James DiEugenio

Dole did run and win the GOP nomination in 1996 and lost to Clinton in the fall election. As per Trump, I think the Oswald statement shows just how much he has curtailed and altered his persona to get a lead. I don't think he actually believes that, just like I don't think he actually believes the whole "round them up and send them back" about illegals. See, as many have noted, back when he was thinking of saving the Reform party, he was much more of a Ross Perot type. The problem with his new candidacy, as a few have pointed out, is that it has a definite ceiling. Trump cannot get very much further than where he is with it. Which is one reason Roger Stone left.

I'm an agnostic on that one. Almost anything Holmes was in on that weekend was as fishy as a large can of tuna.

I didn't think Jeff's work on this could get any better. But it has. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP4.html I really give Jeff a lot of credit here for closely reading what Kirk wrote in the HSCA report. And exposing just how dishonest that was in a lawyerly way. He has given us a whole new way to look at this so-called evidence.

Take a look at the sequence below from about 2:10 onward. Especially at about 2:50, when the Dallas police cannot explain how Ruby penetrated the protective formation. They say he "jumped" over or around or whatever. He did not have to do that, since Fritz left Oswald's front wide open. If Fritz had a problem about the car : 1.) He should not have let that supersede the protection for Oswald, or 2.) He should have just stopped the whole thing until the car was in the correct position. Plain and simple, with the help of two or three other Dallas policemen, who made sure Oswald got in through a supposedly locked door, Fritz got Oswald killed through his own negligence. And the WC tried to cover this up in the report.

TG: PS But I agree with you, Ron. Fritz obviously broke away from Oswald because 1 ) he didn't want to get shot by Ruby, and 2 ) he wanted Reno to stop! stop! stop! so that Ruby would have plenty of room to "do the job." That isn't the point. ​The point is that if you watch the whole sequence, its Fritz who breaks the protection cup by darting out front by so much. There is no way Ruby could have gotten into such a perfect position if Fritz had not done that. Secondly, as you watch it you will see that everyone looks at Ruby as the shot goes off, everyone except Fritz. Third as you watch the whole sequence unfold on the original NBC feed, as the police get off the elevator with Oswald and enter the foyer area, the first horn goes off. Then as the second horn goes off, Ruby instantly darts forward to kill Oswald. If you see the entire episode on Evidence of Revision from a different camera and angle, you will see Ruby hiding behind, I think Harrison, waiting for Oswald to come off the elevator. I never say that Fritz planned what he did in advance to have Oswald killed. What I, and others, say is that the police put Ruby in a good position so that if the moment arose--as it did with Fritz breaking formation--he would have the opportunity to rub out Oswald. Which he did, due to the negligence by Fritz. IMO, this is why Fritz became something of a recluse after the WR came out.

This is executive produced by Amblin, Spielberg's company. Makes perfect sense if you read what I wrote about what is wrong with Hollywood today in Reclaiming Parkland. I mean, Hanks and Spielberg think Ambrose was a first rate historian. A guy who was later proven to be a fabricator of quotes attributed to Eisenhower during interviews he did not do. Hanks also gave us an all time bomb in Parkland.

Ken, you are right I guess. But how would you angle the camera when he says things like the WC knew the Single Bullet Fantasy was correct. I know where i would put it.

They watched it dozens of times. And they usually had an FBI man spooling it up for them. If I recall correctly, it was either Frazier or Shaneyfelt. But incredibly, there is no description of the shocking, incredibly fast, rearward action and rebound of Kennedy's body off the back seat in the Warren Report. So to normal thinking people, that is outside of Bugliosi, McAdams etc, the question is quite logical.

DVP: But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach. DVP: But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach. DVP: But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach. This last one is perfect since, as we know, Russell, Boggs, Cooper, and LBJ never bought the Single Bullet Fantasy. Later on Ford admitted to the president of France, the WC was essentially BS. And as we also know, through the work of Bill Davy, Warren later told a colleague he would never forgive Johnson for trapping him on the WC. Which leaves Dulles and McCloy. Nice company eh? BTW Ron, great idea about a movie about DVP. Unfortunately, the man who should play him passed away long ago: Peter Sellers.

