Gene Kelly

Interesting remarks from James Hosty's testimony to the Warren Commission: Mr. STERN. When Mrs. Paine told you that Lee Harvey Oswald was working at the School Book Depository, did that mean anything to you? Did you remember the building? Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; I knew of the building in the outskirts of the downtown area. That is about all. I looked up the address, and I recognized the address, but it meant nothing to me. Mr. STERN. Is there anything else at all that you can recall being said on November 1? Mr. HOSTY. As I said earlier, I think I should bring this in, that Mrs. Paine was a little bit reluctant to give me his place of employment at first. She said that Lee Oswald had alleged that the FBI had had him fired from every job he ever had. I told her this was not true, that I had never had anyone fired from any job nor did I know of any other FBI agents that had ever done this. I reassured her that I wanted to know his place of employment for the Purpose of determining whether or not he was employed in a sensitive industry, and when I found out that he was working in a warehouse as a laborer, I realized this was not a sensitive industry.

Steve: In spite of our collectively continued interest in and pursuit of so many aspects of this fascinating case (ballistics, autopsy, Tippit, Oswald, the Paines, DCM and the umbrella man, Tramps, Mexico City, MSM and disinformation, certain persons of interest, Nagel, et al.), I've always thought -- maybe 'felt' is a better term -- that there are certain things that will never be uncovered or known. As Bill Simpich characterized the title of his work, State Secrets ... things that are too sensitive and thoroughly protected, things that the country/government cannot afford to reveal. Every so often, one asks why doesn't some new Administration or President reopen this case, and expose the truth? The modern day agencies (FBI, SS, CIA, others) are vastly different with new leadership ... its been so many years, what's the harm in exposure? The background and true nature of Marina Prusakova seems to be one of them. Gene

Steve: If you play this out for a moment, the FBI presents an investigative threat (if Marina truly is operational) but the Secret Service is simply protecting a key witness/suspect (i.e. her) and presumably not as interested in her affiliations. The guy in that picture (leaving a courthouse several yeas after she married Porter) looks seriously unhappy. Ron: The source of allegations about her behavior in Leningrad is one Yuri Merezhinsky, interviewed by Norman Mailer for his book "Oswald’s Tale", who stated she was anything but virtuous. Robert Webster was the other defector whom she met before Oswald. George Bailey's October 2009 blog "Oswalds Mother" contains a good account ("From Marina Prusakova, With Love"). What doesn't compute is that she marries an oddball foreigner after knowing him for just six weeks, has a child with him, and uproots her life to move to another country where she does not speak the language or know anyone. Somebody really wanted her to get to Irving TX ... where the Paines were patiently waiting for the young couple, having moved there from Philadelphia the exact week in September 1959 that Lee left his mother in Fort Worth and defected. Gene

A picture of the happy couple ...

Steve: I cant find much to read about James Hosty, but Marina's affiliations sure are interesting. Sorry for going off on a tear with that last thread, but she must have been a legitimate person of interest for Agent Hosty. Marina married Kenneth Porter on June 1, 1965, about a year and seven months after the assassination (another whirlwind courtship). I always found it more than coincidental that he had been an employee of Collins Radio, and he left his wife and family for her. However, they remain married today, so I could be reading too much into it. A more sinister view of the world would be that Marina was surrounded by a protective cocoon (and handlers) after the assassination, starting with her "incarceration" at the Red Flags Inn. I agree that the White Russian community that surrounded the Oswalds in the year before the assassination -- but seem to have abandoned Marina, once Lee was dead -- warrant more careful study. In November 2013, Peter Gregory reminisced about his relationship with Marina in the New York Times magazine: At the bottom of the Oswalds’ conflict, I thought, was Lee’s refusal to let Marina learn English. He argued that it would jeopardize his fluency in Russian, but more important, it was a way he leveraged control over her. During one visit to a Rexall drugstore that August, Lee became visibly angry when a pharmacist offered to hire Marina, who had worked at a hospital pharmacy in Minsk, once her language skills improved. The job, after all, could have made her the family breadwinner. George Bouhe had arranged English lessons for many Russian émigrés; he could do the same for her. Now Lee’s voice rose again. If he allowed Marina to learn English, he said, his Russian would suffer, and it was very important that he retain his fluency. I later asked Marina whether she had followed Bouhe’s urgings and begun to learn English ... she shrugged. She would get around to it one of these days, she said. Gene

