Gene Kelly

Steve If you ready the Garrison transcript closely, it seems that Boxley (William Wood) interviewed Dinkin ... that is what fascinates me here, that he actually spoke to him in Brooklyn in 1968. I believe that this is where he gets the cipher clerk ('crypto work') legend from. Several Forum members have been asking how/where Garrison got the Dinkin/OAS connection from; I think it originated from Boxley's conversation with Eugene Dinkin. If you read the February 2018 Ronald Redmond article in Kennedy's and King, Eugene Dinkin comes across as an intelligent and responsible individual ... portrayed as an idealist (and a bit paranoid), a social worker with a degree in psychology from Chicago University. I could envision the Army training him in cryptographic duties, and he did have a secret clearance of some level. I get the impression that Dinkin was smart enough to avoid any direct discussion of what he actually did, or how he came to discover the plot, as him making that information public would be a felony and grounds for imprisonment ... so, he therefore put together the story of psychological "message sets" from military publications such as Stars and Stripes. Dinkin later told the FBI that it was his study of these "psychological sets" which revealed to him both an anti-Kennedy bias as well as a military plot in the works. Boxley believed that these were essentially a cover story. It appears that using these public documents was a way for him to avoid any legal complications or retaliation by the Department of Defense, although he remained persistent in his protests in the 1970's. Curiously (but not surprisingly), Dinkin disavowed seeing any such traffic in a February 23, 1977 letter to HSCA member Jacqueline Hess, wherein he provided 23 exhibits ("media demonstrations") as evidence: He noted to Hess that he had never decoded any illicit cryptographic message that appeared to relate to the JFK assassination. I would not characterize Eugene Dinkin as unbalanced; rather, he seems careful and intelligent. Boxley himself was interviewed in September 1971 and told his interviewers (Rennar and Mary Ferrell): B says it is a very interesting story, including how DINKIN turned up in New York. B's basic reaction in that DINKIN's "paranoia" deserves a second look. For one thing, they do not take people like DINKIN into crypto work, the importance of which is second only to nuclear topics. He was in Europe handling coded Algerian traffic, when he came rushing into the next room saying that the President was going to be killed in Dallas. Gene

Steve In a November 10, 2017 EF thread on Dinkin, you responded to Steve Hume with the following: Here's a copy of the relevant pages from that New Orleans research conference. If they don't show up here as attached file, I'll try to copy and paste them. Dinkin Garrrison Papers New Orleans Conference 9 21 1968 Pages 73 to 75.pdf This captures a conversation amongst Garrison investigators (in September 1968) where Bill Boxley indicated that he interviewed Dinkin in Brooklyn NYC, and - while he seemed a bit crazy - Boxley thought that there was something to Dinkin's story. Boxley indicates that the Stars and Stripes explanation is a cover story that Dinkin "memorized" (i.e. 'they got to him') and that he had actually been monitoring OAS cable traffic, when he came upon the plot. Boxley believes that Dinkin was credible, and had been an NSA cipher clerk with significant clearance. Gene Steve Thomas

Were Dennis De Witt or Larry Pulles ever subsequently interviewed? Both of them were apparently aware of the first letter to the Attorney General. If I have the story straight, it was De Witt whose name was on the envelope as a return address (as Dinkin was concerned it would be intercepted) and Pulles who actually mailed the letter. They could corroborate its existence. Regarding the cryptographic work, interviews of Garrison investigator William C. Wood (aka Bill Boxley) were conducted by one George E. Rennar (accompanied by Mary Ferrell) in 1971. Boxley (designated as "B" below) was interviewed in Dallas on August 30, 31 and September 3, 1971. Most of the interviews focused on allegations made by others against Boxley, who was former CIA (allegedly left due to a drinking problem) and was one of several individuals who had infiltrated the Garrison investigation. Garrison eventually had a falling out with Boxley, who jumped ship and ended up working on Clay Shaw’s defense team. I recall some separate correspondence that Steve Thomas provided, indicating that Boxley had previously interviewed Dinkin in Brooklyn for Garrison, and described him as a bit nutty (he had 10 dogs). Boxley had some interesting comments to make about Eugene Dinkin : B says it is a very interesting story, including how DINKIN turned up in New York. B's basic reaction in that DINKIN's "paranoia" deserves a second look. For one thing, they do not take people like DINKIN into crypto work, the importance of which is second only to nuclear topics. He was in Europe handling coded Algerian traffic, when he came rushing into the next room saying that the President was going to be killed in Dallas. B also thinks he named the date. He was taken to a military hospital under heavy guard after he told his Captain about his intercept. Then, unprecedentedly, he was taken to Walter Reed Hospital two days later. B says the lead 'came from a DINKIN acquaintance at Ft. Hood. B talked to a Killien boy who provided him with the present whereabouts of the members of DINKIN's unit. Basically, they were military police. DINKIN took a polygraph in Chicago and has the results with him. B feels that he has been gotten to and is now just parroting a false story.