Well, as they say, you can't buy publicity like that. Looks like Talbot will have another successful book, which is at least partly about the JFK case. We need the counter punch also after that wall to wall whitewash at the fiftieth.

You are the one blowing smoke. I did not say that, Tanenbaum did. And as anyone who knows JFK 101 understands, the sine qua non of the WR is the Singel Bullet Fantasy. The WC lawyers understood this thoroughly and they wrote words to the effect, that if the SBT is false, it is admitting there was a conspiracy. Well, today, with the demolition of the NAA, and Pat Speer's tearing up of Canning, the Armstrong/Joseph's work on the rifle, and Hunt's work on CE 399, it really is a fantasy. (I won't even go into the medical evidence which DVP and Ayton wisely skimmed over knowing it was a loser for them.) The Warren Commission was a twisted travesty of a fact finding panel and a sick perversion of a legal procedure. They did not even know that the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph. End of story.

Boy, Vince could really be a blowhard at times. No wonder this show never got produced. Here is the legal definition: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from thefacts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. As one can see, Martin was correct. The "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil standard. In no way would that be enough to convict someone of a felony, let alone murder. And then if you show all the holes a good defense lawyer would blow open in the DPD case against Oswald--I mean forget it. This case screams for alternatives, since the WC scenario is so theory driven. As Bob Tanenbaum said to me, the last thing you want to argue is a theory in front of a jury. This is why all the professional lawyers who handled this case officially, after the WC debacle, were appalled at how weak the evidence was. This means, specifically: JIm Garrison, New Orleans DA Dave Marston and Gary Hart, Church Committee (I leave out Schweiker since he was not a lawyer) Dick Sprague, and Bob Tanenbaum, HSCA first phase Bob Blakey and Gary Cornwell, HSCA second phase (Please differentiate between the public face of these guys and the private executive sessions, in which they really were appalled at what the WC had done.) Jeremy Gunn, ARRB counsel So Vince is outgunned here about 8-1. And as anyone can see by reading Reclaiming Parkland, Vince's book is really an argument by invective and by verbiage. Because, on the specific evidentiary points, Vince brought up about zero that was new. Which is what was so shocking about RH. I mean in 21 years, the guy never left his office. Incredible.

I am not sure, but to my knowledge, no he did not. But Specter and Belin knew this was a serious problem. So they said he did this because the car was a little too far ahead. And BTW, they also worked that into how Ruby was able to get to Oswald. Leaving out all the stuff about him being let into the basement, and the DPD lying about it. BTW, the section in Evidence of Revision is really good on this subject. It exposes so many lies by the WC with exceptional visual coverage that the WC probably did not even know existed. I love the shot of Ruby hiding behind a cop, I think its Harrison.

The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. This is the other reason the memo is important. It contains the kernel of the WC idea. Eugene Rostow had tried to get through to the White House after Ruby killed Oswald on TV. And he said he talked to Katzenbach but he thought that Katzenbach was overwhelmed by what happened and so therefore he called Moyers. (The Assassinations, p. 8) ​This above excerpt is clearly the genesis of the whole blue ribbon panel idea, since to the EE (represented by Rostow) the whole Dallas scene is looking like a Wild West show. And Katzenbach refers to that in his memo when he says that the matter has been handled without dignity or conviction. Which is a monumental understatement. I mean, when the defendant gets gunned down on live TV in the arms of the police, while the head homicide detective had broken formation, thereby creating a direct channel to the accused, yep that sure sounds like a lack of dignity and conviction to me Nick. And further, in the original recording, one can hear the two horns going off at the crucial times that 1.) Oswald enters the foyer and 2.) just before Ruby lunges forward to kill him--I mean pulease. But they took care of that later when the horns got edited out--or at least one of them did. ​In a larger sense, the DPD had done its job. Oswald would never talk now. So it was time for the big guns to take over. And boy, did they ever.