Steve No worries ... if I get back on thread here, the question is, why would Hosty want to "interview" Marina, if she didn't speak English? Maybe FBI suspected she was a KGB plant or someone involved in a complex penetration/double operation. Or, maybe Hosty knew that she did speak English quite well. Why else would an FBI agent be checking into Michael and Ruth's bonfides? Also, for context, I don't think there was much love lost in those days (or for many years after) between FBI and CIA. Cooperation and trust were nonexistent. The there is Marina's testimony where she makes it clear that she didn't trust the FBI: Mrs. OSWALD. Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn't want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal, and I was very tired of them, and I thought that, well, whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all, it didn't help anything, because the fact that Lee had been there was already known, didn't make any difference. Marina is as much an enigma as is her husband. There is an abundance of evidence that Marina spoke English. One such anecdote is her Garrison grand jury testimony, stating that she once called Reilly Coffee Company looking for Lee. She was asked how should could do that, she replied she knew “a few words.” Marina knowing English well enough to write and speak raises questions of where she learned it; she was supposedly a graduate of pharmacy school. One wonders why would she acquired English language skills. Marina's father was allegedly killed in the war; she lived with her stepfather and moved to Leningrad at age 12. In 1955, she entered the Pharmacy Technikum for what was characterized as "special training." Marina's mother allegedly died in 1957; after which she went to live with her uncle in Minsk, where she met Oswald. Consider their whirlwind courtship. In April 1961, a little more than a month since their first meeting, Oswald proposes to Marina. Most of the courtship is conducted from Oswald's hospital bed. She accepts and they are married on April 30, 1961. For Marina to marry Oswald, they needed to get special permission because he was a foreigner ... nonetheless, permission was granted in just ten days, for no less than an MVD colonel's niece marrying a U.S. defector. Then, after about a month of marriage, Oswald tells Marina that he's tired of the Soviet Union and wants to go home. In the meantime, Marina decides to take a three-week vacation (by herself), ostensibly to visit an aunt in Kharkov. When she returned, she pursued her exit visa which was granted within six weeks on December 25th. Marina later told the WC that she was surprised to receive permission, which would be an understatement. Apparently the Soviet government encouraged Marina and Oswald to marry and emigrate. In June of 1962, Oswald with wife and a four months old child returned to the United States. Soon Lee and Marina were surrounded by a 'platoon' of Russian-speaking people (White Russians) eager to help the young couple. Researchers have identified over twenty Russian individuals in the Dallas-Fort Worth area who were in some way connected to Lee and Marina during that timeframe. Today, it is an accepted fact that the White Russian Community in Texas was funded by the CIA through the Philadelphia-based Catherwood Foundation and the Tolstoy Foundation. One such individual you've pointed out was Paul Raigorodsky, a 64-year old Russian expatriate, Chemical Engineer and millionaire oilman, who had served in the Russian Army and the U.S. Army; he was the first White Russian immigrant to settle in Dallas (in 1920). Then there was Max Clark, a Fort Worth lawyer and industrial security supervisor at General Dynamics, as well as a mentor for George de Morenschildt and the White Russian Community. Max Clark was supposedly the first person Lee Harvey Oswald reached out to after the long journey from the Soviet Union. Another prominent expatriate was George Bouhe from St Petersburg, a self-appointed ”nursemaid” in the community. KGB defector Petr Deryabin asserted that any Russian woman that wanted to marry a foreigner (and leave) had to agree to work for the KGB. One Yuri Merezhinsky - interviewed by Norman Mailer for his book Oswald’s Tale - alleges that Marina was anything but virtuous, claiming she was a call girl (or a "swallow in a honey trap"), part of a group of four people - two women and two men - plying their trade in Leningrad. Merezhinsky alleges that she was promiscuous with many of his friends. A similar story is related by James Martin, her erstwhile business manager and lover for a short time, who later told the HSCA in 1978 that he attempted to tell the Warren Commission about her background, but was interrupted by Earl Warren who ordered the stenographer to destroy the tape. Martin also relates that Marina understood everything said to her in English, yet she needed a Russian language translator for her WC testimony. No wonder that Hosty was investigating Marina and Company. Gene

