Gene Kelly

It was truly a "profile in courage" ... 

On 5/4/2024 at 1:20 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Good comments! Thanks everyone!

Vince

Oswald's movements on the 22nd (following the shooting) certainly seem controlled to me. The planting of the jacket and handgun shells. Jim Garrison decribed this as a "caravan" of people escorting Oswald to the Texas Theater.  The Tippit wallet - Croy and Westbrook -  ties him to the Hidell alias.  Then (as pointed out by Roger) none of Oswald's interviews are recorded and any notes (save for Hosty's) are destroyed. Finally, Fritz and company end the interrogations and bring Oswald down to his timely death at the hands of Ruby.  All of this prevented any alibi from being . 

Remember what Richard Case Nagell told Dick Russell "... make no mistake, Oswald was in it up to his neck."  Garrison "investigator" Richard Billing wrote about a gray suit-wearing "Spanish shepherd" whom Bringuier and his buddies noticed monitoring and taking photos of Oswald during the NOLA leaflet episode, and many credible witnesses who saw Oswald in the presence of this alleged escort in the Summer of ‘63. Participating in the Bringuier-leaflets incidents and appearing on  television was obvious sheep-dipping, which Oswald had to have understood, though its purpose may have been concealed from him. In the months prior, there is more compelling evidence of the control of Oswald's movements... here are just a few:

• On a Saturday morning in late September, two men arrived at Robert McKeown's house. One man introduced himself as Lee Oswald (his friend was called Hernandez). Oswald said he was willing to pay $10,000 for four rifles, 300 Savage automatics and a telescopic sight. McKeown refused as he thought he was being set-up
• September 25: Lee leaves New Orleans by bus where the Mexico City charade begins. He allegedly takes three separate bus trips: leaving Houston early on the morning of the 26th and arriving in Nuevo Laredo on the Mexican border that afternoon; leaving Nuevo Laredo an hour or so later and arriving in Mexico City on the 27th.
• Oswald registers at a hotel and makes his first visits to the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic compounds (where he was impersonated). Meanwhile, someone is laying the trail of an Oswald impostor going through north Louisiana.
• Silvia Odio receives a visit in Dallas on Friday September 27th; two individuals and Oswald. One named "Leopoldo" seeking written letters of recommendation and a companion Angelo sitting in the front passenger seat of the car. 
• September 20-23: Ruth visits the Oswalds, Marina decides to return with Ruth and leaves for Irving
• September 25, 1963: Oswald collects his unemployment check, catches a bus bound for Houston ... the next morning, he boards a bus for Laredo, Texas and crosses the border into Mexico in the early afternoon.
• Oswald returns to Dallas on October 4th (after an alleged failed attempt to go to Cuba or  the Soviet Union) 
• On the morning of October 14, Ruth and Marina have coffee at a neighbor’s house; Lee ends up at TSBD

Gene 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@James DiEugenio @Gene Kelly

If the purpose of Mexico City was only to prevent a thorough government investigation and not to create a pretext for war, then

1. What was in it for the Generals? Why did they do their part in the autopsy? (Which was creating viability for Phase 2 by removing evidence of shots from the front.)
    
2. Why was Phase 1 still being pushed when it was clear there would be no thorough government investigation?
   
   (For example, David Phillips trying to recruit a Cuban intelligence officer two months after the assassination to corroborate Gilberto Alvarado's story. And June Cobb still pushing the Elena Garro story in late 1964.)

 

The fact that the Generals participated in the autopsy tells me that they were indeed involved in the assassination. And in fact were the likely instigators of it. We all know that the Generals were all for an invasion of Cuba. Many of them also wanted a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html

So it seems likely that the military wanted to create a pretext for those two things.

 

Sandy

I may not have satisfying answers to your questions, but here are my thoughts.  First, for some reason or another, we never did invade Cuba ... I think that's because it wasn’t a priority for the Military or the high-level plotters, but only important to the Cuban exiles, who were used/manipulated (just as Oswald was considered to be a "useful idiot").  What I think the 'Generals' and military did get was their coveted war in Vietnam.

