James DiEugenio

I repeat, my initial reply was to answer the question about the classified records. That is and was a relevant question. I am not an authority on the subject, but I am somewhat cognizant about the matter. I stand by what I said. The ARRB original law has been now so altered it would take a court case, with support from congress, to get back to its 1992 meaning.

Thanks Cory.

Nice one Nick. We just saw two examples above and I mentioned the Castillo case in Lisa's book.

William, Thanks so much for carrying on with this guy. Whatever his name is. In his universe, one cannot even talk about Kennedy's Middle East policy without somehow implying that the Mossad killed Kennedy? I mean wow. I discovered Kennedy's attempted relationship with Nasser while doing a years long in depth study of the totality of JFK's foreign policy designs and goals, outside of Vietnam and Cuba. While doing that long and difficult examination I discovered many things that I really did not know about before including, for example, his attempt to liberate Angola and Mozambique from Portugal, and his diplomatic initiatives against Francophone Africa. So I was not looking for his relationship with Nasser. Other people had found out about it, Like Robert Rakove, and Phil Muehlenbeck. Far from agreeing with Piper, I believe today what I talked about in Pittsburgh at the late Cyril Wecht's conference. If Kennedy had lived, there would have been no 1967 war. And I explained why in my Powerpoint there (prepared by Matt Crumpton) which was entitled "The Death of Kennedy and the Rise of the Neocons." This was not just based on Nasser's admiration and affection for Kennedy but also JFK's pursuit of the Joseph Johnson Plan about Palestinian repatriation. I will be adapting that for a two part Substack series soon.

I totally agree with that William. Eisenhower would probably not even be part of the GOP today. Especially on domestic issues. Imagine we once had a political spectrum made up of Kennedy on the left, and Eisenhower on the right. Whew.

That is a really great quote by Kennedy that does not get used enough. Ever since they have made the term "liberal" a profanity.

I think Brown did that specifically to show that the concept behind the Manchurian Candidate idea is more than a theory. The same thing was done on the Discovery Channel by hypnotist Tom Silver. After he did this, he said the following: "I believe hypnosis does have the potential to control someone's mind and actions...That's something that a lot of hypnotherapists don't want to talk about--its something they're scared of" Bryan had a good reason to be afraid of admitting it.

Doug Horne has done a lot of good work on this case. He was kind of retired, and did not even want anyone giving out his phone and address when we got in contact with him for JFK Revisited. I think the success of that film, plus his contributions, kind of got him up and about again. I think I was one of the very few--like with Bugliosi-- to read his whole book. I gave it a decidedly mixed review. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb The other thing is, since he is so wedded to this pre autopsy surgery, he insisted that the Boyajian Report was the sine qua non for it. Oliver asked me about using it. I said, no we should not. And I gave the same reasons as I did in my review of the latest Kilgallen book, since Sara Jordan used it, as the author of Under Cover of Night did. It was not signed, no detail member ever signed it, it does not specify Kennedy's casket, and Roger B barely remembered it under questioning. So how can you make that a keystone? So we did not. I like Doug personally and, like I said, he has done some good work, but I think his devotion to Lifton made him overreach.

Another example furnished by Lisa. She wrote about this in Salon. Derren Brown is a famous stage hypnotist in the UK. He took a highly susceptible subject, and over a two month period trained him in an assassination plot. But did not tell him who the victim was. There was a two part trigger mechanism that would recall the post hypnotic suggestion: a girl in a polka dot dress and a ringing cell phone.

That is the only way that RFK Jr could try to declassify the remaining documents. And that is what the question was about, declassifying the rest of the documents.

Sirhan had a personality change after his fall at the racetrack. The treating doctor at the hospital thought he had taken care of his injuries by cleaning his eyes and giving him a few stitches around his right eye. Sirhan actually disappeared after his stay in the hospital for a period of about two weeks. But further, Sirhan visited a doctor 13 more times over the next year and 3 months. These visitations went on until the end of 1967. His friend from the track, Walter Rathke, noted the difference when he visited him at his home in 1967. Rathke told the LAPD that at that time Sirhan seemed to be a different person. "He did not laugh anymore and was not his jovial self." (Pease, p. 436-37)

Michael Wayne resembled Sirhan. And he was asking for the location of RFK throughout that night. Sirhan's brother fired the shots? What is the source for this? Neither Adel, Munir or Sharif were there that night. As per a precedent, in her book Lisa describes the case of Luis Angel Castillo (pp. 428-33) In John Marks' book, he describes how a hypnotist could, through skilled application, walk a chosen patsy through a series of events, "such as a visit to a store, a conversation with a mailman, picking a fight at a political rally, to lay in a history that could make him look guilty after the fact. " Quoting directly now from Marks: "The subject would remember everything that happened to him but be amnesiac only for the fact that the hypnotist ordered him to do these things...The purpose of this exercise is to leave a circumstantial trail that will make the authorities think the patsy committed a particular crime." (Marks, p. 204). And just remember, Marks is one of the more conservative authors on the subject of hypnotic suggestion.