Chris/Steve: Are you suggesting that the real reason for Hosty to be there is Ruth? I'm unsure where this all leads, but one thing that strikes me is that, he started this "surveillance" in March, and eight months is a long time to keep a case open for a routine random check of an immigrant/alien. Hosty by then is at bell, and asking about Michael, plus visiting Ruth's school (St. Mark) where she teaches Russian part-time (for two students). Hosty's attention seems to transcend Marina by that point in time. Gene

Chris/Steve I know this is not very scientific or rigorous, but my instincts and initial read of James Hosty (someone whom I've never looked at too deeply) are that he comes across as a straight arrow, earnest FBI agent, and family man. I have a difficult time placing him in some more sinister role (square per/round hole). Admittedly, his background and affiliations bias my judgment, but perhaps he simply stumbled into a bee's nest of intrigue, not knowing where it would take him. Putting myself into his shoes - and considering his role/responsibility - I would certainly have been suspicious of Marina and Mrs. Paine (who wouldn't?). His comment about Marina being a "snake in the grass" and the true spy in the family is telling. The entire affair certainly put a monkey wrench into his career, and caused undue notoriety. But he stayed on with FBI for 16 more years (in Kansas City) and remained loyal to the Bureau (which should not be surprising). Perhaps the infamous note from Oswald was meant as a friendly/protective warning, to shield him from what was to come. Regarding the Kostin/Soviet Embassy letter - which took many forms - it does appear to provide an excuse for Hosty regarding his destruction of the Oswald note. But it too seems to live a double life, and presents itself in one too many forms: an alleged original draft 'stolen' by Ruth Paine (11/9) Mrs. Paine's handwritten copy of the original draft (11/9-11/10) an HTLINGUAL report of intercepted letter (11/18) the original typed copy supplied by the Russian Embassy (postmarked 11/2 rec'd 11/20). I concur that the story about how Ruth acquired the original and made a copy does not add up ... as dos the story offered about the license plate number in Oswald's address book. Gene

Paul: Since this thread is about Hosty and his "surveillance" of Marina, I’d prefer to stay on point. Regarding Hosty's religious roots, I have no knowledge of his upbringing but it appears that he was a practicing Catholic in his adult life. He had nine children, which mirrors many large Irish-Catholic families of that era (of which I am familiar) ... and therefore Hosty had quite a bit in common with the Kennedys. My statement related to Notre Dame is less about the religious similarities between Hosty and JFK, and more to the recruitment strategies of the FBI. I am acquainted with persons who went to work for the FBI in the 1970's ... growing up where I lived, it was considered an honor to be considered for a job with the FBI, and there was an almost reverence for the prestige of the Bureau on the part of our teachers. I received a Catholic school upbringing (through college) and prestigious Catholic universities (like Notre Dame) were a recruiting ground for the Bureau. So, my observation is that – given James Patrick Hosty’s background and education - it’s difficult to envision him being anti-Kennedy. Those who grew up in that era Catholic (as I did) were extremely proud of the first Catholic president, and If you read Hosty's 2011 obituary (June 17, 2011, Kansas City Star), his son Thomas, who helped write his 1996 book "Assignment: Oswald", is quoted as saying: “The irony was, my dad was a devout Irish-Catholic Democrat who loved Kennedy ... My father was prepared to lay down his life for the president.” It's quite a stretch to posit that Hosty had turned to the radical right, and was a conspirator. I see no evidence of that, so you'll have to make a stronger case than simply "years of exposure to the John Birch Society". As you well know, Hosty was reprimanded and sent to Kansas City, where he continued with FBI until retiring in 1979 (mandatory for law enforcement). He enjoyed over 30 years of retirement until his death in 2011. He doesn't come across so much as one of the 'bad guys' to me, but more a scapegoat. As far as the letter to the Russian Embassy, you need to perform your own due diligence. I'm not inclined to lay it out for you, and have it dissected it (by the numbers). I would direct you to the Mary Ferrell website, and the following references as a good start: Overview: The CIA, the Drug Traffic, and Oswald in Mexico, by Peter Dale Scott The Fourteen Minute Gap, by Rex Bradford CIA Files and the Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, by Peter Dale Scott A Model of Mexico City, by Joseph Riley Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City, by John Newman The Three Oswald Deceptions: The Operation, the Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy, by Peter Dale Scott I’d be interested to know your thoughts about the provenance of the Embassy letter, when you're done. Regards, Gene