Although we could argue that the Phase 1 aspect lasted long past its need, I don’t see it as solely a poison pill (to pull CIA, FBI and SS principals in line).  Phase 1 also characterized Oswald as a pro-Castro Marxist - not a popular profile in the 60's - and helped to frame and severely limit the Warren investigation.  I also don't believe that everyone in the CIA was complicit (e.g., Win Scott, John Whitten) so plotters like Angleton had to continue to conceal damaging information from Mexico City - from his own Agency colleagues - and keep pushing the Kostikov story and Russian connections. As one researcher wrote, once Angleton had control of the investigation, he decided to “wait out the Warren Commission” while he chased every Soviet angle in sight" (e.g., Yuri Nosenko). There was also an ongoing duel between Soviet and US intelligence, since after all we were essentially implicating the Russians in the assassination. 

Finally, I don't believe LBJ was completely onboard or complicit in what transpired, even though he had strong motives towards the Kennedy's ... in other words, the plotters couldn’t be sure of his reaction to all of this. One part of me thinks its naive to think he didn’t know what was happening (including the shenanigans with the autopsy).  But I also don’t think the plotters could be assured of his support. LBJ made comments in the ensuing years about how the Generals insanely wanted a nuclear conflict, and he (like JFK) thankfully kept a lid on that ... we never did use nuclear weapons.  I don’t think much of LBJ's skills in foreign policy, but he had too much to lose (including his coveted presidency) by being a willing participant.

Gene

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If so, they are missing a very key paradigm in the case.

Jim

I find John Newman diffuclt to read and get through (but so is PD Scott).  Scott describes Phase 1 as the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom plot was used to invoke a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Warren and others to accept Phase Two. Scott describes Phase 2 as an equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself.  In other words, it was planned/intended to revert to Phase 2, where Hoover and LBJ agree that the Mexico City "evidence" needed to be suppressed  as it raised the possibility of an international communist conspiracy. This serves to discredit/incrimnate the Soviets (and Castro), forces LBJ to avoid a nuclear confrontation and create a Warren Commission controlled by Dulles and other participants (Angleton, Rocca, et al), and limits any meaningful investigation. And all of this being (according to Scott) a "structural product of a deep political system assembled into a coalition of anti-Kennedy interests".

I personally see Phase 1 as blackmailing the FBI and Secret Service with damaging a-priori information in their files before  the assassination. This has the effect of forcing them to adopt the lone Oswald story (to protect Agency reputations) and shape their investigations accordingly.  I also think the CIA used the exiles and DRE groups, and never really seriously considered a Cuban attack. Some also add a  Phase 3, where - once the CIA and FBI realized the alleged assassin was known (and could be linked) to them - they did everything in their powers to suppress this information. An induced cover-up that was put into motion within hours of the shooting.

Gene

Micah:

I believe that Kelley was a superior to Moore. Officlally, Elmer Moore was temporarily assigned to Dallas from San Francisco office of the Secret Service from 11/30-12/13/63 (14 days) to investigate the assassination.  Thanks to Vince Palamara for Kelley's background information. 

Inspector Thomas J. Kelley was assigned to represent the Secret Service in the  investigation of the assassination. Kelley also served as Secret Service liaison to the Warren Commission.He received a B.A. from Providence College and an LL.B. from Georgetown University Law School.  His experience included special agent in charge (SAC) of the Philadelphia Field Office, Assistant Director of Protective Intelligence and  investigations in Washington, D.C., and the Assistant Director of Protective Operations . He was a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and served as consultant to  Far Eastern police agencies, as well as consultant to the Dominican Republic.

Kelley participated in at least four interviews with Lee Oswald, which took place in the office of Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau of the DPD. Kelley was a member of the Inauguration Detail for JFK in 1961; he became Assistant Director of Investigations in 1965; and head of Protective Intelligence in 1968.  He retired in Feb. 1978; in September 1978,he testified before the HSCA (he was followed by Secret Service Chief James Rowley).  Kelley died in 1986.