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-307-meet-allen-dulles-fascist-spymaster/ The world is finally catching up with what the JFK community always knew.

BTW, I just started reading John Newman's new book. I am only about fifty or so pages into it, but there is already a bombshell. The FBi had some really potent information on Nixon that was dual sourced. One reason that Nixon was so intent on seeing the BOP succeed was that he had been cut in on some of the Mafia skim through Batista. The man who was the intermediary for him was none other than Bebe Rebozo. What makes this so interesting is that during the Taylor Commission hearings, when they interviewed some of the actual Cubans, they complained that too many of the exiles were former followers of Batista. Was Nixon planning on replacing his source of illicit funds?

1. 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. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Again, this was written on the evening of the 24th after a call with Hoover. How, right after the murder of Oswald, could anyone say that Ruby got into the basement without help, and that he acted without anyone's urging? Or that he did not know Oswald. No one could come to that conclusion that fast. Certainly not someone in Washington DC. But the point is this: not only is Katzenbach assuming that, he is also saying that all thinking about Oswald's motivation or any kind of conspiracy should be "cut off". Bugliosi started all this stuff about the critics somehow misrepresenting this memo. But what he does is really bad. He quotes the opening sentence. Vince,RIP, there are eight more paragraphs. Talk about cherry picking.

Larry: I have been looking for that article now for about two hours. To the best of my memory, it was in The Nation, about two or three years after the 1980 election. In two election cycles, Dolan's NCPAC had targeted seven senators and taken out five, including Church. I should have clipped it, but I didn't do that in those days.

Its always nice to get evidence unfiltered by bias. So, again , here it is. Deputy Attorney General November 25, 1963 MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now. 1. 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. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced. 3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered. I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad. I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Deputy Attorney General

I have to add here, I am responsible only for what I said. The insertions made by Dawson are his own. I had no input to them and did not know they were coming. I do like the fact that I labeled the WC as a wild conspiracy theory. Because that is true.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29 This is the memo. Prior to this, Hoover penned its father which said about the same thing. That was on the 24th, right after Ruby shot Oswald. Question: How on earth could Hoover or Katzenbach have known all the facts at that time about the murder of Oswald by Ruby? Did either man do an inquiry into the security precautions by the DPD? Did either man check out all of Ruby's phone calls for the previous months? Did either man check his banking records? No. No. No. So how could the facts about the case have been known at this time, since the main question was this: Did Ruby shoot Oswald to silence him? The next question would be: Did Ruby have help getting into the basement? The next question would be: Did Ruby stalk Oswald that weekend? Answer to number one: Considering Oswald's attempted call to John Hurt on Saturday, yes. Answer to number two: Undoubtedly, as the HSCA found out and as Burt Griffin suspected. Answer to number three: Pretty much a given as the HSCA depicted the visits over the weekend by Ruby. So these documents are clearly cover up sheets since there is no way in the world anyone could have figured out the facts about Oswald's murder within 24 hours.