Getting back to Pat and my question about Horne. Pat brings up the fact that Horne wants Jenkins out of the morgue for about 90 minutes. I think Pat's idea and Mr. Jenkins' is that he needs this for his pre autopsy surgery to take place. And he wants Jenkins out since he saw no such thing even though he was there. Is that correct?

Anyone who thinks that Duncan's forum, or the late ROKC, is equal to this one has no credibility in asking the above question.

I thought the original question was could RFK Jr. declassify everything that is still being withheld by himself if elected. It was and is a legitimate question and I offered my informed opinion. I did not think it could happen unless there was a court hearing and the committee in congress who passed the law joined in. That is what I said. And that is what I think. Based only on what I know about the law. Which is not as much as Andrew knows but as much as or more than most others here. It was Matt who jumped on and made the issue political. Ask him why he did it.

OK, let us try a change up for something different. OK Pat follow through on Jenkins vs Horne.

Let us not forget, Bernardo was one of the first infiltrators into Garrison's inquiry. Coincidence? As Nagell would say, not hardly.

She said she talked to the insurance agent. And Ben, I agree that del Valle was one of the spooky deaths. Especially since his body was found in the vicinity of Bernardo De Torres' house.

In fact, my next substack article is going to be about Jeff Sachs.

I think who Larry is referring to as "forensics consultant" is DeWayne Wolfer. But let me again add, if and when you write, do not refer to the issue of innocence. Refer to the points I listed above about him being a model prisoner etc.

I will be reviewing it at K and K. This case is simply not discussed enough. The murder of RFK sealed the casket on the sixties.

Denise is I think at least partly correct on this. I think it has been exaggerated. But there are several cases that I think are legitimately suspicious. DK is one of them. Another example is the Baron. Another example is David Ferrie. There are a few others. But not nearly as many as some of the most extreme writers make of it. The possibility that Pataky was with DK the night before, and that there was the presence of at least two drugs on her glass, maybe three--and this was covered up--merits suspicion. Plus the fact that as Lee Israel noted, there was no investigation by the police, that is they never brought everyone who saw her the night before into the station for inquiries?

Getting back to the point at hand, Andrew Iler is one of the best authorities we have on the case. I am reposting his very interesting talk about what happened to the JFK Records Collection Act at the point everything was supposed to be declassified in 2017. https://thatsenoughouttayou.buzzsprout.com/2064141/14852884 The whole thing gradually went more and more haywire. And no matter what Trump says now, he backed out when he had the opportunity to act in accordance with the law. IMO, and I think in Andrew's, it will be a cold day in Hades when we see the last of the JFK documents.

Oh give us a break with this Matt. If you have something substantive to reply with then do so. If you do not give two bits about what is in the documents then just stay out of it. If you think that that many documents are all IRS related I can sell you a bridge in Arizona. One of the problems with the documents, and any lawyer familiar with the case will confirm this, is that the directory for them is a joke. And this has been a big issue in the case. Because it is a violation of the law. In case you do not know, and evidently you do not, for every document withheld, there was supposed to be a clear description of what was in the document, and then a clear description of why it was necessary to keep it classified. The reasons for classification had to be really exceptional at the end. That is not what happened. BTW can you point to us where the Joannides files have been declassified? If so, Morley would love to read them. Especially that message from HQ with the rubric S.I. in the summer of 1963 that the CIA will not give up. Think that has something to do with the IRS? This is why I would never agree to having Matt as a monitor.

That is a good question, and I wish Andrew would chime in on it. Here is my take. If RFK Jr. would try and declassify all the remaining records, he would be thwarted. Why? Because the ARRB law has been adulterated and replaced by a new mechanism, which gives the FBI and CIA a lot of leeway that the ARRB did not. This would lead to hearings before congress and probably a court case. If congress joined in the court case I think RFK Jr. would win.