Gene

Jim:

As I recall, Moore refused to cooperate with the HSCA when asked to testify, which is suspicious given he was one of three supervisors for the Secret Service's investigation into the assassination. I think its telling that when Jim Gochenaur interviewed Moore, he asked him if he ever interviewed Thomas Arthur Vallee ... Moore relied: "Oh, Washington wouldn't let me see the files on that." Then Gochenauer asked about Abraham Bolden; Moore's demeanor changed, he  pulled out his revolver, put it on the table and sternly stated: "We finally got him." Then there's the admission (albeit 3rd hand) by "Little Lynn" Carlin that Oswald knew Ruby and had been in the Carousel; she then told another SS agent, who apparently told Moore.

Its interesting that, after Elmer Moore presured the doctors (particularly Malcolm Perry), he became some sort of special assistant to Commission Chairman Earl Warren. According to Arlen Specter, Elmer Moore was also present when Warren, Gerald Ford, (and Moore) interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas. Specterrevealed in a 2003 conference that Moore was the  Agent who showed him an undocumented photograph of Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964 re-enactment of the motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.

Lot's of insightsinto the assassination from all of this ... thanks to Jim Gochenaur. 

Gene

4 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

This and other Willis slides are available in very decent quality on the 6fm website.

Mark

Thanks for this original (unedited) Willis picture ... for that matter, who is the gentleman in the dark apron walking down the center of the street.  Quite odd .. 

Gene

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Relying solely on public statements from the time, one could make a case for either withdrawal or engagement simply by cherry-picking from the self-contradictory record. Critics such as Prouty and Newman look closely at what was done rather than what was said. They give more weight to the production of NSAM 263 - culminating a period of intense concentration on a strategic plan for Vietnam led personally by Kennedy - rather than discourse which may have been subject to electioneering and political persuasion. The intention of 263 is not ambiguous.

What is notable with the argument that “JFK never faced” what LBJ “had to confront” - which was first broached in Les Gelb’s NY Times op-ed December 1991) - is that rhetorically it dismisses the withdrawal argument for its presumption regarding the “unknown”, while simultaneously presuming to in fact "know" the “unknown” (i.e. JFK would have reacted the same as LBJ). It also fails to factor the escalatory measures initiated by the Johnson administration, beginning with NSAM 273.

Well stated, Jeff ... knowing JFK , his actions would have spoken much louder than the words (if he had the chance).  The latter words are rhetoric for public perception ... I recall (although young at the time) that Goldwater was scary, and I agree with Roger that the policy of 263 was quite clear. 

Gene

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have never seen them in an RFK book.

Has anyone else?

Jim

Sirhan's lawyer Grant Cooper had an interesting background. A year earlier, he had travelled to Da Nang, Vietnam to defend a Marine corporal on a murder charge before a military court. Why would a Los Angeles lawyer fly all the way to Vietnam to defend a man in military court? This highly paid lawyer with no reported proclivities for lost causes nonetheless agreed to take on Sirhan’s case.

Cooper would make many strange moves, allegedly in "defense" of Sirhan. He kept the autopsy photos from being presented in court under the notion that they would cause sympathy for Kennedy and arouse even more bias against his client (albeit evidence that could have been used to absolve Sirhan of guilt).  In addition, Sirhan’s notebooks were found during an illegal search of Mary Sirhan’s house. Cooper had every reason to bar these notebooks from being admitted into evidence, but he chose not only to admit them into evidence, but even had Sirhan read portions of them from the stand. It was Cooper who supplied Sirhan the motive he lacked, claiming that he was angry that RFK was willing to provide jets to Israel. 

Gene

On 2/1/2024 at 10:23 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I'd like to say.  I know we have a separate topic on RFK.  I think if we keep his son and politics out of it, this thread should be sustained, as others on such have been moved, for good reason.

That said, here is a very informative thread on the subject.  I'll start it out with a quote from I believe, a friend.

Gene Kelly

• 
• Members
• •  1k
• Gender:Male
• Location:Philadelphia PA
• Interests:Basketball, gardening, reading, grandkids and family.

Posted December 28, 2018 · IP 

I got the book for Christmas and am reading ...  Lisa is a great researcher and investigator, and ties many points together in a credible manner.    I've read quite a bit about RFK and all the loose ends - and many good authors that preceded her - but Lisa puts another dimension onto the story.  Like getting a graduate education in the story.  

