hard to get distribution for a film that short. Especially on this subject.

One one hand Stone did bring some attention to the subject since he has a big name. OTOH, I did not agree with much of what he said. Certainly not on Judy Baker. Or the father of Ted Cruz. I also thought he had a prime opportunity to demolish Posner in their debate in Coral Gables. But he did not.

Joe: Correction. The offer to Gary Mack was not nearly as high as the offer to Groden. Groden was going to be the Director of the Museum. Gary was offered the curator job. I think his salary was actually about 110,000 per year or perhaps a bit more.

If you have not seen this film Plaza Man, you really should. Our writer, Frank Cassano, found it online and asked if I ever saw it. I said no, why don't you review it? Its an interesting and ultimately touching film. Its not so much about the nuts and bolts of the JFK case. Its really about the price some people pay for their refusal to knuckle under to the will of the Power Elite. Its a reprise in film form of what Frank refers to at the end of the review, the idea that Garrison talked about in his Playboy interview: "What happens to the individual who dissents?" And although its focus is on Groden vs Dallas (represented by the Sixth Floor and the late Gary Mack) ,as Frank notes, its easy to expand that metaphorically into the national power elite vs the critical community. Overall, an unusual and distinguished film. Everyone should watch it. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/plaza-man-robert-groden-vs-the-city-of-dallas

It was my understanding that what Scott/Simpich are saying is that some lower level rogues horned in on an upper level sanctioned mission that somehow they knew about. What David is showing is that instead of the lower level guys duping the upper level guys, the lower level guys really did not know what was happening. And then the CIA got Echeverria to cover up their plotting. Michael: per the other point, Angleton could not admit that Oswald was not down there. Because then that would have blown the whole CYA cover up that the cables caused on the 22nd.

Paul: As Doug Valentine notes in The Strength of the Wolf, Mason Carghill identified Mankel as QJ WIN as far back as the Rockefeller Commission. Then the ARRB declassified CIA documents which confirmed this. They also confirm that he went by different pseudonyms, so you would also have to know those pseudonyms if you wanted to do a cross check on him.

Michael: Your comment is not really accurate. If someone horned in on the operation, then the info still had to be recorded. Secondly, what he is referring to here is from documents we have not seen before. At least I have not seen them and no one has referred to them. And it all jibes with the other non technical info, like the testimony of the two plants in the MC office who say they never saw Oswald there. The last thing that Angleton ever wanted to prove about MC is that Oswald was not there.

RW: This is like the quibbles about Mac Wallace. When you have one of the very best fingerprint analysts in the country, and he is working from the very best documents available and he says its not a match, that is not a "quibble." Secondly, when you say Helen Thomas was at the Murchison's, what do you mean by that? First of all, which Murchison home was it? When was it? And where does she write about it?

Thanks for this Michael. It makes me sick that we have had to wait this long to get a clean copy of this document. I had seen the previously redacted and foreshortened version only.

By the way, Newman does not at all think that even if there are problems with Veciana in 1960, that impacts Phillips' role in the plot in 1963. In fact, he believes Phillips has his fingerprints all over the plot. Also, take a look at what David Josephs is digging up about Mexico City. I have said it before and I will say it again: When he is done, a new paradigm will have been set for MC.

You are saying that the CIA did not include those calls on the monthly report in October for September?

As I said, David is doing stellar work on Mexico City. IMO, he is resetting the paradigm. My God David, what on earth do you think that request to Choaden for .38 ammo means? Did Phillips need it for a CIA operation down there?

Seamus Coogan did a nice analysis of this. I once traced it from its very beginning with Penn jones to its most recent evolution as of about 1985. It went even beyond that. After all that, I don't buy it.