We have several corroborations (independently) that the first letter existed, and was sent, as documented by: CIA Cable No. 56631," November 7, 1963 from Geneva Station to Washington - first alert on Dinkin On March 4, 1964, Lieutenant Colonel W. L. Adams, Jr., Assist and Chief of Staff, G-2, furnished the following: Captain Howard C. Cowen, assigned to the United States Army Depot at Metz, France, advised on February 18, 1964, that during the evening of November 22, 1963, he conversed with an acquaintance named Dennis De Witt. During the conversation, De Witt said that a friend of his, Eugene Dinkin, had predicted the assassination His military associates including those named by Dinkin in his FBI interviews: PFC Dennis De Witt, PFC Larry Pulles, Sgt. Walter Reynolds, and R. Thomas.

Richard Price: There were two letters written to the Attorney General ... one by Dinkin (prior to the assassination) and one by his mother (after the assassination). First letter: Eugene Dinkin first became aware of the assassination plot in September 1963 and - after gathering more facts and evidence - wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy on October 16, 1963 and signed the letter in his own name. Dinkin sent the letter by registered mail, and used the return address of an Army friend, Pfc. Dennis De Witt to prevent it from being intercepted. In the letter he revealed that blame would be cast on a Communist, claiming the conspiracy involved far-right elements of the military, and requested that he be interviewed by a representative from the Justice Department. While in detention he was contacted by a white male (on the evening of the assassination) who identified himself verbally as a representative of the Defense Department, and asked Dinkin for the location of the material that he had compiled. Dinkin later told the FBI that the individual claimed to be a Secret Service agent who had flown to Europe to interview him regarding the letter. Second letter: About a month after the assassination, with the Warren Commission in process, Eugene Dinkin’s mother wrote a letter to the Attorney General’s office on December 29, 1963, on behalf of her son. She stated that her son knew how the assassination was planned, and suggested the Attorney General arrange someone to talk with him and gave her son’s location as Walter Reed Army Hospital. Mrs. Dinkin’s letter was answered by Assistant Attorney General Herbert J. Miller Jr. who claimed that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. However, the FBI interviewed Dinkin in Chicago (after his psychiatric treatment and discharge from the Army) on April 1, 1964. Other letters: In 1975 Dinkin filed a civil suit against the Department of Defense and the CIA disputing the facts as presented to the Warren Commission in CD 943 (July 1975 letter to CIA Director William Colby) where he asks for information about his "treatment and interrogatories" while in Walter Reed, and about "grey propaganda" techniques. This filing was at least two years prior to Dinkin's HSCA contacts, and during the Church Committee hearings. Dinkin later corresponded with the HSCA in 1977, sending them letters dated February 23 and March 10th). He was never interviewed, and received a form letter from Chief Counsel Robert Blakey. Gene

There's quite a bit out there on the Dinkin story now. I've been accumulating a useful list (including some past EF threads): Mark Bridger (July 2005) “Foreknowledge in England - the Cambridge Call? (Eugene Dinkin section), Dealey Plaza Echo Noel Twyman (1998) “Eugene B. Dinkin: Foreknowledge?” (excerpt from Bloody Treason) Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 4 Dick Russell (1992) “The Man Who Knew Too Much” pages 552-557 Robert Mitchell (January 1977) “The Strange Tale of Eugene Dinkins”. Conspiracy Theory Research List David Martin (March 2012) “Abuse of Psychiatry in JFK Assassination” James DiEugenio Education Forum thread (October 18, 2017) “Eugene Dinkin: The Saga of an Unsung Hero” Stephen Turner Education Forum thread (June 2006) “Eugene Dinkin” Lisa Pease (January 1997) in alt.conspiracy.jfk Harold Weisberg (June 1981” “A Possible French Connection” Redmond, Ronald (February 2018) “The Death of Eugene B. Dinkin” Ronald Redmond (October 2017) “Eugene Dinkin: The Saga of an Unsung Hero” Kennedy’s and King