Steve and David: I am sure that CE-139 was never in Oswald's possession. Its provenance is suspect, the records are falsified, and both the rifle and revolver were obvious "plants". Behind this charade and setup were people like LAPD Lieutenant Manuel Pena (of RFK Special Unit Senator notoriety) who allegedly "traced" Oswald's telescopic sight to a California gun shop. Pena's allegiances and affiliations are clearly unmasked in the RFK research. Another intelligence plant in the police department (in that case LAPD as opposed to DPD). We are led to believe that Pena was simply involved with Thomas Dodd's mail order handgun trafficking investigation (baloney). What is more fundamentally wrong with the picture is a guy who doesn't apparently practice with any rifle (or the rifle) -- which is what real shooters do, especially for serious hunting and important events. This seems irrefutable today, since Oswald's strange enigmatic life has been thoroughly dissected at this point. Other than the strange behavior at the Sports Drome Rifle Range ( a bogus story, similar to Sirhan's "practice"), no one has ever attested to seeing Oswald shoot or practice. This all comes across today (with 50 years of investigative knowledge) as a 'B' movie plot. As Senator Russell Long states: "that dog don't hunt". But back to Hosty ... his "surveillance" and interest in Marina and/or Lee (or perhaps Ruth) seem way off. He was a Notre Dame graduate, so one would think he was a JFK supporter (not one of the many who characterized Kennedy as a "commie symp"). March through November seems an awful long time for FBI to keep poking around the Oswald's (particularly for someone taken off the watch list). Hosty's interests seem to have shifted in the month before the assassination - to both Michael and Ruth Paine - and his visit on November 1st seems intended for Ruth ... perhaps he was interested in taking up Russian language lessons? Or maybe he was a good guy, who got too close to the flame. Gene

Paul: I like to give you the benefit of the doubt, and respect your views. So, I'm not going to "bite" on explaining the November 12th Soviet Embassy letter. I'm sure you well know there is a wealth of information and investigation as to its origin and provenance. Ruth Paine is in the middle of it. And the letter is fishy, to say the least. You wish to portray her as an innocent ... randomly caught in the middle of a whirlwind of international intrigue, Presidential assassins, FBI agents and Russian expatriates. Perhaps there's more to the story. Gene

Steve: A rhetorical question would be, how/where does a guy who doesn't drive, "practice" with his rifle? Wouldn't the neighbors notice or be alarmed? Gene