You are right Gene. That whole Rockefeller Commission was a dead giveaway once Belin came in as chief counsel. See, that was a very iffy time frame which I have done a lot of work on. In the wake of Watergate, plus the exposure of the Hosty note, and the first mass viewing of the Z film, it was really touch and go there for awhile: Was Pandora's Box going to open? Ford gave the game way in a private meeting with the NY Times. Someone, I think it may be Dan Schorr--or at least he wrote about it--asked Ford: Why did you stack the Rockefeller Commission with these conservative types, like Reagan. Ford replied that there was a real danger that some dark state secrets could be revealed. The guy said, like what? Ford replied, like assassinations. When that got out, two things happened: First, Otis Pike and Frank Church now realized that they had to open up their own inquiries since Belin was supervising a whitewash. And second, the CIA went into high gear trying to spin Ford's reply as pertaining to only foreign assassinations. Although since Ford served on the WC, he seemed to be in prime position to talk about domestic ones. So the Church Committee now focused on foreign assassinations and Hart and Schweiker were only allowed to investigate the performance of the CIA and FBI in service to the WC. Although, as we now know, the Schweiker Hart staff went much further than that. The CIA was enraged at both Church and Pike for what they did. In fact, the CIA liaison to the Pike Committee famously said: "Pike will pay for this, you wait and see....We will destroy him for this." (Pike Report, p. 7) And they did shortly after. In fact, Pike could not even get his report published. It had to be smuggled out by Schorr and given to the Village Voice which published it in a special issue. The new CIA Director, George Bush, then visited CBS and told them how disappointed they were in Schorr. Instantly, without any due process, Schorr was fired. Shorlty after this, the CIA set up an offshore campaign fund to target the senators and congressman who had backed Church and Pike. It was supervised by the infamous Terry Dolan, a closeted homosexual who was later exposed in the underrated book God's Bullies. The existence of that secret fund was very closely held and it was not exposed until years later by The Nation. It was clearly illegal, but that is the whole point of a clandestine operation. In my opinion, although many people look at the election of Reagan as the great milestone in how this country turned sharply right--to the point now that is is almost unrecognizable from what it was in the sixties--I have alway held that it was that operation, which got rid of so many progressive senators and congressmen, that was really the beginning of the rightward swerve.

Chuck: That is a tenable argument and a sensible one, on the operational level. But when one examines the way the power structure of the USA was set in 1963, there was a level above that one, just as there was a level above the White House and congress. Some people, like C. Wright Mills, called it the Power Elite, some, like Don Gibson, call it the Eastern Establishment. Either way, there is no denying it existed and there is no denying its influence. To use just one example: if you look at John McCloy's suggested amendments to the Warren Report, you will see that they are written at his office in Rockefeller Center, where he was serving as the chief counsel to what is called the Seven Sisters. Secondly, in the fall of 1963, David Rockefeller asked for a meeting with JFK. Kennedy refused the meeting since he knew what it was about: Rockefeller wanted to request a coup in Brazil; where his empire had huge holdings, and then President Goulart, was getting too much like Guzman in Guatemala in 1954. Well, after Kennedy's murder, LBJ did accept that meeting. Since he was much friendlier with the Rockefellers, especially Nelson. The coup was on and the man who the CIA picked to be the early point man in the affair was none other than John McCloy. Yep, as he was sitting on the Warren Commission. Now, take a look at Bugliosi's 2,600 page book and see if you can locate that fact there. I will save you the trouble. You cannot. But yet is that not somewhat relevant to how the WC worked? All of these cover up guys--Bugliosi, Posner, Jim Moore, McAdams etc--all of them deny that 1.) this split existed, or that 2.) It had anything to do with the murder of JFK. No matter how much evidence one accumulates to show such was the case. And the Bay of Pigs is a very good example of this split. In fact, I have always said that one of the things that puzzled me about Kennedy is why he did not send in the Navy to bail out the operation. I did not figure this out for a long time afterwards. But yet, it is things like that which tell you what the power structure was like at the time. I am not saying that the Rockefellers and the EE motivated the coup. What I am suggesting is that the people who did start it, and then organized it, would not have done it unless they got prior approval from that group in advance. The main reason being that they knew they needed the big power centers, like the media, to cooperate in the cover up. Which they did. In excelsis.

Thanks Gene, I guess that is ideally what forums are all about, or supposed to be. And Greg is correct also, with all of this info finally out there, its pretty hard to blame Kennedy for this debacle. The operation just morphed into something that the CIA could not handle. It was way beyond a covert or clandestine operation. And as I said previously, the JCS should have done a lot more than just nod off on it. Which is why Kennedy was so upset with them after. Dulles understood that he was culpable in large part, so he got his cover story out there via Henry Luce. Thereby reversing the blame and creating a legend. One that many people involved actually swallowed.

Larry: Why don't you make a link to that blog entry?