All Dinkin’s name first came up in the Garrison investigation, where, like many leads, his name first appeared. Interviews with some of Dinkin’s former Army associates led to the conclusion that he had been hospitalized until he memorized a cover story. As Garrison’s people pieced the story together, they discovered that one of Dinkin’s duties as a code breaker had been to decipher telegraphic traffic that originated with the French OAS. Author Dick Russell included quite a bit of Dinkin’s information in his book The Man Who Knew Too Much. Noel Twyman also covered some of Dinkin’s story in Bloody Treason. Neither of these writers used the psychological set examples that Dinkin subsequently provided to the HSCA. Russell obliquely refers to material in publications as part of a cover story that Dinkin came up with to account for where he thought he had learned about the plot. Russell writes that some of the military associates Garrison’s investigators talked to told the DA that while he was hospitalized, Dinkin was made to recite a cover story. This may be because when Garrison dug deeper into Dinkin, he discovered that one of his functions as a code breaker was to decipher messages from the French OAS. Not sure where this came from or how/who told Garrison, but it resonates since the OAS disliked Kennedy for his alliance with DeGaulle as well as Kennedy’s advocacy for independence for the French colony of Algeria. As Henry Hurt later discovered, a member of the OAS (Secret Army Organization) was in Fort Worth the morning of the assassination, and in Dallas that afternoon. He was picked up within 48 hours and expelled back to France. Researcher Lisa Pease noted that there were allegations that he was NSA, detailed to Army in Europe. See the excellent October 2017 article by Ronald Redmon in Kennedy's and King entitled "Eugene Dinkin, The Saga of an Unsung Hero". The rumor of a visit to the Soviet Embassy is new. What is well documented is that on October 25, 1963, Dinkin went to the US Embassy at Luxembourg where, he stated, he attempted to see the Charge d'Affaires, who refused to see him or to review the newspapers and research papers which Dinkin claimed were evidence of the impending assassination. Following this incident, Dinkin was notified by his superiors that he was to undergo psychiatric evaluation on November 5th. Dinkin then went absent without leave , where he attempted to present his story to the editor of the Geneva Diplomat. Dinkin also spoke to a Newsweek reporter based in Geneva who did not listen to Dinkin's allegations. He then attempted to contact officials of Time-Life and succeeded in speaking to the secretary in Zurich. After these unsuccessful efforts, Dinkin returned to Germany where he gave himself up to the custody of the military, whereupon he was "hospitalized" at Landstuhl General Hospital in a closed psychiatric ward until JFK was killed. Eugene B. Dinkin was the subject of a closed investigation by the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, United States Army Communications Zone, Europe. Dinkin was reassigned to Walter Reed Hospital, Washington D.C., as a patient on December 3rd and was ordered to proceed to that destination on the 4th (apparently skipping typical diagnosis that he was schizophrenic, psychotic, history of depression, delusions of persecution. There he was given therapy to help him deal with his unfortunate condition of "schizoid-assassination prognostication syndrome". He was made to understand, that if his condition did not improve, he would undergo electric shock treatment, whereupon his condition dramatically "improved." He was released from Walter Reed Hospital and the U.S. Army on a medical discharge. Dinkin's described his medical treatment: I began receiving “therapy” to help me understand that my warning of the assassination had been “coincidental” and represented a projection of hostility toward authority figures in my family and a displacement of my internal conflicts about inability to adjust to military life. In order to “get well” I was to understand that in approaching European ambassadors I was “really looking for attention and assistance to obtain psychiatric treatment.” I was let to understand that if my condition did not improve that I could be treated with electric shock treatment and feigned cooperation and understanding of my unfortunate condition (schizoid-assassination prognostication) and pretended to participate in group therapy and pharmacological treatment (I faked swallowing pills throughout). I was given an injection of a strong drug which left me dazed and was then introduced to a “psychologist from Case Institute of Cleveland” and told that be was conducting a research project requiring my cooperation. I was then required to free associate to a list of words while a tape recorder was in process of recording.” Gene

Ron There is some good information about Jim Hicks from Larry Hancock, in a March 2013 EF thread started about researcher Jones Harris. Hicks did spend some time in a mental institution called Fort Supply (a hospital named after a former cavalry post) for alcohol abuse. After being released, he made calls to the FBI from bars. When Jim Garrison brought him to New Orleans, Hicks apparently brought a couple of guys he met in a bar back to his hotel room and got beat up in an ensuing brawl (allegedly thrown through a plate glass window) which was construed (by Garrison) as harassment for his assassination knowledge and testimony. Hicks claimed that he also received threatening calls, warning him not to talk. The legend about having a radio in Dealey Plaza came from someone other than Hicks himself. His statements were made primarily to newspaper reporters and never to law enforcement per se. It does not appear that - as legend has it - he was stashed away in a secret medical facility to prevent his testimony. Larry believes that his claims are less about any assassination complicity, and more of a sad story about a man with a drinking problem. Hicks was not one of the better leads generated by the Garrison investigation; when he went down to testify for the Grand Jury, he ended getting rolled and beat up. Later he talked to reporters and seemed to feel that Garrison would call him back as a major witness for the Shaw trial...which Garrison did not. Hicks did appear before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury on January 11, 1968, and was questioned in the presence of the grand jury. He had gone to see the Presidential "parade" alone, as he stated he was not married then. He told a tale about observing a car with two men in the Knoll parking lot, one kneeling in the trunk, with what looked like he had a “piece of pipe or broom handle”. He described the car as a white 56 Pontiac, backed up against the fence, and that the two men appeared to be dark-complected and Spanish. He testified to hearing several shots that came "overhead" (from two separate directions or locations) and that he heard the zing coming over his head. According to Larry Hancock, most everything you find in print about Hicks is urban legend information, except for the fact that he was in Dealey Plaza that day (supposedly because his wife was working in Dallas). There's not much else out there written about Jim Hicks. Gene