To get back on point about Steve's thread (thank you to Paul), in reading James Hosty's "Assignment: Oswald", he paints a picture that he never knew that Marina could speak, read or write in English. Yet we know Lee mailed her letters written in English while they were still living in Russia. Hosty apparently never saw this evidence or Robert Oswald’s statements to the FBI that Marina spoke to him numerous times in English. But in the same book, he lays claim to the machinations of Mexico City and the Kostikov canard. Those assertions do not logically fit together for me. Notably, Hosty never spoke to Lee Oswald, and claimed only to be investigating Marina (he later characterized her as "a snake in the grass ... the true spy in the family"). Both Hosty and Ruth Paine come across as disingenuous on several pivotal facts (e.g. the letter to the Russian Embassy, later finger-pointing at Alan Belmont). We can debate whether Hosty was a solid guy, simply caught in the middle of a hurricane, or something more sinister. We can also speculate whether Ruth was an FBI informant. What does ring true is Hosty's assessment of working within the FBI: “With time, my idealism waned, and I accepted the hard fact that law enforcement is basically gray. I also came to understand that one of our jobs was to protect the Bureau’s image at all costs, even if it ran roughshod over individuals or principles.” Hosty was allegedly pressured several times to destroy or alter material evidence in a murder investigation. That is serious stuff (actually a felony) for any law enforcement professional, particularly an FBI agent. The destruction of the note passed to him from Lee Oswald - supposedly annoyed at Hosty for interviewing his wife - is only one example in this case. The rough draft letter to the Russian Embassy is another more explosive example, as is the evidence of Oswald's belongings that Hosty was sent to retrieve at DPD headquarters. That evidence included Oswald’s wallet and notebook, which contained a page with Hosty’s name, car license number, and office location in it. Notably, the FBI transcribed the notebook for the Warren Commission, leaving out the incendiary Hosty page. Today, we know that FBI knew of the Oswald letter to the Soviet Embassy, in which he mentioned "Comrade Kostin", four days before the assassination (on the 18th). Not so surprising, this particular FBI document is missing from the Achieves. There is however a CIA document, which shows 'they' (it would be interesting to know who) called the FBI on the morning of the 23rd to tell them they thought "Kostin" was Kostikov, and that he was associated with Department 13 assassinations. The FBI then when to great lengths to hide the fact that they'd had ample time to act upon this information. They removed these references to "Kostin" from Hosty's file and (going one step further) redacted references to their knowing about Kostin on the 18th from public documents. The cover story offered was that this only came to their attention when the Russian Embassy divulged the letter, after the assassination. In fact, the "Kostin" letter was intercepted by the FBI on the 18th, and Oswald's handwriting on the letter was confirmed on the 23rd. Ostensibly, these measures were undertaken to conceal that the FBI had been reading the Soviet Embassy's mail; however, that seems minor in comparison to the larger concerns about the assassination. The bigger picture formed is one of someone (possibly CIA) setting up the FBI. Hosty's own personnel file was tampered with - he was disciplined twice - and was later found (by him) to contain altered documents making him a fall-guy. Hosty was blacklisted, and denied promotions ... federal crimes constituting harassment and discrimination. James Hosty's surveillance of the Oswalds - ostensibly begun in March 1963, and allegedly a random check of Marina prompted by INS records - therefore becomes a problem for the Agency. Publically, Hoover insisted that the FBI had no previous interaction or knowledge about Oswald ... an obvious fabrication, and what federal prosecutors would consider a material false statement. Hoover was way out on a limb here, taking a big risk (particularly for a federal official), in my opinion. Besides JFK (literally), it appears that someone had also figuratively taken aim at the FBI and Hoover himself. Aside from the question that Steve Thomas raises about Marina's language proficiency (which seems a big red flag), I cannot help but marvel at the lengths the FBI went to protect themselves. Thinking more broadly, if this was an integral part of the plot - force the FBI into a predictable cover-up, or destroy the FBI's reputation (or both) - it is a masterstroke. Gene

David: I don't buy that FBI was simply doing their job. Why on earth would the FBI want Oswald's 9th grade records on the morning after the assassination? Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principle at Stripling Junior HS in Fort Worth, stated that he remembered Lee Oswald attending because he was called by the Principle to head to the school Saturday morning (the 23rd) and hand over records on Oswald to the FBI agents. Lee Oswald was only at Stripling for about six weeks in the fall of 1954. But there are four family statements that he attended Stripling in Fort Worth; three by Robert, and one by Marguerite. Fellow students also recall him as a classmate. Yet the Warren Commission never published these records or information, and the FBI denied knowledge of them (or lost them), yet they appear to have placed an urgent priority in obtaining them. The records vanished from the evidentiary record. It's not my intent to debate Oswald's matriculation at Stripling; it’s the FBI that puzzles me. What do Oswald's 9th grade school records have to do with a murder investigation? However, if one buys into the idea that the family was constantly (and oddly) on the move from 1947-1959 -- making it difficult to trace the whereabouts of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” once he had defected -- then the significance of 2220 Thomas Place (opposite Stripling) takes on a new significance. Perhaps it was a home base (or “safe house”) for the so-called Oswald Project ... one that FBI needed to erase. Now the urgent collection of a just a few weeks’ worth of junior high school records takes on new meaning. Layer in the fact that WC attorney John Ely's notes are notably missing from the National Achieves, and the subsequent exposition of the Jenner memo stating: "Our depositions and examination of records disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some cases, omission". There’s something fishy going on here, and it’s the FBI that seems out of character. Gene