But Paul: Where else would the info on QJ Win's identity come from except the CIA? I mean who else would know for sure? Unless its QJ WIN himself. Its true that the CIA paid Skorzeny to support Katanga, but I have never heard of any info saying he was involved in the Lumumba plots. And we have a lot of info on those plots today due to the ARRB. John Newman's second volume had a lot of good info about the Lumumba plots, and there are other good sources around. No one I know has ever said that Skorzeny was in on them, let alone he was QJ Win. As per this book, I have to question the thesis of an author who buys what are supposed to be secret papers on E Bay, and then writes a book based on them and then does not include the actual documents as an appendix in order to cross check his work.

I think in a sense this is a continuation of his book on the Skakel case. There, he got very angry with the shoddy work of Dunne and Furhman and the media's refusal to call them out on it. And so he first did that long article for Atlantic Monthly, and he then did Framed. Which was timed quite well. He then did this one. He is the only member of his family to do this kind of thing.

This is what makes me wonder about Roger Stone. I mean in fifty years, no one had made this claim, at least as far as I know. But somehow he comes out with this in his book. Now, the only source could be Nixon right? He was conveniently dead. And, my God, Nixon at the Murchison gathering? Puhlese.

Paul: What the heck is the evidene that Skorzeny was QJ WIN? I mean did he even know Harvey?

And the Greek Junta. Hands down, Nixon was one of the worst presidents in recent history. And it took the murders of both Kennedys to get him to the White House.

The committee he is asking about was the forerunner of the FIAB. It was a civilian oversight of the CIA. Joe was on it with, among others, Lovett and David Bruce. From that vantage point, Joe Kennedy was very disenchanted with the leadership of the CIA. He once said that he would not give those guys a hundred dollars a week. It was Joe who recommended that RFK talk to Lovett in the wake of the Bay of Pigs disaster. This is what led to Bobby finding out about the Bruce/ Lovett report, a strong attack on Allen Dulles. JFK called in Lovett and he recommended firing Allen Dulles. JFK went beyond that and canned not just Dulles but Bissell and Cabell. When he talked about the covert action of the CIA, that was what RFK told writer Pete Hammill during the 1968 campaign that he was going to do.

Geez Davy: Did this guy have a bad memory also? https://aarclibrary.org/white-house-physician-autopsy-eyewitness-questions-president-ford-about-missing-bullet/ All these people who somehow did not remember things correctly.

Tom Hanks is my target here again. This interview goes into more detail about my review of his documentary 1968: The Year that Changed America. David Giglio, at Our Hidden History did the taping and editing, very nice job. What a resource his site and You Tube Channel are. Anyway, take a listen.

If you look in Fonzi's book, according to their source, he said that DeTorres was associated with Werbell in 1963. (p. 238) And that he and Werbell did wet jobs.

Which means he had no trouble lying in public, right? The guy was on the take from so many places its ridiculous. To name just two, the Shah of Iran and Batista.

When you see something like this, it show how dead on Howard Roffman was in his classic book Presumed Guilty. He devotes several pages there to how the WC and FBI leaked certain stories to the accommodating press about the work they had done to convict Oswald. And they ate it up. The thing is, this story came out the day that report was issued. But a month before the volumes were released. Therefore, even if you tried, it would be difficult to challenge the claims made. But really, the idea that this was Oswald's rifle could only have lived on because the evidence in the volumes was not there and OMG, the paraffin test? Please. Oswald was being posthumously lynched. And recall the reason that the WC did not give him a defense? Rankin said that the commission did not want anyone without clearance to see the evidence. HA HA HA

That event was sponsored by Gary Aguilar up near his office in San Francisco about 3-4 months ago. It was a kind of invitation only of some of the better researchers, primarily on the West Coast. But John flew in from back east. Some of the people there were Lisa Pease, Pat Speer, TInk Thompson, and myself. There were about 20 people there. Gary even invited Wagner to attend, that guy who wrote the Oswald did it book and was a fan of Bugliosi. He did not speak of course. John apparently does buy into Bagley, and Nechiporenko, and he underplays the incredible gyrations that went on in the USSR after the fail.