Jim Warren's obituary stated that, in taking the post, he yielded to the importuning of President Johnson. The 10 months of the commission's work were "the unhappiest time of my life," he said, adding that: "To review the terrible happenings of that assassination every day [was] a traumatic experience. "The only reason I undertook the commission was the gravity of the situation. There was no way of holding a trial, for Oswald was dead and the country needed to have the facts of the killing brought out. But it isn't a good thing for a Justice to undertake such duties." The commission was an unhappy experience for Warren, who did not want the assignment. As a judge, he valued candor and justice, but as a politician he recognized the need for secrecy in some matters. In the book "Earl Warren: A Public Life by G. Edward White, The Story of Warren's service on the commission is the story about a man whose strong instincts for justice and candor collided with other strong elements in his nature - his patriotism, his interest in making decisions swiftly, his awareness of the political implications of his decisions, and his belief that matters of great public significance , if decided by a collective body, should if all possible be decided unanimously. It is the story of an unhappy and unsatisfying experience in Earl Warren's life' Gene

Earl Warren is an interesting political figure. Warren led the Court from 1953 - 1969 through many landmark cases dealing with race, justice, and representation. He won the California governorship in 1942, a post he held for three terms, with an outlook that was considered both fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Warren helped end school segregation with the court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In 1966, the Warren Court made another controversial ruling on criminal justice procedures in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. He was a big, fair-haired man, called Pinky in his youth, who loved spectator sports and outdoor life, and whose suits were always double-breasted blue serge. Most interesting, he had a blood feud with Richard Nixon which lasted 25 years. It started during Nixon’s first political campaign, and lasted until Warren's death (see March 2017 Smithsonian article by John Farrell entitled "The Inside Story of Richard Nixon’s Ugly, 30-Year Feud with Earl Warren"). After an unsuccessful presidential bid in 1952, Nixon became Eisenhower's running mate. to “keep the California delegation in line”. Warren believed that Nixon was trying to sabotage him ... from that day forward, Warren hated Nixon. The feuding subsided once Eisenhower appointed Warren to lead the Supreme Court in 1953 (a nomination that Eisenhower later stated was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made"). General Eisenhower was said to have offered it first to John Foster Dulles, who preferred to remain Secretary of State. As late as 1957 he was still sufficiently piqued at Nixon to inform the American Bar Association that he would refuse an invitation to attend its convention if Vice President Nixon were also invited. Nixon then lost the 1960 presidential election to John Kennedy and sought to make a comeback by running for Warren’s old job as governor in California in 1962. Warren openly campaigned against Nixon, dispatching his son to stump the state campaigning against Nixon, who subsequently lost the election. Warren bore the brunt of criticism of the Court's decisions, which came from policemen and prosecutors; politicians; white supremacists; conservatives; and, indirectly, from the Nixon White House. The cry from the Nixon Administration that the Warren Court "coddled criminals" and fostered permissiveness." Some wanted him removed, and at one time there were a spate of billboard and bumper signs that said "Impeach Earl Warren." Of the signs, Warren said, "It was kind of an honor to be accused by the John Birch Society. Warren reluctantly yielded to the persuasion of President Lyndon Johnson to lead the Warren Commission, and described the ten months of the commission's work as "the unhappiest time of my life". In 1968, Warren was ready to retire, but didn’t want Nixon to name his successor. He approached President Lyndon Johnson, and reached an agreement to have LBJ’s good friend and adviser, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, promoted to chief justice after just a couple of years on the court. Senate Republicans went to work, filibustered, and blocked the Fortas nomination. Warren was compelled to stay on, with the sour duty of swearing-in Nixon as the 37th president in January 1969. The conflicts over the Warren and Fortas seats were much like the Spanish Civil War—a struggle in which outside foes debuted and tested weaponry and tactics they would employ in the frays to come. And after ending up on the losing end of a Supreme Court ruling when trying to halt publication of leaked secrets in the Pentagon Papers case, Nixon installed an in-house gang Plumbers, to investigate, intimidate and defame leakers ... which eventually led him to Watergate. Over the years, Warren would tell people how “Nixon cut my throat from here to here,” and gesture with his finger across his neck. As Warren lay on his death bed in July 1974, he urged his fellow justices (Douglas and Brennan) that the Supreme Court must rule for the Watergate special prosecutor in the ongoing legal struggle over Nixon’s White House tapes, he told the two justices. The president had declined to comply with a lower court’s order and Warren was to take one last swing at his nemesis: “If Nixon gets away with that, then Nixon makes the law as he goes along – not the Congress nor the courts,” Warren said. “The old Court you and I served so long will not be worthy of its traditions if Nixon can twist, turn and fashion the law.” The feud between Warren and Nixon evolved from a grudge match between Californians until it poisoned and polarized Supreme Court politics, on and off the bench, for many years to follow (even to today).