Its actually quite sad, almost depressing, to understand what happened to RFK and our country in June 1968.  I had just graduated from high school, and there was great hope that Bobby would lead the country out of the mess that was Vietnam, widespread racial tensions and questionable politicians.  He seemed a candidate of the people (all people) and someone who had moral courage and would put the country on the right path.  What a loss ... and then we got Ricard Nixon for the next 6 years.  It breaks my heart to read about what happened to him, and how brazen and brash the plotters were, including the coverup and intimidation for years to come.  

Many of my age and era lost faith in politics, government, and the ability to effect change.  Not sure the country ever quite recovered.       

Here is the thread link.

 

Ron

Here is a good summary of the RFK case that I once compiled, with the help of many of the excellent researchers mentioned in this thread:

There are many loose ends and puzzles associated with Kennedy’s murder. Questions remain about luring RFK into the pantry. The interaction of Cesar with Gardner is of interest. The Polka Dot girl almost seems too contrived; another obvious distraction, seen (and heard) by many witnesses, both before and after.

The crime scene was secured quickly, and evidence was controlled, like Dealey Plaza five years earlier. Los Angeles was selected in advance, with pre-staged police accomplices, attorneys and investigators, phony coroner assistants etc. The investigation and trial were rigged comprehensively from the start.

And within one year, key volumes of evidence were destroyed well in advance of any appeals. Then there is the strange behavior of Sirhan's brothers - who must have known what he was doing in the preceding months - with the authorities. One would think Sirhan's whereabouts in the previous year would have been catalogued in brute detail (like Oswald)… curious that all we get is the simple 'white fog" excuse. Most of the evidence seems to indicate a CIA modus operandi:

•    MK/Ultra aspect
•    The use of doubles
•    Questionable defense attorneys and rigged trial
•    Destruction of evidence like the Enyart photos
•    SUS affiliations of Hank Hernandez and Manny Pena,
•    the presence of Iranian intelligence officer Khan 

Gene

1 hour ago, Marcus Fuller said:

I've thought a few times that due to the number of connections there must have been no more than 100 people living in Texas at the time. Obviously that's a tongue in cheek comment but everyone seems to be connected in one way or another. When do coincidences stop being coincidences?

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
― Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

Roger

I find Barry Ernest to be quite credible ... and his interviews with Vicki Adams compelling.  As Barry wrote in the 2021 K&K article, Vicki’s original testimony no longer exists, but there is corroboration from her co-worker, Sandra Styles, who accompanied Vicki to the first floor. Sandra verifies the timing, as well as who was there when the girls arrived on the 1st floor. Sandra Styles knew Shelley and Lovelady well; when Barry Ernest tracked her down in 2002, she told him that Shelley and Lovelady definitely were not on the first floor. She repeated that in subsequent interviews, emphatically. 

Bigger picture, its the timing of the descent on the stairs that is most important - demonstrating that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (and that the 2nd floor encounter is questionable) - and its clear Belin and others attempted to discredit Vicki Adams.  And I agree that the Stroud letter (thanks to the ARRB and Barry) is the evidence that destroys the Oswald fabrication.

Gene

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Thanks for that rundown. Probably all of the major witnesses had a pre-interview before the official one to set up the story WC staff wanted to tell

Vicki Adams told Ernest that when Belin finished the pre interview with her, he said now we'll do the official one and you must answer the questions exactly as you just have.  Iow, the story I want from you is set.  No deviations.  Ball was to interview Shelley and Lovelady a few hours later the same day to work out a way to discredit Adams.

Now please retract your statement about the "whole Ernest thing" being all wrong. The book uncovered valuable information.  Finding the Stroud letter and bringing into play what Garner said. Finding out that the stenotapes of all three of them are missing from NARA. Fleshing out the details of some of the things Adams went through when they found out what she had to say. Just some examples.

Ernest told me he had not seen Adams' 1966 appearance before he wrote the book, but Adams' had told him about it (it's mentioned twice in the book, pp 139-40 and 231). Unable to find the tape, he relied on what Adams told him about the episode.