Steve: Interesting that you should bring this up. I have been recently embarked upon a study of John Armstrong's book, attempting to wrap my arms around the two-Oswald concept. Lots of interesting (but controversial) information to digest. I now know who the names and subtopics are in this fascinating study, including the enigma of whether Oswald (in Russia) actually spoke Russian, or pretended not to understand the language. As well as, did Marina speak English? To quote researcher George Bailey (Oswalds Mother 2011): Contradictory reports regarding Oswald's language proficiency make sense, in the context of two Oswalds. Conversely, his wife Marina was apparently a very good English speaker but spoke little of it when she emigrated to the US. Armstrong states that he saw Marina’s handwritten notebooks in the National Archives and they were all in English. Lee wrote Marina letters in English to her while living in Russia. Even mother Marguerite reveals in her Commission testimony detailed conversations she had with her daughter in law–conversations in English, without anyone to translate. Yet Marina needs a translator to give her sworn testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. Evidently, she was under similar pressures in America as Lee was in Russia ... which would fashion her an operative as well. Both were in a Cold War contest to not reveal too much of who they were. In December 1963 Robert Oswald provided the FBI a 15-page statement wherein he notes meeting with Marina to discuss a management contract she was about to sign with Jim Martin (who briefly became her lover). There was a discrepancy in the contract that Marina noted – since she could read English – and discussed this issue in English with Robert, with no translator present. Yet he later denies her language proficiency in testimony to the WC, where he states his sister in law had "limited knowledge" of English, and that he would communicate with her via hand signals. Jim Martin subsequently told the HSCA in 1978 that Marina could understand English quite well. What struck me about this saga is, all of the intense fact gathering and interviews done by the FBI - even after Oswald is dead, and the lone nut label has been christened - why send agents out to get school, tax, and employment records? Why go to all of that trouble just to paint Oswald's personal history (since he is already presumed guilty)? And why the obvious fabrication and alteration of documents and records? It seems that the plotters framed the FBI and were blackmailing them (almost taunting them) - a theory that has resonated with me for some time (e.g. invoking the unreliable Mannlicher-Carcano) - because they knew that one of these Oswald's was an FBI informant and operative, who could bring serious disgrace to the Bureau. Hoover and his agents were covering their backs and desperately protecting their reputation, in the awful aftermath. Gene

Denny: What's most interesting to me about Roscoe White is that he showed up at the Dallas PD in late 1963, with no prior experience in law enforcement (i.e. a convenient plant), and only lasted with DPD less than two years after the assassination. White worked in the DPD Identification Division, and allegedly had a talent for composite photography. He is suspected of creating the backyard composites, and being the "enterprising young officer" who provided them to LIFE. He apparently had numerous unexplained trips to New Orleans (see the EF Thread entitled "Return to Roscoe White" started by Alan Espy in September 2006). Consider the fates of researchers Larry Howard, Joe West, Bud Fensterwald and Larry Ray Harris - the presenters of White's story - all of whom died not long after the Ricky White news conference. It would seem that David Perry was instrumental in infiltrating/defusing the Roscoe White story. Then we see the characters of Ricky and Geneva defamed/discredited (e.g. mental problems). Something's fishy here, and there seems some substance to all of this. Kind of like seeing/smelling smoke (after the shot) ... Gene

Kathy: This thread has degraded to name calling and derogatory comments. With all due respect, the posters in question add very little (imho) as far as useful information or insights (pro/con). Its simply constant (almost obsessive) obstruction and ridicule of Armstrong's work and book. Something was obviously fishy with the Oswald identities and family story ... so, why the virulent and persistent attack? I occasionally come back to this thread, to see if I can learn anything new ... but all I ever see is silly name-calling and type-casting (i.e. "Team Hardly ... CT Community") and ad hominem attacks. No substance, or convincing rebuttal. Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know; how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" I get the impression that -- if they persist (and succeed) -- then no one will participate and we will all go away. What does that tell you? Gene