BA Thanks for the response. Nothing is certain in this regard (shooters) and given the nature of the subject, I suspect we will never ever know with any certainty. Nestor Izquierdo as a spotter and Felipe Vidal Santiago as a shooter are names that makes some sense. Roy Hargraves is also in the "Final Four" (I am a basketball guy), a man who (per Larry Hancock) was independently reported to the FBI as a suspect in the attack on the President, a man who volunteered to help Jim Garrison and along with Bernardo de Torres helped poison Garrison’s investigation of the Cuban exile community. A man who, in the presence of his lawyer, years later admitted going to Dallas and building a bomb which did not have to be used 9the backup plan under the Overpass). He admitted to a great many other things as well, but cautiously... including the presence of his good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago in Dallas. As Dick Russell would have it, Colonel William Bishop confirmed that he was aware of the plot which included people such as Tony Varona and Roland Masferrer. Then there is Operation 40 ... specialists who are trained, participated in operations against Cuba: Antonio Veciana, Ricardo Morales Navarrete, Felipe Rivero, Juan Manuel Salvat, Antonio Cuesta, Eladio del Valle, Herminio Diaz, Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz, Rafael "Chichi" Quintero, Paulino Sierra, Bernard Baker, and Eugenio Martinez, alias 'Musculito.' The team that organized all of this was: David Morales; David Phillips; Howard Hunt; Willian Harvey; John Rosselli ... and the one and only Porter Goss, a JM/WAVE subordinate of Phillips and Morales at the time. As Escalante described: "Operation 40 is the grandmother and great-grandmother of all of the operations that are formed later'. A short list of guys with a vendetta and axe to grind after the Bay of Pigs. Guys who could be spun up and activated by their CIA handlers. Guys who later die fighting for the cause. Gene

I hope that I haven't stirred a hornets nest here (another idiom) but the term whistling past the graveyard is something I've been using for years (usually at work). I'm not a liberal arts major (my degrees are in physics and engineering). But when I read Evan's post, it struck me in a way that made sense. It would be very satisfying (and a bit of a relief) to see a definitive identification of the JFK shooters, spotters, flankers, radio/communications individuals, breakdown mechanics, and security people.

A lot of this comes across as lawyers defending the reputations of lawyers ... particularly Earl Warren. David Belin died at age 70 in 1999 from head injuries sustained in a fall in his hotel room in Rochester, where he had gone for his annual physical checkup. After the fall, Belin was in a coma for 12 days. He worked in corporate law, litigation and estate law, and served as an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission and Executive Director of the Rockefeller Commission. Belin stood by all of the findings of the Warren Commission report until his death, and was known to become incensed at any mention of an assassination conspiracy. As he lay in a coma in his final days, his friends would whisper conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination into his ear to confirm his unconsciousness by his unprecedented lack of response. He also lived in Manhattan's East Side and served as an adviser to wealthy families in New York and was described as ''a moderate Republican who had no use for the far right of his party or the far left of the Democratic Party.'' He was a vocal critic of Stone's movie JFK and used strong invective to describe it as "a hoax, a smear and pure fiction that rivals the Nazi propaganda films in which Adolph Hitler was depicted as a new born god". He wrote a December 1991 Washington Post article with none other than Gerald Ford ("How About the Truth?") denouncing Stone's movie. He fiercely defended Earl Warren for 30 years, and testified to the AARB in 1996 where he made the following polemic statements: A vocal group of assassination revisionists are poised like scavengers to attach the Assassination Records Review Board. They will play to the grandstand when the Board has completed its work crying out "If you would have released everything we would have finally found the truth about the assassination. Leading this group will be individuals associated with JFK, the greatest electronic coverup fraud ever perpetrated on America's movie screens. For me the ultimate issue is whether there will be any change in the present course and direction of the electronic media as profit seeking corporations and individuals if priority to misrepresentations and deceit over truth going so far as to infiltrate our school system with the virus of lies, the present course of the electronic media poses a clear and present danger for the future of democracy in America. If I leave any legacy on this earth ... what I have done for more than 25 years in standing up for the truth, and defending Earl Warren might in some small way be a tiny beacon of light that will point the way to people of vision and idealism who will recognize that truth is the foundation of civilization. They will understand how important it is for Americans to understand the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They will understand how important it is to expose the misrepresentations of assassination revisionists and the electronic downpour of deceit in movies like JFK and television programs like The Men Who Killed Kennedy. They will help resurrect the reputation of Earl Warren, who has been the victim of libel and slander of which perhaps the worst was the false testimony by Oliver Stone before a Congressional Committee in April 1992 that Earl Warren was partially senile. And above all, they will help restore trust and confidence in government, the mortar which binds a free society.