When it came time emphasize which lie the WC used to discredit Adams, it now looks like Ernest may have picked the wrong one. That's a detail which can be corrected and we're on the way to doing that.  The important fact that Ernest makes clear is that the WC lied to discredit Adams, whose story would have destroyed their Oswald fabrication.

Roger:

I agree (about the retraction of Barry Ernest's account being "wrong") ... see the February 2021 article in Kennedy's and King entitled “Barry Ernest Replies to John Armstrong, RE: Victoria Adams” by Barry Ernest.  The documentary record of Adams’ DPD testimony differs from her previous testimony. The stenographer’s tape of Adams actual testimony (i.e., what she told Belin) was destroyed.  She never saw Shelley and Lovelady ... she felt those words had been inserted into the record to disprove her timing and credibility. The Martha Jo Stroud letter to Rankin (only declassified after ARRB and discovered in 1999) supports Adams’ actual account, and Dorothy Garner supported what Adams (and Styles) said about not seeing Lovelady and Shelley.   

Gene

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14967-abraham-zapruder-and-jeanne-legon/

Paul

I dont know about any of Burkley's private papers. His daughter refused ARRB access to his lawyer's files. 

Being sensitive to Larry's post, I do not believe that he was in on the plotting or any surrepticious transfer of the body from Parkland to DC.  His duty was to attend to the President (both JFK and LBJ) and to Mrs. Kennedy. He had perhaps the unique perspective on the post-mortem procedures - and he was a ranking naval officer - so he could easily have been legitimately following orders throughout. To his credit, he signed an accurate death certificate and body trace, expressed  reservations about WC conclusions, and appears to have taken the initiative to initilally reach out to Richard Sprague and the HSCA ... but that opportunity was buried with Sprague's removal. 

 I know that some have painted a more complicit characterization of his involvement, but that would be speculative at this point. 

Gene

The 1967 oeral interview for the JFK Librarry also has this comment by Burkley:

When the President was on the Air Force One returning to Washington, Mrs. Kennedy, as has been noted, sat in the rear of the plane, next to the coffin bearing the President’s remains. During the flight I contacted her, and stated that an autopsy would be necessary, and that I was perfectly willing to arrange to have it done at any place that she felt it should be done. She said, “Well, it doesn’t have to be done.” I said, “Yes, it is mandatory that we have an autopsy. I can do it at the Army hospital at Walter Reed or at the Navy hospital at Bethesda, or any civilian hospital that you would designate.” However, I felt that it should be a military hospital, in that he had been President of the United States and was, therefore, the Commander in Chief of the Military. After some consideration she stated that she would like to have the President taken to Bethesda. This was arranged by telephone from the plane, and it was accomplished. 

Burkley accompanied the President in the ambulance going to Bethesda, and also accompanied him to the area where the autopsy was performed. He later stated that:

"I supervised the autopsy and kept in constant contact with Mrs. Kennedy and the members of her party who were on the seventeenth floor in the suite at that level. I made trips back and forth. I delivered to her personally the ring from the President’s finger and talked to her on a number of occasions. I also directed that the X-rays be taken for future reference and had complete knowledge of everything that was done. The records are also in possession of members of the family.

There were photographs taken at various stages, and they are also in the possession of the family. And the only regret I have that I did not ask to have a photograph taken when he had been restored to his near normal appearance. And I may mention here that he was very lifelike in his appearance and there would have been no question of his having been viewed." 

In JFK Revisited, Jim DiEugenio points out that:

1. Sibert and O'Neill state that the autopsy report was false. The back wound was not where the Commission said it was, and there was a hole in the rear of JFK's head. (and Arlen Specter kept their testimony out of the record).
2. George Burkley agreed with the placement of that back wound-twice. Once in the official death certificate and once on the face sheet, though his name is erased from the latter (Specter kept him out of the record also).
3. In his 1967 oral interview for the JFK Library, Burkley’s conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which "involved the skull":

The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death, the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium.

When asked whether he agreed with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body, he famously stated: "I would not care to be quoted on that”.

Gene

21 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Gene, like so many other strange connections between major players in the JFKA affair the one between Jeanne LeGon and Zapruder is too coincidental NOT to be worthy of at least some curious and even suspicious consideration.