The two Carcano model 91/38 serials C2766 and 2766, with other millions, were manufactored in Italy at the Regia Fabbrica d'Armi of Terni, Umbria. The caliber is 6.5: the Italian Carcano models were mostly of this caliber, except for those 7.5's manufactured for the Finnish Army (Scandinavia). Other 7.5 models were the "Moschetto del duce,” TS 91, a kind of rifles designed for the elite units of Mussolini. Italy ... Angleton ... Harvey ... Fascists. PERMINDEX. Interesting that the seminal Gun Control Act of 1968 evolved from these events (JFK, RFK and MLK plus the Black Panthers) ... The Gun Control Act of 1968 reauthorized and deepened the FDR-era gun control laws. It added a minimum age for gun buyers, required guns have serial numbers and expanded people barred from owning guns from felons to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. Only federally licensed dealers and collectors could ship guns over state lines. People buying certain kinds of bullets had to show I.D. But the most stringent proposals—a national registry of all guns (which some states had in colonial times) and mandatory licenses for all gun carriers—were not in it. The NRA blocked these measures.

Exactly right, Mike ... form a July 2012 Forum thread by Accogli Claudio: The information about Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods coincides with information that the late Gerry Hemming emailed to a researcher. Hemming told him that - to discover where Oswald's pistol and rifle actually came from - he needed to forget about Klein's and Seaport Traders, and instead concentrate on a single source in Montreal.

I would also say that -- as I read more and learn - the FBI seems hopelessly compromised. Their extensive manipulation of the evidence (and witnesses) comes across as fighting for their agency lives. I sense that they, too, were double-crossed, and put in a very embarrassing position. After the fact, they had to play a double role of investigating (their conventional role) while also fiercely protecting themselves, for fear of exposing the true nature of and close relationship to Oswald. I recall a comment about the Mauser-Carcano controversy, that this cheap and unreliable Italian carbine was introduced into the plot in order to "embarrass" the FBI. In the context of PERMINDEX, this rifle somehow has some underlying significance or symbolism that I haven't yet figured out. The official designation in Italian is simply called "Modello" and the symbolic murder weapon was used extensively by Italian (and German) troops in WW II and among other places Algeria ...and that the CE 2766 weapon was a kind designed for the elite units of Mussolini. Shades of SIFAR, Harvey and Clair Booth Luce. And, who was it that stated that the key to the plot was to be found in Montreal, and Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods LTD?

Jim: You read my mind ... in that it would be excellent to see another edition of Destiny, with the latest insights and information. Although AARB was disappointing and fell short, the release of records still holds some limited promise. Books such as David Talbot's Devil's Chessboard are slowly exposing the myths of 20th Century personages like the Dulles brothers. My Christmas present was the original edition, so I need to get the 2013 version with AARB information added. My experience has been that the JFK story is one that is best told and understood by continuing to add information, for perspective. My best analogy is one of those very large puzzles that one lays on a table and pieces together. Speaking for myself, I get a little more knowledgeable and better informed each year ... its as though one never stops learning about the nuances and details. The Garrison probe is a good example, where it took me a long time to see more clearly what was going on. Today, I am less impressed about Bannister, Shaw and Ferrie (who always seemed fishy and complicit) and more enlightened by the punitive media onslaught and active FBI interference (including overt falsification of evidence). I've always been drawn to the critical political and foreign policy backdrops, and how controversial/unpopular (in retrospect) JFK's policies actually were ... so against the grain of the Cold War architects. And the existence (even dominance) of apolitical right-wing entities like PERMINDEX. These are not the stories one easily finds in history textbooks or the History Channel. There are still angles to this New Orleans saga that baffle me: who really was this Oswald character (especially in light of the information from John Armstrong's work); why were so many prominent researchers (Weisberg, Meagher, Lifton, to name a few) alienated by Garrison, so much so that they chastised him publically; what to make of Walter Sheridan's betrayal; why did those agencies fight so hard to protect their reputations (what were they really hiding)? I will share a comment that a former HSCA investigator shared with me, when I asked the obvious (20 years ago), namely why not just let the story be told; he responded: "what makes you think that's the worst thing they ever did?" I think you phrased it best, in characterizing Garrison's task. It was the DA and people of New Orleans who were deprived of a fair trial. He was heroic and courageous. Best, Gene