I find it troubling and difficult to understand why - to this day - the more powerful journalists and media do not embrace the mountain of evidence that has been amassed since the days of the Warren Commission, pointing towards a larger plot to kill the President. I hesitate to use the word 'conspiracy' because it becomes such a polarizing and pejorative term. I can perhaps forgive those who were misled by the early cover stories (perhaps Anthony Lewis was on of those). The people who organized and executed JFK's murder were expert at what they did ... in both the planning, the execution, and the masterful coverup (especially the latter). They controlled the evidence, the police, the witnesses, the media, and the agencies who should have prosecuted the crime. In fact, its evident that the most powerful of those Agencies (FBI, CIA, Secret Service) were likely complicit in some limited way ... how does one begin to unravel something that complex? The deck was stacked against anyone who sought the truth in those days (and still is, to some extent) ... through Garrison (late 60's), the HSCA (late 70's) and even as recent as Oliver Stone's movie (the 90's) which awakened a skeptical America and brought on the AARB and Records Act. So here we are at 50 years, where redacted and illegible records and clues dribble out ... but connecting those dots takes persistence and passion. I doubt that anyone in mainstream journalism (whatever that is today) wants to take on the massive resistance and disinformation that has polluted our history books and literary shelves. This is simply not popular ... it does not sell newspapers or draw an audience. I have friends who are/were reporters and journalists, and they are now scrambling for work as the profession shifts beneath their feet. There is an unprecedented amount of written record - some by earnest and responsible authors; some not so (and I'll leave it at that) - so much so that anyone wading into this morass requires exceptional patience to separate the wheat from the chafe. Newspapers are dying off, no one reads books anymore, Libraries are empty or closed, and we get our news in 10-second sound bytes and tweets. Anthony Lewis did not appreciate that Stone maligned Chief Justice Earl Warren (and I get that) whom Lewis covered/admired (i.e. "loved this country with all his heart; the assassination tore him apart"). The notion that Warren would cover up the assassination was - for Lewis - contemptible: a contempt expressed by Stone's choice of the real Jim Garrison to play Earl Warren in the film. In the same way, I know physicians who chafe/rail (emotionally) at the notion that the autopsy doctors and Parkland physicians would cover up the truth. But Lewis also was mislead into believing that Jim Garrison bribed witnesses to prosecute an innocent man. I believe that they were all masterfully mislead. Here is what Anthony Lewis prophetically wrote in January 1992 about the movie JFK: I have no illusion that facts will dispel Oliver Stone's fantasy. Even to question the existence of a conspiracy is to risk being called a conspirator. Television is fascinated with the Stone phenomenon. It has no time for the man who knows more of the actual facts of the assassination than anyone else: David W. Belin, who was counsel to the Warren commission and has seen every document, every C.I.A. file. No, the thirst for some deeper, darker truth is unquenchable in America. We want the answer. We want to open some file and find the conspiracy. But we never shall.

Anthony Lewis does not fill the profile of a compromised or biased journalist. Lewis became a member of Senator Robert Kennedy's social circle, conspicuously so in the opinion of other editors. Lewis published the 1964 novel, Portrait of a Decade: The Second American Revolution, about the civil rights movement. He was an expert on the Supreme Court and said to have invented legal journalism ... in 1991, he published Make No Law, an account of 1964 Supreme Court decision that revolutionized American libel law. The Times moved Lewis to London in 1964, where he was bureau chief with responsibility for broad coverage of politics, culture and, in the words of one editor, "ballet, music, Glyndebourne, la-di-da London society, diplomacy, the British character, you name it". He moved to New York in 1969 and began writing a twice-weekly opinion column for the Times under the heading "At Home Abroad", until retiring in 2001. Though wide-ranging in his interests, he often focused on legal questions, advocacy of compromise between Israel and the Palestinians, and criticism of the war in Vietnam and the apartheid regime in South Africa. On December 15, 2001, his final column warned that civil liberties were at risk in the U.S. reaction to the 911 attacks. Reflecting on his years as a columnist, he said he had learned two lessons: One is that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and (then-Attorney General) John Ashcroft. And secondly that for this country at least, given the kind of obstreperous, populous, diverse country we are, law is the absolute essential. And when governments short-cut the law, it's extremely dangerous.

Jim Tom Scully (see December 2016 Deep Politics thread) identified the man seated in the 1964 Santa Fe picture (between Marina and Priscilla) as one Jerome A. Hastings. He was originally named Jerome Allen Hasty, and he filed a notice of legal change of name in 1961 from Hasty to Hastings. According to Tom Scully's research, Hasty/Hastings was the spouse of presidential advisor Clark M. Clifford's aunt, Marguerite Bowman McAdams. Hastings was also a friend of Priscilla Johnson McMillan's first cousin, David C. Davenport (a CIA employee). Priscilla and Davenport allegedly "bottled up" Marina for several years. Gene