And I can't totally shake some suspicion of both Jeanne LeGon and George De Mohrenschildt maybe having some double agent roles at some point in their remarkably intrepid world travel lives.

Jeanne De M's Warren Commission testimony about this supposed unplanned happen stance meet up with that Russian diplomat "Mikoyan" in the Mexican outback just sounds too incongruous to me...relative to their main goal travel plans of machete hacking their way through the Central American jungle...for the purpose of getting in shape as well as a distraction for George in his grief over his son's death?

George De Mohrenschildt's WC testimony is also a fascinating read imo.

Also, George De Mohrenschildt was employed at a clothing design business in New York City at the same time his future wife Jeanne Le Gon was employed there in the same type of business? They actually lived close to each other at that time?

Another weird coincidence?

Joe

Its certainly a tantalizing set of connections. Jeanne and George led a colorful life, with intrigue and controversy.  Unfortunately, all that we can do is speculate at this late date.  I do find it notable that the Warren Commission took so much detailed testimony (2+ days worth) from this couple, while really getting nothing out of it, other than a veritable character assassination of the Oswalds. There were other witnesses more deserving of such scrutiny.  Also, that Npvember 2009 EF thread went on for some length, with lots of 'interventions' and challenges by certain members who seemed intent on derailing the dialogue (a sign that it might've been important).   

I would end by saying that Zapruder has always been an enigma to me, and his film is a contentious topic to this day (its handling, provenance, and ultimate ownership).  I don't want to wade into alteration theories, but why such an important piece of evidence ends up with Time magazine (and later the 6th Floor Museum) is troubling.  And in 1997, when the AARB formally voted to designate the film as an “assassination record”-  and implement a legal “taking” to preserve it in perpetuity, as part of the JFK Records Collection - a Justice Department arbitration panel decided in 1999 that Zapruder’s heirs should be given sixteen million dollars in “just compensation” for the taking of the film by the U.S. government, allowing the heirs to keep the copyright, and all of the legal control over use of the film’s images that comes with the copyright.

As Dough Horne commented, there's something fishy about that. 

Gene 

Joe

Do you see anything curious about the Zapruder-LeGon connection?  Greg Burnham's research goes on to point out that Zapruder was a member of the Dalls White Russian community, the Council on World Affairs and The Crusade For a Free Europe, both of which were CIA-backed organizations and Domestic Operations in Dallas whose membership included: Abraham Zapruder, Clint Murchison, D. Harold Byrd, (owner of the Book Depository), Sarah Hughes (who swore LBJ onAir Force One), and George DeMohrenschildt.  Lots of interesting dots to connect there.

Gene  

There’s an EF thread “Abraham Zapruder and Jeanne LeGon” started in November 2009 (that went on for several years) about some interesting parallels and connections with Jeanne.  The thread speculates that Jeanne Le Gon and Abraham Zapruder were not simply seamstress and tailor. Research by Greg Burnham and others found that , in 1953 and 1954, Jeanne LeGon worked with Abraham Zapruder at the clothing design firm Nardis in Dallas. Jeanne designed the clothing and Abraham Zapruder cut the patterns and the material for her. Tom Scully added that "Jeanne was the talent ... its seems she was a favorite of the Nardis owners, the Golds”. 

Abraham Zapruder originally found work in the Garment District of Manhattan as a clothing pattern maker, and in 1941 moved to Dallas to work for Nardis, a local sportswear company. Jeanne moved to Dallas (with her first husband) and designed clothes. In 1956 she worked for Leeds Coats and the following year she was employed by Judy Bond, Nancy Greer and Jack Rothenberg in Dallas. She was also a designer with Nardis Sportswear, owned by Bernard “Benny” Gold, who initially put her up in his mansion.  In 1957 George de Mohrenschildt became involved with Jeanne, who would become his fourth wife. Zapruder left Nardis in 1959 (the same year that Jeanne married George) and started his own business. 

The Warren Commission took two and a half days of testimony from George de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne. Quite a lot of extraneous detail in comparison with other more imprtant witnesses. The conclusion from all of it was that George was "essentially an eccentric (if well-connected) figure whose life encompassed a series of strange coincidences". (Ref: “Bush and the JFK Hit, Part 6: The Cold War Comes to Dallas” by Russ Baker 10/24/13). 