Ron: I'm not a communications expert, but my kids are, and have degrees in the subject. Today, the idea of magazines and newspapers are all but obsolete. So are the classic venues of TV "specials" and informative news. Talk radio and reality TV are becoming old school (quickly). The new generation wants their information in short sounds "bites" (texts, tweets, hash tags). The stories are broken on Facebook and Twitter ... not NBC or the Washington Post. There is no such thing as Drew Pearson or George Lardner ... Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor and Matt Lauer are no longer respectable. Dan Rather, Brian Williams .... we no longer look for the "anchors" like Walter Cronkite. No longer do we blindly trust that 60 Minutes and Newsweek are infallible. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal are for our grandparents and people over 70. I still read Rolling Stone ... but not for the philosophical truth or profound insight. Not sure what the modern-day version of Mockingbird looks like, but its a different game today. No one has the patience to read a book; nor do they send letters/memoranda. No one writes (or mails) letters anymore... interviews are scripted, rehearsed and meaningless (i.e. not believable). The truth comes to us on body cams, cell phone videos and sound bites on Action news at 11pm. Gene

Jim: One of the more recent revelations for me (as I continue to learn) is about the disinformation and conscious efforts to mislead, on the part of so-called MSM... and that it persists to this day. Its certainly shattering a long-held myth that you cant trust what's published in history books and on the news. One ideally thinks we are America, where honest/probing investigative journalism is cherished/embraced. What we see/hear on television is truth (with a capital T). I think this is one of the reasons why many of my generation cannot come to terms with the JFK story. We were conditioned on the premise that we are the "good guys" and that the truth prevails. So, this cant possibly be true. One anecdote I'll share is from my early career in nuclear power, where I worked for government and went to a nuclear plant to investigate so-called abuses and safety problems. What I found was far different from what was reported in the press. The story actually got to 60 Minutes (Diane Sawyer and Ed Bradley) and was thoroughly misrepresented. It was 180-degrees out of kilter from the true facts. I was shocked (but I was young) and it felt like my introduction to the "real world". In this case, I was a federal investigator, and the MSM trumped-up the story for public consumption. Totally irresponsible. I later learned not to talk to reporters or - if needed -- cautiously and with great circumspect. They are driven by deadlines, headlines, controversy and selling magazines/papers (not necessarily by the "truth"). It is crystal clear ("crystal", as Tom Cruise told Jack Nicholson) that Ferrie, Shaw, Bannister et al were guilty as sin. Something was rotten in Denmark ... Permindex, Montreal, untimely deaths, CIA tentacles, witness intimidation, delay tactics, judges compromised ... you simply cant make this stuff up (real life being far stranger than fiction). The anecdote of David Ferrie going to Oswald's landlady to check on his library card; the pictures from the Civil Air Patrol, the admissions (and discrediting) of so many first-hand witnesses (e.g. Aloysius Habighorst). I'd characterize it as more than just "amazing"'; more a disgraceful travesty. So much for the land of the free, and the home of the brave ... I will forever view the Garrison effort in a much different light. Gene

Jim: What's great about Destiny is that it doesn't just chronical Garrison's work and results (which are well known) but it lays out the enormous resistance that he encountered, and the extraordinary subversion by so-called journalists and interlopers (things that I didn't fully appreciate). I'll remain forever puzzled by Walter Sheridan's behavior, and if he was a true RFK loyalist, as the Kennedy's proclaimed. Talk about having the deck stacked against you; that Garrison kept his sanity and composure is impressive... he was clearly on the trail of the bad guys. And - from my perspective -- he kept to the high road (something that his adversaries cant say) although he was portrayed otherwise in the MSM. I also appreciate your historical perspective, and the foreign policy insights; these help to explain the "why" of the assassination, especially for the engineer/scientist type that I am. It is troubling to understand why anyone with half a brain wouldn't see through the fairy tales and charades, and not only question the findings but be impassioned by such deception, as Garrison was. A president is murdered, and we lose one of our finest leaders .... and no one is outraged? It's also disheartening to understand that HSCA and AARB also unfortunately fell far short of uncovering the real story. Finally, I know you to be a stickler for editorial discipline (footnotes, endnotes, table of contents) and Destiny is an example of how to do that properly. Gene

Jim: I sent you a separate note, but my kids got me "Destiny Betrayed" for XMAS ... excellent account of the big picture, and an honest portrayal of the real Jim Garrison. Sorry it took so long for me to get to it, but its a great read (can't put it down). Best, Gene