Steve I would speculate that Philippe L. Thyraud (aka de Vosjoli) was working with (or supporting) Allen Dulles and the OAS, to assassinate Charles DeGaulle. He was of the same anti-Communist bent as Angleton and Dulles. Gene

Jim I was simply relaying what's written about Philippe de Vosjoli in several references, including Joan Mellen's "Our Man in Haiti", Edward Epstein’s “diary”, Bill Kelly’s JFK Countercoup and several other sources. It appears that he was indeed close to Angleton. What’s at least documented (not sure how much of it to take on face value) is that he resigned from the French SDECE in November 1963, after he had learned that he had been ordered assassinated by his own intelligence service. When he received a telegram ordering him back to Paris, he assumed it was his death notice. Rather than returning to Paris, Angleton helped arranged his defection and resettling in the US (sounds familiar to the Nosenko story). He was born in 1920 Philippe L. Thyraud in Romorantin, a small town in the Loire valley. In the French Résistance he assumed the grand sounding code name "de Vosjoli." He is associated with Allen Dulles and Henry Cabot Lodge, helping to “fund” the war in Indochina, and reporting on missiles in Cuba. In the book “Brandy: Our Man in Acapulco”, in mid-1963 Vosjoli opened the doors of the French embassy for Angleton and his team to snatch the code books, photograph documents and take out a stack of magnetic tapes, a story later confirmed by Clare Petty, a former member of Angleton's CI Staff. Thyraud (or some imposter calling himself Phillipe) also appears during the Garrison investigation, to throw more sand in the gears. It seems that de Vosjoli was an Angleton operator, taking a page from the Angleton playbook on alerting British and French intelligence services to KGB influence and using Anatolyi Golitsiyn as a “source”. I do agree that the story told to the HSCA (on a 3-page summary was ever released) sounds to be classic disinformation. Gene

Steve Philippe de Vosjoli was the French intelligence service's liaison to Angleton. and also a double-agent working for Angleton against his own country (France). He was strongly anti-DeGaulle, and allegedly led Angleton to believe that the KGB had penetrated the French intelligence service (SDECE), as supposedly confirmed by Anatoly Golitsyn. He became disenfranchised from SDECE, and "defected" to the US, aided by Angleton. Later Interviewed by the HSCA investigators, de Vosjoli told them that while in New York City on November 19, 1963 he spotted Monsieur Herve, of French intelligence along with the chief of counter-intelligence for SDECE, and followed them to the Harvard Club where they had lunch with “a group of right-wing extremists from Texas,” a meeting that de Vosjoli believed had something to do with the assassination. Apparently the “National Archives cannot locate a copy of the full transcript of the (HSCA) interview with de Vosjoli. Gene

As far James Angleton is concerned, he is certainly not what he seems. I think its too simplistic to brand him as "KGB" or fascist. However, I do not think he was always playing for the home team (i.e. upholding the President's policies, the United States' interests). Rather, he had his own agenda, and a toxic allegiance to Allen Dulles and company. He notably had a destructive effect on his own Agency … strange and irrational behavior for an important member of the CIA 'management team' and a supposedly loyal (to the United States) staff intelligence officer. It is notable that civil servants like Angleton take an Oath when joining any Agency of government (CIA is no exception): " … solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Its unclear whether Angleton's allegiances were as his Oath required. Nonetheless, he maintained peculiar allegiances to Israeli (Mossad) and to Italian intelligence … far too close for comfort, at worst a conflict of interest. Angleton's over-the-top insistence of KGB infiltration and the Soviet threat seems just that; overstated to an extreme, having an opposite effect (i.e. what is he protecting?) His friendship and sharing of information with Kim Philby also seems too obvious, in retrospect. Was he really duped and betrayed (forever skeptical of Soviet as the legend has it) ... or was there something more sinister at play? It's difficult to believe that the brilliant, well-educated expert counterintelligence intellectual from Yale was simply fooled by a dear friend. As one EF member once posted about Angleton's liaison with the Warren Commission post-assassination, its hard to fathom that this erudite and brilliant strategist would believe that Oswald acted alone, unabetted ... and even more difficult to accept that Angleton (of all people) didn't suspect all of the other irregularities now well known about JFK's murder. Angleton suffered a 'forced retirement' by William Colby, just four months after the resignation of Richard Nixon, his fall described by Jeff Morley as "the denouement of the Watergate scandal" closely followed by the Church Senate investigation. Cleveland Cram's subsequent internal investigation explored what in the world Angleton had actually been doing when he ran the Counterintelligence Staff for 20 years, from 1954 to 1974 ... asking the question: 'Did his operations serve the agency’s mission ... did they serve the country?' Cram's study (later declassified) concluded that Angleton was “self-centered, ambitious and paranoid with little regard for his agency colleagues or simple common sense” ... ironically putting it mildly, and not the worst that could be said. Clare Petty challenged the anomalies of Angleton’s career: his friendship with Kim Philby; his faith in Golitsyn; his insistence that the Sino-Soviet split was a ruse; Petty's conclusion was that every decision Angleton made seemed to impede American intelligence operations, perhaps intentionally. Angleton spent what remained of his career (after CIA) working for the American Security Council, a conservative lobbyist group. Angleton's story and character seem far too difficult to unravel; his legacy is described by writers and researchers on the CIA's website as follows: "Delving into the Angletonian library is a Rashomon-like experience. As one scholar of Angleton has written with only mild exaggeration, 'One could ask a hundred people about [him] and receive a hundred lightly shaded different replies that ranged from utter denunciation to unadulterated hero worship. That the positions could occupy these extremes spoke of the significance and the ambiguity of the role he had played'. Necessary restrictions on information about the enterprise that he considered the foundation of all other intelligence work probably will prevent us from seeing the reality of him and instead consign us to continue looking at shadows and reflections. Angleton may remain to history, as he fancied himself in life, an enigma.