Gene
 

Sandy

But the war never happened ... and I think LBJ was stuck with appeasing an aggresive Pentagon and Joint Chiefs staff who wanted an insane nuclear conflict. So, LBJ gave them their VietNam War. The assassination has always had a feel of "revenge" to it - animosity for JFK on the part of certain individuals within the CIA - and they used the Castro/Cuba promise as an icentive to induce certain anti-Castro payers to participate (but never followed thru on it afterwards).   

The timing of several other incidents is suspicious and telling.  On Sept 17, 1963, someone appears at the New Orleans Mexican consulate and purchases a visa made out to "Lee, Harvey Oswald" (or H.O. Lee). Visa #24084 was issued just before Oswald's, and purchased by an individual whom the WCR, FBI and CIA sought to keep buried, William George Gaudet.  The visa states the stay in Mexico cannot exceed 5 days, although its good for 15 days.

Friday, September 20, 1963, was also the day that Ruth Paine arrived at 4905 (or 4907) Magazine after corresponding with Marina about having her come live with Ruth and children until and through the birth of their next child in mid-October. The dates work perfectly; Ruth arrives just in time to remove Marina and June from Oswald's care and sight. Ruth and children stay the weekend and corroborate the fact that Marina's "husband" was there all weekend. Finally, on Sept 22nd, Oswald helps load Ruth's car and on the morning of Sept 23 says goodbye to Marina and June.

September 20th is a most interesting day … on September 20, Richard Nagell sent a registered letter from El Paso, Texas to Hoover  and informed him that President Kennedy would be assassinated  in a conspiracy that involved Lee Harvey Oswald. After mailing the letter, which included Oswald's description, aliases, and current address, Nagell walked into the State National Bank and fired two shots into the ceiling.

You just can't make this stuff up ... 

Gene

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's great Gene! I'll add you to the list.

I have the feeling that some forum members believe this theory but just don't want to deal with the critics of it.

But I'm surprised the nobody has a book in mind that accepts this theory. Besides Destiny Betrayed.

What about JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass? Anybody read that?

 

Sandy

I would add that its always been my strong feeling that the FBI was blackmailed, and forced into the coverup (to protect the Bureau's reputation). And Angleton had compromising pictures of Hoover to boot.  But the details of what really went on down in Mexico City were so sensitive to national security - for many reasons, perhaps some legitimate, not just the assassination - that any real inquiry into what went down had to be discouraged or classified.  For example, the disclosure of the Hardaway/Lopez report, or Slawson and Coleman's visits to Mexico City.  There are few books likely because its a difficult puzzle to untangle (imho).

Gene

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Don't John Newman and Bill Simpich believe that much?

 

Sandy:

Yes... but their "spins" are different.  Newman makes a case for the CIA plotters "dimming the switches" prior to the assassination (i.e., the Kostikov virus balloon ) ... effectively setting a blackmail scheme of the FBI and Hoover (afterwards) to ensure the Bureau wouldn't turn over the wrong rocks, and support the lone-nut narrative. He states that the plotters are involved not just in killing the President but in neutralizing law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. Newman's synthesis of the Mexico City "story" that was planted ahead of time is cogent:

"It's a very powerful argument. It's a big weapon. Not just in the hands of LBJ but in the hands of anybody who would want an autopsy report burned, who would want to do anything, who would intimidate enlisted guys, techs, med-techs ..."

Simpich talks about "piggy-backing" - of one CIA group's operation by another CIA faction responsible for the assassination - hence the treatment of Win Scott and CIA Mexico City Station.  In other words, the assassination plot was grafted onto a "legitimate" Mexico City operation.

Gene

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm pretty sure that David Josephs pretty much agrees with Jim DiEugenio, Peter Dale Scott, and myself, as far as the fundamentals go. The fundamentals being:

The CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was dealing with Cuba and Russia in killing Kennedy.

@Gene Kelly, don't you believe that much yourself?

 

Most definitely, Sandy ... 

