James DiEugenio

Oh please Tracy. Give us a break will you? https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-inside-the-target-car-part-one https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one Those two above programs said that 1.) Ruby killed Oswald with no help, by himself and they did not know each other and 2.) No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest. The HSCA disagreed with both. How about this one? https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gary-mack-strikes-again Gary somehow "misremembered" and told the public Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination. And here is Gary Mack, Parnell's "outstanding person", who is right in the middle of that whole disgraceful movement to deprive people of their first amendment rights and also practice prior restraint by not letting them even say something in the first place. And then arranging with City Hall that Homeland Security cleared event. https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-power-elite-in-dallas-takes-charge That whole Duncan McRae meme, that Gary was really open minded on the case, is completely demolished by his being, not just the host of those 2 programs, but a producer on them. And then participating in that whole deception in ITTC: about a shot from the knoll would have hit Jackie Kennedy. What a pile of baloney. And he tried to arrange the actors in the car to make it look like that, but thankfully Groden was there so he could not get away with that one. But prior to that, he deliberately eliminated the most logical place for a sniper from the front: where the picket fence juts out toward the street and has a storm drain right underneath. Do you condone these tactics in a documentary? After all the end justifies the means right? Mack was clever at keeping up the whole story about "oh, if we had a couple of drinks I might consider otherwise" concept, while he then participated in these horrendous programs with Robert Erickson which were pure propaganda pieces all the way. When I heard he and Erickson were doing the Ruby show I wrote Erickson a letter asking to meet with him to discuss the subject. I lived a half hour from his office. Gave him my phone, email, address. Like a Gus Russo production, I got nothing back. As per his honest advice to visitors? How about telling Steven King that the key to the assassination was to follow the rifle. Yeah Gary. The WC's wrong rifle that Oswald did not order. If you portray the facts accurately, that is not a hit piece sir. As Harry Truman said about the Republicans in 1948, "I'm going to tell the truth, and they'll think its Hades."

In addition to those Gene, Groden gave a private screening of the Z film to congressman Tom Downing in 1976. This was done at the request of Downing's son. The other person in the room was Andy Purdy, who was a friend of the son and who knew Groden. At that time, Purdy worked with Mark Lane's Citizen Commission of Inquiry. Downing was so upset by the film, that he decided to sponsor a bill to reopen the investigation into the JFK case. He then gave a series of really good speeches on the floor of the House to push it through. He was the first chair of the HSCA. But we know what happened after. Downing decided to resign from congress. And then Gonzalez, the new chair, and Sprague got into that feud. First Gonzalez resigned and then Sprague resigned. And we ended up with Stokes and Blakey. People like Purdy and Baden saw the handwriting on the wall and they now switched their positions. Groden stuck it out as a consultant from beginning to end. And while he was there, he gave one of the photographic presentations to the committee and its staff. That was one of the highlights to Sprague's short lived reign. Sprague arranged for three presentations of the photographic evidence--all in one day. All thirteen lawyers were there, with about 40 staffers. The three presentations were by Cutler, Groden and the other Dick Sprague. It took all day. According to attorney Al Lewis, when it was over, of the 13 lawyers, only one still backed the Warren Report. It was the beginning of the end of the Krazy Kid Oswald mythology. And that is a hint of what the HSCA could have been.

The more I look back at that fiftieth anniversary, the more I see it as perhaps one of the most serious deprivations of the first amendment along with some of the purest broadcast propaganda in recent history. As the article notes it began with an email from the late Gary Mack to city hall. And if you can believe it, that email was almost two years in advance of the anniversary. When it first came to light, i took it seriously. But others did not. In retrospect that was a mistake. Because I do not think that what they did could have stood up to a court challenge. In my opinion it was clearly a violation of freedom of assembly, speech and the right to petition. And it was all done in violation of the concept of prior restraint. That is, the people who's rights were being violated did not even get the opportunity to speak in the first place. Which is what the Pentagon Papers case was all about. You cannot do that stuff. Looking back, we should have started a drive back then and got it on the web and started collecting funds and choosing a legal team. I really do think we would have won. I mean we already had some lawyers on our side like Lesar, Alcorn and Wecht. (Wecht has a law degree from University of Maryland.) And if we could have raised the case profile I think we could have gotten some big name lawyer pro bono. I will never forget that day as long as I live. After watching about twenty or thirty cops at one intersection, backed up by a cop on horseback, screaming back and forth with Alex Jones on his bullhorn, I decided, along with many others, to retreat to a coffee shop that was probably about four block from Dealey Plaza. There must have been literally dozens of people there, too many for the inside so they scattered outside. And we watched those completely uninspiring, soporific speeches by Pizza Hut guy Rawlings and MSM historian McCullough. It was a naked assault on both democracy and the first amendment. And it was an adulteration of the memory of JFK. It was, without qualification, a disgrace. But that is how much the Power Elite fears this issue.

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.