Jim The Paul Bleau article is fascinating, an interesting analysis. He does a good job of connecting the dots, using standard causal analysis techniques … what we call in my business a "support-refute matrix". It seems the plots began in June 1963 but intensified in November. Obviously, the windows of opportunity were dictated by JFK's travel itinerary. In most of the proposed shooting locations, there is a pattern of using a motorcade route that would have permitted triangulation shooting near the scapegoat’s workplace. The scapegoats exhibit similar "pawn-like" pre-motorcade movements, suggesting manipulation and handlers. Several scapegoats moved to the motorcade location shortly before the intended event … Lopez moved from the Keys to Tampa shortly before the motorcade; Vallee and Oswald exhibit similar behavior. Marlowe, Garriga and Power probably had analogous movements, if studied more carefully. Nagell is the wild card of the bunch. Bleau then links ZR Rifle Executive Action tactics used for ambush: an opportune motorcade route, in the right city (coupled with weak protection) and use of surrogates with the right weaponry. Plus the sheep-dipping escapades in Mexico City, creating false flags to the Soviets and Castro (to guard against "blow-back"). Lastly, a mafia 'sponsor' in each city (standard Harvey/Angleton modus operandi) to institute logistics, compromise the police force, and provide yet another cut-out for plausible deniability. Then there is the most telling commonality amongst the plots/patsies - their close links to the FPCC, a "mysterious misfit magnet of ex-marines and Cuban exiles". Bleau aptly characterizes this as " yet another coincidence in this case, where improbability is omnipresent". Motorcade topic aside (for a moment), the common elements in these plots leading up to Dallas of an ex-marine patsy, Mexico City and FPCC become (as Vincent Salandria once described the Paines) "clear beacons leading to the killers" Gene

David I find your systems engineering analogy to be compelling. Viewing Dallas not as isolated, but rather as part of a system or process (with redundancy, diversity, and failure considerations). A five-city series of motorcades in just two days. One wonders who the teams were in San Antonio, Houston and Ft. Worth, and why those "events" did not transpire or go forward. Ironically, Jacqueline Kennedy rarely traveled with her husband on political trips but decided to fly with him to Texas (her first public appearance since the loss of son Patrick). Extending this thinking, were there plans prior to Texas, such as when JFK traveled west, at the end of September, speaking in nine different states in less than a week? Gene

David In its early years, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin went to press seven times a day: Postscript, Night Extra, Final, Two Star, Three Star, (Blue) Four Star Final and (Red) Four Star Final. Even in more modern times (I was a paperboy in the 60's), the paper would have several editions each day, and my Dad would send me off to get the late evening edition with sports scores and more up to date news. The saying was "In Philadelphia nearly everybody reads the Bulletin". As readers and advertisers moved from the city to the suburbs (today known as "The Delaware Valley") the Bulletin introduced regional editions for four suburban counties and leased a plant in southern new Jersey to print a state edition. The Bulletin went out of business in 1982, and was challenged by the afternoon city traffic which made distribution more costly . Gene

Ron Great pictures. Loved the story about Sam Rayburn. Seems Barefoot Sanders was LBJ's main man in Texas. Amazing how close the candidates got to all the people in those days. And LBJ sure was temperamental (plus he liked his whiskey). JFK was no stranger to Dallas (nor Lubbock, San Antonio and Ft. Worth). Thanks for sharing. As far as the route of the motorcade, I'm struck by John Connally's insistence on the Trade Mart as a final stop. Seems there is something there (to be teased out). Gene

With all due respect, I'd like to see the bickering desist, and focus on the substance of this thread. Jim D. , David Lifton and David Von Pein all make good points. Let's park the egos, and learn something. This entire discussion is quite important ... there's no way they went past TSBD by "accident". Coincidence does not exist, when it comes to this case. I'm convinced that the Trade Mart selection is critical, rationale and sensible. Connally is therefore a person of interest. Eugene Locke is also. It does seem that motorcades in those days went this same route. Nonetheless, its an ideal killing zone.