On 12/11/2023 at 11:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Philips was in charge of the Cuba desk in Mexico City.

Eddie Lopez told me that when he was not there, Goodpasture took care of his operations.

Now if you talk to Eddie and Danny they will tell you that when they met Goodpasture is when they began to realize that there was something dark and malignant going on.

That is why they drew up indictments of both Goodpasture and Phillips for the HSCA.

Its really odd though that I think I am one of the very few authors who have written about all the crap that Goodpasture was involved in both back in 1963 and the BS she told the HSCA.  Its always puzzled me that I was pretty much alone in that endeavor. Because if yo read the Lopez Report, she is one l---g b---h.

I will weigh-in here, although I'm cautioned that fools rush in ...   I think that the reason we don't see a lot of responses to this topic is because its so confusing.  Its a classic disinformation counter-intelligence ploy (on all sides of the equation), so its difficult to ascertain which end is up.  And, making it more difficult is that we have a lot of credible writers/researchers (Bill Simpich, John Newman, David Josephs, et al) who don't reach a concensus on whether the real Oswald - whomever that is - was pysically in Mexico City or not. Wiretapping and recording device evidence of Oswald’s time in Mexico is non-existent ... and tapes were erased, misfiled or destroyed.  And as many have written, the FBI  wanted to prove Oswald was there. And as you have written, the Alvarado and Garro statements (about Oswald fraternizing with the Cuban Consulate and collecting $6500 inside the consulate) are fake stories, obviously planted by the CIA ... as is the story about Oswald meeting with KGB assassination chief Kostikov.

I am reminded of what one of my best bosses once stated ... that its not the answers that we get wrong, but rather the questions that we ask. So, whether Oswald was in Mexico City or not is not the key question ... its clear that he was impersonated, and that there were intelligence "shenanigans" going on.  And Goodpasture was complict, which leads to James Angleton.    

Greg:

Not sure why you pointed this particular comment out ... other than its from the Tom Bethell Diary (a dubious source, at best).  Bethell was part of the subversion of Garrison's investigation.  Bethell thought that Clay Shaw was innocent (even though he was the archivist for Garrison’s files)  ... and that Life magazine did not suppress the Zapruder film. So forgive me if I don't put much stock in his opinion of Vincent Salandria.  Here is the rest of the story, as framed by Jim DiEugenio's March 2021 article in Kennedys and King, "Tom Bethell: A Study in Duplicity":

Bill Boxley, a CIA infiltrator, took files from Garrison's office, and Bethell was suspected to be the source for these leaked documents.  According to Joan Mellon and Jim DiEugenio, Bethell was an inveterate xxxx about his stance on Garrison and the blow up that got him fired and charged. In his 1988 book "The Electric Windmill" he stated that Garrison’s was a dubious case ... this was before his diaries became public and published in newspapers in New Orleans. 

When James DiEugenio interviewed Vince Salandria in February 1992, Vince  told him the contrary.  Salandria had arguments with Bethell in 1967 about not just the efficacy of Garrison’s case, but also the findings of the Warren Commission. And on the eve of the Clay Shaw trial, Bethell turned over the prosecution’s entire witness list with a summary of what each witness would testify to. Here is more of what Jim wrote in the 2021 article: 

Bethell lied about this issue. In 1991, he wrote an article timed for the release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. (National Review, December 16, 1991) In that piece, he said that he voluntarily told Garrison about his duplicity … this was false. What really happened was this: In January of 1969, on the eve of the trial, Garrison understood that there was something going on with Shaw’s defense and their knowledge of his case. His first assistant, Lou Ivon, conducted an internal investigation. Ivon confronted Bethell with the case against him and the Englishman broke down and started weeping.Bethell was charged by Garrison, fled New Orleans, and  had to hire a lawyer. Garrison was recused and a special prosecutor took the case.

After the judge dismissed the case and the higher court refused to hear it, Bethell moved to Washington DC where he worked at The American Spectator and as a media fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University for 25 years. From about the mid-seventies onward, he spent the rest of his life ridiculing both liberals and critics of the Warren Commission.  He isn't on my list of credible sources ... but I'm sure you already know abbout Tom Bethell's credentials.

Gene